Wikipedia

Talk:Wolverhampton

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Moonraker12 in topic Official logo
Learn more about this page


edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on Wolverhampton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Splitting the article into a borough and the city

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion

Wolverhampton contains notable settlements like Bilston, Heath Town, Tettenhall and Wednesfield. They are notable for being towns and villages and the main Wolverhampton lacks any clarity or information about them or the suburbs. Like with City of Sheffield and Sheffield. A City of Wolverhampton and Wolverhampton articles would work. RailwayJG (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Need a concensus on this. RailwayJG (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've opposed your other split but I am neutral on this. I dont know enough about the area to have an opinion. Only thing I can say is splitting it would be similar to the existing Salford/City of Salford split and Croydon/London Borough of Croydon split. Eopsid (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well unlike Middlesbrough Wolverhampton seems to satisfy all but possibly 1 criteria to have a single article though I'm not against a split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose in this case, I think WP:COMMONAME has to come into play, I don't think in common usage a distinction is normally made in the concept of Wolverhampton and the City of Wolverhampton. Note that in the case of Biston it has been part of Wolverhampton since 1966. G-13114 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I think the general use of summary style would suffice here. If there are settlements within the broader borough, they can be spun off into daughter articles (as could the city, if there's enough city-specific information). But the logic here seems back-to-front - spin off the obvious daughter articles as daughter articles, not the main topic. Guettarda (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Split: Settlements and Local Authorities are not the same thing. If the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley were to be given city status would the Dudley article have to be merged with the city article? Of course not. Lancaster, Lancashire and City of Lancaster; Salford and City of Salford; Leeds and City of Leeds, as a few examples have separate articles. Wolverhampton and City of Wolverhampton should be split. HLE (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Split: I've suggested this in the past, and still stand by the same opinion. The City of Wolverhampton contains several distinctive settlements other than Wolverhampton itself, even if the latter may form the considerable bulk of the district. Regarding Bilston having been in Wolverhampton since 1966, the same can be said for many other places. For example, both Tipton and Wednesbury were almagamated into West Bromwich in 1966; yet I don't think anyone would consider either of those places to be part of the singular entity of West Bromwich. Sure, Wolverhampton might be a city (an argument I have seen used before as to why it should be a single article), but it's only held that status since 2001. Prior to that it was just a Metropolitan Borough. And we always make the distinction between Metropolitan Boroughs and their principle towns. Split it. LivingInMediocrity (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose too, I agree that WP:COMMONAME comes into play. Dyaluk08 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Anymore to add to the discussion? DragonofBatley (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since nothing more was added and its been 4 months I'm going to remove the split tag on the article as no consensus. Eopsid (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

List of Freemen of the City section

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I draw attention that earlier this year Lisa Potts was made a first honorary Freewoman of Wolverhampton. I picked this up in a news story cited in her wiki article which retrospectively referred to the honour without giving a more precise date, but I am sure others (particularly those more local to Wolverhampton than myself) could find out and add with due citation.Cloptonson (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Recent edits

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

So the article is being given a European City style treatment of KM instead of miles treatment and Manchester keeps being added despite not being anywhere near the city of Wolverhampton. By an anon and @Oliverclaytonfoster Yet this isn't reflected on other city articles but on Wolverhampton alone? This doesn't appear to be compatible with UK standard articles compared to say USA etc articles. As we use miles in the UK whereas USA use KMs. @Crouch, Swale, @Rupples @DankJae @G-13114, @Eopsid thoughts? DragonofBatley (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@DragonofBatley, per WP:UNITS and the use by WP:UKCITIES it should indeed be miles (kilometres), so those changes should be reverted. UNITS states that these types of articles have an imperial preference for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption only, so miles, miles per hour, and miles per imperial gallon. UKCITIES state it should be followed by metric in parenthesis in {{Convert}}.
So miles first for distances except very short distances, where metres are used. Metres are to be used for height first, so the building list for example needs reversing, as used at List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom.
I don't consider Manchester really relevant personally, surely distance to London the capital is more significant, so unless a reason was given, it can (/seems to) be removed.
Also the USA uses miles too, aggressively. Europe and Canada, for example, use KM. DankJae 11:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your input, I learnt something new about USA always thought they worked in KMs like their speed limits. Learn something new everyday. Thanks for that honestly DragonofBatley (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Someone has recently added incorrect distance and direction from Birmingham. I've corrected. Rupples (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The infobox here had a random image of a wolf (labelled ‘a wolf’) but displaying as the official logo of the city. A quick search for a city of wolverhampton official logo reveals no such thing (the nearest thing to an official logo is mentioned here) so I’ve deleted it. I trust everyone is OK with that. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolverhampton&oldid=1212348836"