Talk:Birmingham/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Nick Drake

Nick drake was not born in Birmingham, as this page says, but Burma! can this fact be removed? See http://www3.sympatico.ca/tealeafer/biography.html

I see what you are saying, i originally included Nick Drake not as being born in Bham as i already knew but as being brought up in between Redditch and Brum which is true, he spent time in the City but of course Tanworth isn't Birmingham. Birmingham is the closest recognisable place to Tanworth, and so people can use the city to geographically locate Tanworth in Arden, which in fairness is a much lesser known place. Why don't we rephrase it to say, 'Nick Drake grew up in Tanworth in Arden 4 miles south of Birmingham'? or keep it as is but remove the 'born' bit which is wrong!

Nick


WBA

Birmingham is home to three professional football (soccer) teams: Aston Villa, Birmingham City and West Bromwich Albion.

My 1995 Birmingham A-Z marks the Birmingham-Sandwell boundary as passing just east of The Hawthorns, putting the Baggies just outside the formal limits of Birmingham. Is this still the case? Is Birmingham really home to WBA, or do they belong to the Black Country? --rbrwr

Wolverhampton

Speaking of boundaries, isn't Wolverhampton in the Black Country, thus making 'Birmingham along with the neighbo[u]ring city of Wolverhampton and the Black Country' a tautologous phrasing? majabl

I hate to point this out but Wolverhampton is a city in it's own right, and West Bromwich is a town in it's own right, and neither are a part of Birmingham. Thus the Wolverhampton Wanderers and West Bromwich albion links dont belong here. G-Man 17:27 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's true, though to be fair it did say (my emphasis): "Birmingham and its surrounding area is home to five... " (and it still did after you'd taken Wolves, Baggies and Walsall out). --rbrwr

Wolverhampton per se isn't part of the Black Country, although areas added to the city in 1966 are, such as Bilston.

More canals than...

Re: more canals more parkland and more trees etc.

The usual litany goes something like: "more canals than Venice, more parks than Paris, more trees per head of population than Milton Keynes; and the Number 50 is the most regular bus route in Europe".

It is easily extended thus: "more Big Issue sellers than Dundee, more traffic circles than New York City, more wrongly-convicted IRA bombers than Guildford".

I was the one that originally included the inevitable Venice comment, at the time I found a webpage that some guy with plenty of time has put together which 'proved' the statement from OS maps... sadly it seems to have disappeared from google so I can't add it as a source. :( Pete 08:51, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No sooner do I type that than think of a better search term and get a hit on the first page. The page was this one: [1] Pete 08:54, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I hate it when people say about there being more canals than venice in Brum, i never say this in fear of being ridiculed as it is a bit miss-leading but the canals in the city are extremely popular with tourists and i think that they are a valuble asset to the city seeing there is no large river.

you can always tell a Brummie...

The following paragraph is not NPOV but contains elements that could be put back in the article rephrased. -- Sam 13:05, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Birmingham people, or "Brummies"", are generally hard working with an unusual sense of humour that is quite unique, it is often said that "you can always tell a Brummie, but you cant tell him much".

Subheadings 1

I dont think sub-headings are surposed to be used for short sentences, IMO there should be at least two paragraphs for something to justify having it's own sub-heading. It just makes the article look looks messy and unreadable. G-Man 00:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

At my screen resolution this offering:

==Transport==

Birmingham is well served by a number of transport modes:

Road: Birmingham is connected to London and the south, and the north-east of England and to Scotland by the M6 motorway. The M40 also connects Birmingham to London and to Oxford. The M5 motorway connects Birmingham to the south-west of England. The M42 motorway connects Birmingham to the East Midlands.

Rail: A plethora of railway lines from all over the UK go into Birmingham, which is a central hub of the rail network. Most of which converge in Birmingham New Street station from where regular train services to all the major cities in the UK including London can be caught. Trains to London can also be caught at Birmingham Snow Hill station, as can trams to Wolverhampton on the Midland Metro.

Air: Birmingham is served by Birmingham International Airport, which has flights to all over Europe and to New York.

