Talk:West Midlands conurbation
|WikiProject UK geography||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject West Midlands||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in England may be able to help!
Would you like to tell me why you claim that Water Orton, Coleshill etc, are part of the West Midlands conurbation when the map quite clearly shows them to be seperate. Do you actually understand what conurbation means. G-Man 23:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Do you actually understand what conurbation means: Yes. Unlike you, it seems. Andy Mabbett 23:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I see you are adopting your usual tactic of not answering my question. That is not an answer. So let me go through this.
- A conurbation is a continuous built up area, without any breaks in the urban continuity.
- The map above clearly shows that Water Orton, Coleshill, etc are physically seperate from the continuous urban area of the West Midlands conurbation, and are separated by an area of countryside.
- Therefore if they are seperate from the urban area, they cannot by definition be part of the conurbation.
Therefore I will ask you again, how exactly can they be part of the West Midlands conurbation. G-Man 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- See also Talk:Coleshill, Warwickshire. These schematic maps aren't much cop, as they exaggerate the motorway width. The OS map makes your point very clear: there is a gap. 188.8.131.52 10:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Can I add several places in Staffordshire that are clearly part of the conurbation? How about Perton, Lower Penn, Westcroft, Essington - possibly even Codsall (tiny gap) and Coven Heath (separated simply by M54)? All of the above mentioned are directly connected to Wolverhampton, with no (or barely any) discernable gap between. I'll not change the article in order to stay out of the editing fight...
However, I will also point out that "Greater Birmingham" isn't a phrase used to describe the West Midlands conurbation, certainly not outside Birmingham/Solihull. The use of this term once by a local newspaper in a recent story regading possible future local government caused a storm of protest in the Wolverhampton area.
- Yes; you can - anyone can edit WIkipedia. Andy Mabbett 19:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Water Orton & Coleshill
G-Man asks above why these have been included as part of the conurbation. The answer is because the government says they are. See the National Statistics page here where Coleshill, Water Orton and also Hagley in Worcestershire are the areas outside the West Midlands county which are included in the West Midlands Urban Area. The other areas mentioned above in the Wolverhampton area are not included (unless we can assume they are treated simply as part of the Wolverhampton urban area). I am re-editing the article to include this info (and also to source the figures etc.). I am also changing the figure of 2,275,000 to the figure quoted (for 2001) in the National Statistics source (2,284,093); the 2,275,000 is taken from Largest urban areas of the European Union article and I can see no definitive source on this page for the (suspiciously round) figure of 2,275,000. Valiantis 18:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
WikiProject: West Midlands proposal
I have proposed the creation of WikiProject: West Midlands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#West Midlands. If you are interested in participating in the project, if created, please add your name to the list. Thank you. - Erebus555 18:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Andy Mabbett 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The West Midlands Urban Area might be preferable for a couple of reasons though - it's the official name (see , , ), and it would also bring this article into line with other similar articles such as Greater London Urban Area, Greater Manchester Urban Area and West Yorkshire Urban Area. If it was moved the U and the A ought to be capitalised though as they would be part of a proper noun, not a modifier of the proper noun "West Midlands". Demograph 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- It should remain as "WM conurbation"; it's clear from the content that that's what this article refers to. Andy Mabbett 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- No it's not.
- "According to the 2001 Census the area had a population of 2,284,093, making it the second largest conurbation in the United Kingdom." - this refers to the urban area
- All the following (in the references section) relate to the ONS-defined urban areas.
- Yes it is; the text you cite is preceded by the caveat "Although the exact boundaries of any conurbation are open to debate,"; and does not include the areas referred to in the introduction ("the conurbation ... does include parts of the surrounding counties of Staffordshire (e.g. Little Aston, Perton), Warwickshire (specifically Coleshill and Water Orton) and Worcestershire (Hagley)"). Andy Mabbett 05:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed it does, as the article includes information regarding the ONS's West Midlands Urban Area - hence a lack of references to this point would be bad practice. The area is more commonly known as the West Midlands conurbation, and as mentioned in the article, "although the exact boundaries of any conurbation are open to debate, dependent on what criteria are used to determine where an urban area ceases", it then goes onto describe an interpretation of that, with the ONS's "50m" figure. The European Union has a 200m definition of a single urban area - therefore the West Midlands conurbation can be seen as non-coterminus with the ONS's West Midlands Urban Area.
