Talk:Birmingham/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Waste management

I think that is would be informative to add a section (or new page) on how a large city deals with waste management. I do no live in Birminghman, but I understand that Birmingham has an incineration plant; other waste must go elsewhere or be recycled. Recycling is becoming more and more important. Snowman 11:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suburbs

I put the suburbs in a table, as I found the horizontally-separated list format was not rendering very well (e.g. Weoley Castle was split into "Weoley" | "Castle"). Kings Norton was duplicated in the "nearby towns" and suburbs list, as well. Have removed from nearby towns accordingly. Please change if the table format is not considered appropriate. Hassocks5489 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...which it clearly wasn't. Sorry... Hassocks5489 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks anyway; work is in hand to fix the CSS bug you refer to (or you could get a better browser ;-) ) Andy Mabbett 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to 2002 MORI poll (re:second city)

In the interest of satisfying WP:V, is it worth citing the BBC coverage of the MORI poll to support the claim that Birmingham "is considered by some to be the United Kingdom's second city". I realise that the article in question raises the spectre of Manchester being the second city, although this need not be mentioned in the citation, in the interests of preserving NPOV - attribution surely trumps such concerns, however. - Tiswas^(t/c) 14:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This link is for me the best one to use - it's the least confusing for the reader, and reflects the traditional use of 'second city' . Matthew 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ive put together some stuff on the Second City of the United Kingdom talk page with regards to Birmingham being the 2nd city Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom. The info has all come from within wikipedia. --r-c-h-w 12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Master plan

coudl we put somethin in about the the Birmingham Master Plan which may become a significant subsection on the future direction of the city --UKbandit 14:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

links nicely with this story.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6684419.stm

Birmingham Redevelopment Scheme fits in UKbandit 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Far too long

This article is far too long; I've just done some heavy pruning of two sections, where the information is already on separate sub-articles; but more of the same is needed. Andy Mabbett 10:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, I feel that one of the main factors adding to the byte size of this article is the large number of references in the article. They are usually 100+ bytes and upon last count, there was 101 of them. I still feel, however, that sections do need to be cut down (also the number of headings).

Plus, whilst we're on this issue, what do we do with the Waste management section? It's small and quite insignificant but still could prove to be a vital part to the article. - Erebus555 10:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Waste management section to User:Erebus555/sandbox2 until we can decide what can be done with it. - Erebus555 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned it under "Economy", with a (red) link to Tyseley Energy from Waste Plant, its proper name. See [1]. Andy Mabbett 10:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Now down from 90Kb to 67Kb (with 68 references), but still too long. the sections Architecture and Culture and arts still need pruning (isn't the former part of the latter?), and Places of interest may need to be a sub-page. . Andy Mabbett 11:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is now 51.8kb with 61 references. I think it is now a suitable size and more extensive pruning is not necessary. - Erebus555 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some general fixes just to improve consistency within the article, as well as adding images to sections. This added about 900 bytes to the article size - nothing substantial. I think it could be a good shape to be nominated for Featured Article status. - Erebus555 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

External links section

Theres a number of links here that could do with culling, as recommended in WP:EL - the section should focus on official sites, and not simply be a link repository for all things Birmingham related. - Tiswas^(t) 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the civic society link

[ The Victorian Society - Birmingham & West Midlands Group this link has been taken in and out. can we agree the + and - of this link and come to a consensus please? UKbandit 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The link is spam and should not be included. It is being added by an IP user and a registered user which leads me to believe they are unaware of Wikipedia policies. - Erebus555 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some good content on there; have a look at "casework" or "city trails" (Javascript required, stupidly). 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some useful information there, but I don't think it is really a worthy link to include on this page. - Erebus555 17:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham navigation template

I have created a navigation template in my sandbox and I wondered if others would find this useful. It would be placed on all topic articles (ones listed in navigation template). The ones in red are ones I have requested and/ or aim to create in the near future.

What are your thoughts on this? - Erebus555 17:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Well done. Andy Mabbett 17:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Template has been created at {{City of Birmingham}}. - Erebus555 12:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

looks good. what are you expecting under timelines?UKbandit 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It will be a timeline of the history of Birmingham. I have started it here, but I've been distracted and haven't done much to it for a while. Feel free to add to it if you have information! - Erebus555 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that that's good enough to publish, as it is. Andy Mabbett 14:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought it maybe best to fill up the remaining sections a bit before publishing it. - Erebus555 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? - Yup. This is a wiki, after all! Andy Mabbett 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then, it's been published: Timeline of Birmingham history! - Erebus555 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work; I've added a few more, and formatted all the lists as such. Andy Mabbett 17:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Just though I should point out that the article has been reviewed on the Wikipedia Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Birmingham/archive1. One of the most interesting points, in my opinion, is the need for a locational map and a map of the city. Maybe we should get to work on that one. - Erebus555 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

yup. have prosified Famous residents in response. are the maps on BCC website ok on the copyright front?UKbandit 11:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded the Famous residents section a bit more and sorted out some errors. The maps on the city council websites are protected by Crown copyright so we cannot use them without getting permission from the copyright holder. I think it would be best for someone to produce a map to save any copyright issues. - Erebus555 11:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