Water: Although it has no major river (the Rea is little more than a culverted stream, and the Tame, which only passes through the northern suburbs, is not navigable), Birmingham is at the hub of the country's canal network. Major canals including the Grand Union Canal, the Birmingham and Worcester Canal, and the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal go into Birmingham.

looks better than the current state of the article as I write, on account of the fact that exchange subsection is quite short

==Transport==

Birmingham is well served by a number of transport modes:

=== Road ===

Birmingham is connected to London and the south, and the north-east of England and to Scotland by the M6 motorway. The M40 also connects Birmingham to London and to Oxford. The M5 motorway connects Birmingham to the south-west of England. The M42 motorway connects Birmingham to the East Midlands.

=== Rail ===

A plethora of railway lines from all over the UK go into Birmingham, which is a central hub of the rail network. Most of which converge in Birmingham New Street station from where regular train services to all the major cities in the UK including London can be caught. Trains to London can also be caught at Birmingham Snow Hill station, as can trams to Wolverhampton on the Midland Metro.

=== Air ===

Birmingham is served by Birmingham International Airport, which has flights to all over Europe and to New York.

=== Water === Although it has no major river (the Rea is little more than a culverted stream, and the Tame, which only passes through the northern suburbs, is not navigable), Birmingham is at the hub of the country's canal network. Major canals including the Grand Union Canal, the Birmingham and Worcester Canal, and the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal go into Birmingham.

Pete 00:24, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Subheadings 2

This is stupid. Why have an edit war about Birmingham. I am going to protect the page to stop this for this evening. Sorry but this has to be done.

  • I have no idea why my original creation of subheadings has been repeatedly (I hesitate to say vandalised, but it's getting that way) deleted, other than what appears to be one person's personal opinion and another's individual PC configuration. Andy Mabbett 23:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Right. I've protected it. You are both sensible contributors so this is really silly. I'm leaving it protected overnight and will attempt ACAS tomorrow. Secretlondon 23:33, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
      • Will revert tomorrow, unless someone can show me evidence that sub-headings are not supposed to be used on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett 23:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • and he'll revert again and so it goes on. As its 11.40 I'm going to bed, I suggest you do the same, or write stubs on all the UK places that need articles. Secretlondon 23:46, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

Note to self: duplicate "Regeneration" section to be removed; fix talics in "Hawthorns"Andy Mabbett 23:38, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Andy I dont want to fall out with you, you are a valuable contributor. I am not opposed to sub-headings I dont think that short one or two sentence paragraphs deserve their own sub-heading, there is such a thing as overuse of sub-headings.

There are no iron laws about formatting on wikipedia it is down to the discretion of the editors G-Man 23:45, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • "I dont want to fall out with you" odd way of showing it. You have been using sub-headings, but marking them up improperly. Andy Mabbett 23:48, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Does this help Wikipedia:Guide_to_Layout. Secretlondon 23:51, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

  • Very much, thank you:
Headers also help make an article clearer and determine the table of contents, see Wikipedia:Section. Since headers are hierarchical, and some people set their user preferences to number them, you should start with ==Header== and follow it with ===Subheader===, ====Subsubheader====, and so forth. Yes, the ==Header== is awfully big in some browsers, but that can be fixed in the future with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed.
Andy Mabbett 23:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes thank you for pointing that out I have now corrected it. It also makes it clear, on Wikipedia: Manual of Style that the rules on layout are flexible and are not set in stone.