- It's not at all scientific, but Google gives 81 hits for "West Midlands Urban Area" and 37,000 for "West Midlands conurbation". Fingerpuppet 06:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article is called "West Midlands conurbation" when the equivalent articles for other large UK urban areas generally seem to be given their official names (eg Greater London Urban Area, Greater Manchester Urban Area, West Yorkshire Urban Area)? Shouldn't we at least use a consistent naming convention? JimmyGuano (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've brought this subject up as part of a wider issue of consistency and clarity here. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is Hagley included. The article for Conurbation defines it as: A conurbation is a region comprising a number of cities, large towns, and other urban areas that, through population growth and physical expansion, have merged to form one continuous urban and industrially developed area.
A quick google maps satellite look will show you that Hagley is surrounded by fields. Clearly either Hagley's inclusion, or it's description as a Conurbation is wrong, since the two are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hagley is included as part of the West Midlands conurbation because it is joint to the rest of Stourbridge, it is not completely surrounded by fields. If you take a trip down the A491 you would see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I came here because of edit made by 18.104.22.168 (see Talk:West Midlands (county)#Hagely). The question of whether the building of a few houses by a then local farmer Don Pardo in the 1970s completed the ribbon development along the A491 to where it joins the A456, does not seem to me to be relevant as to whether Hagley (Top Hagley or West Hagley or both) is or is not part of the conurbation. What matters is what is included in reliable sources. Which reliable sources state that Hagley is part of the West Midlands conurbation and not a dormitory town/village (as is Bromsgrove)? If none are provided then the village should be removed from this article. If they are provided then include it. If they are split then include it with a qualification that the sources are divided on the issue. what should not be done is OR based on aerial photographs or driving down the A491. -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here are two sources the first less reliable than the second:
- BBC - Domesday Reloaded: HAS HAGLEY CHANGED?, 1986 written by a member of the public.
- Department of Transport in Birmingham (1988), A western orbital route for the West Midlands conurbation together with a Kidderminster, Blakedown and Hagley bypass
- Number 1 is the opinion of a member of the public (who presumably lived in Hagley in the 1980s) and as such is not a reliable source even though it is published by the BBC. The title of number 2 implies that Hagley is not part of the conurbation, and that is a government source. I have just pulled up two documents returned by the Google search [Hagley West Midlands conurbation] it is not an all encompassing survey and is only meant to give examples of what is needed to decide this issue. -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Here are two sources the first less reliable than the second:
I have found the article that the map is based upon and it includes Hagley in the Urban Area and it is a reliable source. See:
- Office for National Statistics (2004), Key Statistics for urban areas in the Midlands, London: TSO Laid before Parliament pursuant to Section 4(1) Census Act 1920 Census 2001, p. 29 (PDF 31) -- It name in Google searches is "KS urban areas_Midlands.indb - Office for National Statistics"
This is about as authoritative as one can get, so I think that Hagley (and the other outlying districts mentioned in the document) should be included in this article -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Two comments. Firstly, the mention of the Western Orbital route and the Kidderminster, Blakedown and Hagley Bypass were actually two separate road schemes promoted together, so that explains the confusion there. Secondly, I have updated links to the XLS documents published by the ONS that show that indeed Hagley is considered to be part of the West Midlands conurbation. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The map is a mess
The is an agglomeration of areas some of which are administrative units of random rank (from city/borough to constituency to ward), others are maps of the urbanised parts of areas, some are just plain wrong - for example the area marked Birmingham includes large parts of Solihull. Whatever the rationale for the various areas being named, they at least should be given their proper boundaries.
I'm guessing the map has been made from other maps (but which? The one referenced only shows part of the area and doesn't indicate any of the boundaries or subdivisions used on the map) by someone who is not familiar with the geography of the area.
Either the map should have the labelling and subdivision deleted and be used solely to identify "the heavily urbanised parts" of the West Midlands Urban Area, or it should be redrawn with the correct administrative boundaries and using consistent rank.Stub Mandrel (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- The map is correctly labelled and divided according to the 2001 census Urban Area Sub-Divisions. It does not display administrative units, and the  Birmingham Urban Sub-division does indeed contain areas that are within the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull, just as the  Wolverhampton Urban Sub-division includes areas that are administered by South Staffordshire District Council and so on. As the article itself currently states: It should be noted that these settlements are not coterminous with the Metropolitan Boroughs of the same name. Fingerpuppet (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've changed the caption on the map so that it is not actively incorrect, but the colour coding is still quite peculiar. I'm guessing the colour-coding is due to some perceived hierarchy of importance, but if this is the case this needs to be explained and sources given for this precedence. The census sources cited and used as a source for the map seem to express no hierarchy between subdivisions that I can find. JimmyGuano (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)