Do we need all the external links under those headings? I see it as pointless. All it is doing is extending the table of contents unnecessarily. Should we just remove the headings? - Erebus555 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Second City

I've added a brief section on Second City in the Culture section. This has been done once already but was reverted as vandalism. If there is a consensus for removal of this section, please do so but assume good faith... there's nothing abusive or false in the section. Of course, the best action if you find a problem with anything said is to research and edit any unintentional mistakes.

I noticed you make this claim in the section you added "It is the most populous English city", what about London? (--BigTurnip (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

See City of London, London as we know it is made up of lots of smaller cities including the City of Westminster and the City of London has a tiny city proper population. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Like most major cities in England, both London and Birmingham are made up of a collection of villages, towns and cities which have merged over time, If you're not going to include anything outside City, in London, then surely by the same token you should only include Digbeth for Birmingham. Obviously the area of Birmingham has changed over time as it has incorporated more towns and villages, just as London has. Do you have a source to back up the claim of Birmingham being the most populous city in England? You say that people should only change what you have written if they research it first, maybe you should have researched and sourced the section before you added it.BigTurnip (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The city of Birmingham is a recognised area as is the City of London. Yes, Birmingham grew from a conglomerate of villages and these were officially absorbed by Birmingham to create what it is today. The City of London is also officially recognised as it is. The general area which the public tend to call London is not an officially recognised city but more a collection of cities and boroughs. The structure of Birmingham in comparison to London is completely different. - Erebus555 (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the City of London, City of Westminster, Birmingham, etc. have legal status as cities granted in their letters patent it makes London as a whole no less of an official city as it is surely recognised as a city since time immemorial. I'm guessing the reason why the definition of a city to include those recognised as such, since time immemorial, was added specifically so London as a whole is recognised as a city. BigTurnip (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics section

Just noticed that the Politics section needs a rewrite. Whilst the first paragraph is generally OK, the second goes on about the planning and leisure services, which, as the name implies, are services not political structures, and the third is about the Police, Fire, and Ambulance services, which aren't run by BCC.

The second paragraph is also factually incorrect - "Birmingham City Council operates all aspects of the city's workings through it planning and leisure services.". No it doesn't. There are numerous other services aside from planning and leisure, e.g. housing, education, social services etc.

I'd suggest perhaps retitling the section to "Governance", which would integrate the third paragraph better, but the second still needs a rewrite. Any comments? DWaterson 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nearby places

I was just wondering if the nearby places section of the article is classes as a list? WP:UKCITIES says that lists should not be used and I think it would look better if they were converted to prose and incorporated into the above geography section. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked User:Jza84 to create a map of Birmingham showing nearby places for the article. He currently has a list of requests to get through so it maybe a while yet. Once the map is uploaded, the list will be removed - Erebus555 12:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good. Also could you tell me why this page is formatted so poorly on Internet Explorer yet when I view it in Firefox it seems ok? In IE the lines which divide sections cut through the middle of images in the Culture and Arts, Notable people and Science and invention. Should this article not read better on IE as it is the world's most used browser? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the map used in the West Midlands (region) article? [2] 84.64.103.64 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. However, each web reference needs to state the author, publisher, publishing date and access date if known. Regards, Epbr123 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Main photo

Can someone change the horrible photo above the Birmingham info box on the right? Can we not have a nice skyline of the city like the Liverpool and London articles do? Birmingham has one of the country's most imposing skylines of towers. Why don't we show them off? Imperium Europeum 01:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be due to the size and scale of the skyline. Birmingham's skyline is over two miles in length and so a panoramic image would be needed in the infobox if the entire skyline is to be shown. However, I do agree that the image there is not the most flattering. It is also out of date as the pre-refurbishment Rotunda and a now-demolished Post and Mail building. It's going to be difficult to get an image that is not a panoramic shot into the infobox. - Erebus555 11:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the Liverpool article manages a wonderful panoramic skyline. Can't B'ham have something similar? Imperium Europeum 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The closest image we have got to showing the whole skyline is Image:Brum skyline.jpg. This isn't the best quality and it doesn't even show the whole skyline. I'll make it my mission to take a good panoramic shot of Birmingham's skyline! - Erebus555 12:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I did try and change the image and sorry if I upset you Erebus just really need a new image as the current one is awful I may have been a bit hasty.