It is certainly the case that it is not always appropriate to use sub-headings where bolded text or bullet points within a section would suffice. Look at Jack the Ripper for example - a well layed out article which IMO has about the right number of sub-headings, and uses bolded text instead of sub-headings where neccesary. G-Man 00:46, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • A falacy; and the example scited does not substitute bold text for headers, as you have been trying to do. Andy Mabbett 09:28, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes it does, I'me not sure what youre looking at. Anyway perhaps we could compromise and use bullet points G-Man 18:30, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think should unprotect this article now. Secretlondon 18:59, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this page is protected and having looked into the reason why, I must say I prefer G-mans version of the layout Bob Matthews 19:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you Bob, that's two people who have agreed with me now G-Man 19:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the subheadings thing here: I have no objection to subheadings in general, they are very useful. But in this particular case, I think the text would flow nicely without subheadings, the contents page would be a bit more compact, and we could have a more open discussion of Birmingham's transport system.
If the "Transport" section does gets long enough to require subheadings, then we should split it up at that point. So how about this as a proposal to resolve this (admittedly trivial) conflict: We bring the transport section under the one header ("Transport") for now, and develop it as we see fit -- it will surely develop beyond what's there -- and then, in a month or so, we will see whether or not it requires subheadings. --Sam 23:17, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • My previous comments still apply; read up on why HTML uses <Hn> subheafings, and their inmapact on accesibility. Andy Mabbett 23:23, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • You don't seem to have made that argument anywhere, but I'll let it go. --Sam
      • Thank you (but it was the comment for my edit of 17:13, 26 Nov 2003). Andy Mabbett 00:47, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Transport section

I suggest we try and move on from the debate about subheadings and focus on making the "transport" section of this article as good as it can be. It is currently lacking information about bus services, among other things.

Having looked at a number of other city articles (eg. Amsterdam, Coventry, London) and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities page (which makes no mention of transport), I think it's obvious there is no standard approach to transport sections of city articles yet. So maybe we can start here by suggesting a general structure: most of the good articles I looked at listed Public transport as a header, then some listed Roads etc. Another interesting one to note is the Venice article, which, due to its unique transport situation, has a "transportation" section which mainly discusses the canals, then mentions an airport. Thoughts? And any comments on the structure I just introduced in the article? --Sam 18:39, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

  • Unlike some of the other cities you mention, Birmingham is a transport hub. Andy Mabbett 18:52, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • This really isn't a satisfactory response. I was hoping for more of a discussion; what is "BHX" which you referred to in your revert? -- Sam 00:15, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think we've reached a compromise on this matter with the recent improvements and new subheadings. Everyone agree? --Sam 19:59, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I surpose its an improvement G-Man 23:18, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Duplicated Regeneration Section

I'd just like to point out that Birmingham#Regeneration_2 is a repeat of Birmingham#Regeneration and should be deleted when this page is un-protected.

Oh, my mistake, there is a difference between the two after all!

Second City

Birmingham is not the second-largest city in the UK; it is, I think, the largest - the city of London has only a few thousand people. That would be a pretty misleading thing to say, though. You could include Greater London but that would be bad on two counts; (a) It's factually inaccurate as Greater London is not a city, and (b) If you're including Greater London, it would be arbitrary to exclude Greater Manchester, which is larger than Birmingham. So, not a strange edit after all. -- Khendon

Well, if we are including Greater Manchester, then surely we ought to be talking about the population of the West Midlands.
Possibly the solution is deciding that just because the government issues city charters it doesn't mean other things aren't cities despite the lack of the charter. but i wouldn't change anything here, until we've figured out what the capital city of the United Kingdom is, which is a more important issue. See Talk:London. Morwen 19:26, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of pretending things are cities when they're not; that way Milton Keynes lies ;-) -- Khendon

So are you going to call Paris not a city because it has no Royal Charter? ;)
Anyway, what is the capital of the United Kingdom? Morwen 19:51, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Different rules and definitions apply in different jurisdictions... I saw the capital thing on Talk:London, yeah - interesting question. -- Khendon

So what gave the French government jurisdiction over the English language, then? Morwen 20:01, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You'll be re-writing London, then..? Andy Mabbett 19:54, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good idea -- Khendon

Please do not do this without a consensus. It is a major change which will result in hundreds or possibly thousands of pages needing to be updated. Morwen 20:00, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Only a minor change is needed -- Khendon

Again, please acquire a consensus first. I will not revert your change to London since it was relatively ok but this needs further debate. Certainly Birmingham as it stands is not acceptable. Morwen 20:12, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia has obviously changed in the few months I was away. When did Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages get rescinded? Surely the best way to get consensus is still a series of constructive edits. Discussion is only necessary when people fail to agree, in the wikipedia I know. -- Khendon