One user has uploaded two photos of the skyline that are worth a look:

• 
• 

They might need to be cropped though. - Erebus555 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why have we got that photo back the skyline one was so much better please can we have it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluestarone (talk • contribs)

Comment I don't have a particular opinion about which picture is best, but I think a bit more discussion here and a bit less edit warring in the article would be better. I've reverted the article to a version that actually had a picture. Mr Stephen 12:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt actually trying to edit war, I just pressed the save button too many times as I thought the save didn't go through. Sorry for that, but the current Centenary Square picture was better than the other anyway. 81.77.146.3 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Centenary Square picture was out of date and showed little than a quarter of Birmingham's skyline. Not only that, it should Birmingham's ugly side of the skyline. The other picture showed the vast majority of the skyline, although it wasn't that big and was quite difficult to make out on the infobox. I think it is safe to say, it's going to be difficult to find an image that can clearly show the entire skyline and be up-to-date. - Erebus555 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hangon

I have added a hang on to the page as the article contains all of the edit history for the Birmingham page and this talk page has not been moved along with the article. This needs to be addressed by an admin before this page is deleted & turned into a redirect. It looks like some botched renaming that went wrong. Keith D 20:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It also doesn't make sense for the UK Birmingham to have the Birmingham placeholder over Birmingham, Alabama. If anything it should be a DAB page. Smashville 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That needs discussing as a separate issue. At the moment we need to sort out the mess caused by a botched move in order to get the page history and talk page back with the article. Keith D 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually...that's kinda what I meant...the page move shouldn't have been done period...much less in the manner it was. Smashville 22:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Crime figures

I'm not sure the addition of the figures for Manchester and Bristol are really of value to the article other than to boast the figures are slightly less than other cities. Comparing to the English average was enough in my opinion and anybody with half a brain cell would know that the figures for a city are always going to be significantly higher than a country as a whole. Anybody else agree the figures don't serve as an educational purpose when it is trying to inform about Birmingham? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 12:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's get Birmingham featured

The Article on Dorset has recently been featured. Come on Brummies. We’re proud of our city. Let’s see if we can get Birmingham featured.Barbara Shack (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've had a peer review on the article already and many of the points have been met. To be honest, I'm not too sure what else could be done. Maybe we could get the Manchester editors to give us some pointers? - Erebus555 (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all your table of contents is far too big, consider merging some of the more stubby sections. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have had a request from User:Erebus555 for a map of Birmingham to help the article. I've taken ages to get this done (sorry), but if there is a serious desire to move this article onwards and upwards, I'd be willing to get this done asap. -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, with the creation of the map, we can get rid of the 'Nearby places' section, which is really letting the article down. So a map on this article would be very helpful indeed, thanks. There are very few editors working on this article so it is difficult to get a collaborative effort going here. - Erebus555 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to ask WP:UKGEO and WP:ENGLAND for input! -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be worth improving the link articles. I’ve improved Brummagem. Can images be added to Brummagem? Perhaps we should aim to get Brummagem and other link articles as good as, Cottonopolis. I’ve split the article Economy of Birmingham and created a new article, Economic history of Birmingham. I’ve added images. Some time ago I helped get Charles Darwin featured. I worked hard on the main article. Then they said the link articles needed to be the same standard. Eventually this was done and Charles Darwin got featured.Barbara Shack (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of work needs to be done on the subarticles. I have done a lot of work to the Architecture of Birmingham article. It has already had one peer review and now I'm not exactly sure what to do with it. I would prefer to have another second opinion on its current state - it's not far off GA/ FA, in my opinion but having worked on it, I would have some bias towards it! - Erebus555 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

70% WHITE

i find it hard to believe this city is 70% white. looked to me like half of the city was black and muslim/indian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.13.92 (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source for your opinion, fair enough, but if the official figures say 70%, then on Wikipedia, 70% it will be.Rossenglish (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps most people just see the inner-city where the majority of the ethinic minorities live and make up large proportion of the population. It is the outer suburbs where there tends to be a majority white population like Bournville for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatho09 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the first comment in this section (70% white) should stop relying on intuition and start reading census data. 70% is correct (in 2001). Most British people think the ethnic population of the entire country is about 20% when in fact it's 8%.

Alabama

Isn't it unnecessary to have a link to Birmingham, Alabama when we have a disambiguation page? Isn't that what disambiguation pages are for? Reginmund (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the Americans feel that, as Birmingham is the second largest city in AL, it has a right to be on this page, as most Americans would supposedly type in Birmingham and expect to be at the Bham, AL page instead of this. I suppose their is some grounds for it, as the Alabama one is, after this one, by far larger than the rest. See Worcester and Cambridge for other examples. 84.66.212.99 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In any instance of someone typing in, say Manchester would expect to be redirected to the city in Massachusetts since it is the largest city in the state. Yet, is it really necessary to clutter the heading with extra disambiguation just because the cities are important to Americans? I'm sure every city has its importance but it can still be found on the disambiguation page, that is what they are for. Reginmund (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Manchester in Massachusetts is a tiny town with a very small population. Manchester, New Hampshire is the largest city in New Hampshire and northern New England. The rationale for Manchester and Birmingham having their non-modified names is that the US cities were named after their much more significant British cousins. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I actually meant Manchester, New Hampshire. However, I don't see why we should have disambiguations at the top when there are already links to disambiguation pages. Reginmund (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"most Americans would supposedly type in Birmingham and expect to be at the Bham, AL page instead of this." We most certainly do associate it with the Birmingham, AL page (I typed in Birmingham expecting Birmingham, AL, and found myself here!). I live in Birmingham (Alabama), and if you mention "Birmingham" to anyone in the states they equate it immediately to Birmingham, AL.  :-) Smithw14 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The better question is at what point does the prominence of a particular city give it precedence over its "ancestor"? For example, Boston was named for Boston, Lincolnshire, but it would be absurdly user-unfriendly to default to the English town. I don't really have a problem with how Birmingham is handled because the English city is somewhat more prominent than its Alabama namesake, but I don't see that the orgin of the name is all that important a criterion. Incidentally, Birmingham is the most populous city in Alabama but well down the list of major US cities by anyone's estimation. - PhilipR (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is already far too American with American English spelling always used in non-British articles. I've always believed Wiki should be renamed to Wikipaedia as that is how an encyclopaedia should be spelt! But that's never going to happen. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Who says Birmingam? It's Birmingum or em maybe...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.204.211 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends if you are speaking in the most politically correct way (Burmingham - all letters pronounced) ... or in the common way (Burming'm - no need for a vowel here)BWDP (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If it makes ya feel any better, it's Bir-ming-ham across the pond. Morte42 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arts

I wouldn't feel brave enough and trust the Wiki editors more than myself, but can somebody please mention in the Arts section two bands who deserve mentioning. Firstly Ocean Colour Scene and secondly the frontman of no longer functioning band 3 Colours Red - Pete Vukuvic (i think thats his name). OCS really do deserve a fair sentence or two at least ;o) cheers

also band called Dodgy were local —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.82.172 (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A good skyline image?

There's an image from flickr here which has a CC license, but i'm unsure as to whether it should be uploaded. Is there a special way to get Flickr images on WP? Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good picture, but I don't think that under current rules the particular licence is free for wikipedia or at least not for the commons, because of the non-commercial requirement (apparently this is not allowed because wikipedia is mirrored on commercial sites). Maybe you could try contacting the photographer to see if you can persuade them to release it under a free-for-wikipedia licence. G-Man ^? 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, no matter then. Well, we have a couple of alright skyline images, and I don't think it'd be worth the effort as I doubt photographer would want to release the picture any more than he/she already has, especially considering commercial sites mirror Wikipedia! (I didn't know this!) Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Could someone upload an image of the coat of arms of this city to Commons? Thanks. --Pabletex (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Accent

There should be some mention of their dreadful accent, how it was voted as "Britain's Worst" in a recent edition of the Daily Mail. 70.90.198.172 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How ironic, I just voted Daily Mail as Britain's Worst newspaper. I don't think we need their opinions here! 92.21.75.13 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Crime...

Why is there a massive outlandish part saying that Birmingham is the least crime ridden on several cities that was prob old it is now 2008 and it's maybe the 2nd or 3rd worst crime ridden cities in UK so you need to either edit that or actually remove it cos Birmingham has more crime than Sheffield Nottingham Bristol Manchester and possibly liverpool !!!!

Unless you have a source for that, the content stays as that too is referenced. - Erebus555 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well mate there's been more shootings stabbings in Birmingham this year of 2008 then manchester liveprool nottingham sheffield and bristol chekc it out yourself.! 'Gun Crime Increase In Streets Of Birmingham.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.180.251 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Still need a source. And gun crime is just one aspect of crime and therefore doesn't make Birmingham the most crime ridden place in Britain. - Erebus555 (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the source that you are showing is actualy 1 or 2 years old now and could be showing misunderstanding information, so Birmingham could be more crime ridden than them cities and your using an old source!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.180.251 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source with a reference with Birmingham gun crime culture. I have the reference there so there's no need of it being removed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.180.251 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Population

The 2001 census shows the population of the West Midlands county is 2,555,592, not 2,284,093. I'm changing the figure.

The figure in the article is for the conurbation, not the county. TharkunColl (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)