Yes, and, in case you hadn't noticed, I disagree, and so does Andy Mabbett up there. We have been having a number of nasty edit wars over english counties and I have no desire to get involved in one over London being a city. Morwen 20:19, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I should have said *continued* disagreement. I make an edit; you disagree, so you make an edit; and so on. This only needs an external process when the edit starts to loop, when nobody can agree on a *constructive* way forward. -- Khendon

The problem with "the Second City" is that Manchester is just as often referred to as "the Second City" IME, and certainly Manchester has more of a claim to the title. -- Khendon

  • Compare Google searches for Birmingham "second city" -Mancheter and Manchester "second city" -Birmingham. Besdies, Birmingham has many companiues which use "Seoncd City "in their name; I now of non in Manchester. (BT directory enquiries lists two pages of them for Birmingham, and just one entry for Manchester; and that's not actually in the city!). Saying that Manchester has more of a claim to teh name (whcih has been used by Birmingham, in offical material, for many years) is fighting talk, here in Brum! ;-) Andy Mabbett 21:19, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I know of many companies in Brum that have second city in their name and Birmingham is the second largest city and consequently second most diverse and so on, only problem i have is that second place isn't where i feel the city should be! No English city should be second, re: america, i would like to visit all the major city's but the 'second' city probably wouldn't be on my list as if you've seen the 'first' then theres no real urgency to see the second in my opinion??? Nick

Conurbation

How about an article on the West Midlands conurbation? It just struck me that the second sentence of the paragraph below is superflous in a Birmingham article, and I think a simple link to a "West Midlands conurbation" article would suffice! Any thoughts? --Sam 23:21, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The city is situated in the West Midlands conurbation, of which it forms the largest part. Along with the city of Wolverhampton, the Black Country and a number of surrounding towns, this conurbation consists of around 2.25 million people.

I think the West Midlands (County) article coveres that subject perfectly well G-Man 17:34, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Subheadings 3

There are way too many unneccesary sub-headings in this article and it is a complete mess, the TOC is almost as long as the article. I shall continue to revert it to a sensible version whenever I get an oppertunity G-Man 22:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

History

I think there is enough material in the history section of this article for it to go into its own History of Birmingham article, where it could probably be expanded upon, and the main Birmingham article brought back to a sensible size. Does anyone agree/disagree. If no one objects I'll do just that in the next few days G-Man 21:46, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Never mind I've done it anyway G-Man 23:18, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've put the links from the Economy section here and tidied them up. See Wikipedia:describe external links. However, they no longer belong here. Somebody might like to move them to the History article. I'm not sure whether there's a Wikipedia policy on citing deep links, as they are notoriously unstable. Perhaps better just to give the website names? Shantavira 09:56, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Population

According to this story [2] the 2001 census has been highly innacurate at recording the population of large cities, and so it's figures should be treated with a pich of salt.

I find the 2001 census figures for Birmingham somewhat suspect, for example the 1991 census recorded a population of 1,017,000, but the 2001 census recorded a population of 977,000.

I find it hard to believe somehow that the population of Birmingham has shrunk by nearly 40,000 in ten years.

I think this article should list the 1997 population estimate of 1,014,000 rather than the 2001 census results as it is likely to be more accurate. Does anyone agree/disagree. G-Man 21:17, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind what figures we use as long as we use the same figures throughout the encyclopedia consistently. Personally my preference would be for 2001 census as it is so complete, if not infallible, but if we can find equally complete estimates, that's fine. Census doesn't give us figures for populations of towns within districts anyway. Morwen 21:45, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the 2001 census was a bit of a cock-up and has been widely criticised. Several cities have had their populations undercounted, on some occasions by tens of thousands. So the 2001 results for Birmingham are hard to believe.

I still find it hard to believe somehow that 40,000 people have "dissapeared". If you look at the Esparanto WP link it uses the 1997 population estimate for Birmingham rather than the 2001 census results. G-Man 21:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The 2001 census results have been revised upwards slightly see [3] so I have changed them in the article G-Man 21:57, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

I'm not sure which of the skyline pictures is the better one. anyone got any views, I've got more Birmingham pictures on the way when I get round to putting them up G-Man 23:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In support of "my" picture I'd say it's more genuinely a skyline view and it makes the place look a bit more attractive (Copthorne Hotel notwithstanding)
Whichever picture's used, at the moment if you hide the table of contents the page wraps wrongly - can someone good at HTML fix this? Andy G 14:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
... (later) Fixed - or at least improved - text wrap myself. Andy G 18:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think your picture looks good as a large picture but not so good as a small image, as it has much foreground and the actual skyline is quite distant. Whereas in my picture the skyline is more prominent, so it makes a better thumbnail. It also has a more prominent wiew of the Rotunda, which is a definitive Birmingham landmark.

I didn't replace your pic out of spite or anything, only it seemed to be messing up all the text below for some reason it so I reverted it. Anyway as I aid I shall soon be adding more Brum pics if I can work out how to fit them in. G-Man 18:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is this supposed to be a joke?

(pronounced Burmingum)

I don't think that's at all appropriate to have in the first line of the article, or anywhere really. Angela. 23:37, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Is it to distinguish from the American way of saying Birming-ham , Alabama? Or a pot-shot at the Brum accent? Maybe both! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:01, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's only pronounced "Burmingum" by those making fun of the accent, although probably "Buuuuurmingum" would be more like that. I've never heard it actually pronounced that way. Angela. 15:58, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Actually it was to distinguish it from Birmingham, Alabama, I dont see anything wrong with adding a note about pronounciation, it is done on Leicester and Towcester and suchforth. G-Man 14:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where should this page be??

Why can't we put it at Birmingham (United Kingdom) and make Birmingham a dis-ambiguation page?? User 66.32.73.125

Cause' Birmingham in England is the largest and most linked to place called Birmingham, and it is wikipedia convention that the most well known place of a particular name should have the namespace to itself, and provide links to other places of that name. If we were to do as you say then we would have to do the same with London, Paris etc etc. G-Man 00:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Decades

Beware the 70s, 80s and 90s! Follow the links and you will see that they are not the same as the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. --rbrwrˆ

Agree, but I merely removed the meaningless apostrophes. Feel free to insert appropriate links Shantavira 17:09, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Archers

I changed the bit about the fictitious characters in the Archers visiting Birmingham, to the fact that the actors themselves live in and around Birmingham. However, the original writer might have been trying to make a point that they visit Birmingham in the story, which would be reasonable, since it is set in the Midlands. However, it seems to me that either statement is quite unremarkable, not to say obvious, and this sentence could be dropped. Shantavira 07:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed

The term "Birmingham" is extremely important to it's inhabitants as it is part of the City's sense of pride.

I'm not sure this makes sense. Why would the word be anything to do with a sense of pride?

It is often said that "you can always tell a Brummie, but you can't tell him much". "You can never put a good Brummie down" these sayings probably originated from the trenches of the first world war.

I don't think these phrases are well known enough to warrant being in the article. Angela. 23:34, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Bullring

we could do with some pictures of the new Bullring, I will take some on my camera and post them.

Music Classical

The Birmingham Triennial Music Festival took place from 1784 - 1912 and was considered the grandest of its kind throughout Britain. Music was written for the festival by Mendelssohn, Gounod, Sullivan, Dvorak, Bantock and most notably Elgar, who wrote four of his most famous choral pieces for Birmingham.

Erm, who was Bantock, since there doesn't seem to be an article for him? Is it supposed to be Bartok, by any chance? -- Arwel 23:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right, now changed and indeed there is already an article on Bartok. Nick
Granville Bantock (1868 - 1946): [4]. On [5] we read "following the premiere of Part I at the Birmingham Triennial Festival in 1906..." Andy Mabbett 18:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, i wasn't sure of the Bantock connection but makes sense now! You have given life to Bantock on Wikipedia!
Nick.

Transport, History and Economy

I think that a brief run down of Brum history could be kept on the main page with a link to the wider facts, the economy should be kept where it is and transport and most definately Government should have a seperate page, lets keep this interesting.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birmingham/Archive_1&oldid=933425022"