Wikipedia talk:WikiProject West Midlands

Demographics of Birmingham

this is referenced in the man bham article but is out of date. how to we identify that it should be on a list for update? the census info doen't include current as well (2005).. i have updated the current populatin info in the LEAD, but as a sub-article it needs updating.

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:51, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

West Midlands photographer available.

If you need some photos taken of wiki dont hesatate to ask — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazumu (talk • contribs)

Anyone here?

Is this project moribund? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not proactive to people posting on WikiProject West Midlands.

I have for sometime taken time to post updates on the Swan Shopping Center so trying to support the Birmingham area. I have had postings rendered incorrect by editing by Wikipedia. I have had postings amended and been critisised for not quoting sources. My sources are various and normally from public meetings. I have not been encouraged to post in fact I have been constantly questioned and rebuked by Wikipedia. The last comment by will become correct and the whole Birmingham postings become moribund when contributors are hit by such negativity over their efforts.

This seems to be an end product that Wikipedia are encouraging in their paranoia over control of postings.

(Uksnapper (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

Andy was right the WikiProject West Midlands is moribund. Wikipedia has eaten itself. I have had a complete, correct posting removed, previous posts have been condensed so as not to make sense. Wikipedia is a totally controlled and patrolled paranoid car crash. It is not worth supporting in its present form. Wikipedia blames outsiders but their own staff editors, by their cuts and changes make the project inaccurate and useless.Uksnapper (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have offered to help the above user [1].  Chzz  ►  14:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Chzz did offer help but the help was to indicate unless I could back up my entry with some relevant quote from the local slow sources I could not use wikipedia. I was told that I could use a local paper to reference my entry but as they are not always correct and only report when they think it newsworthy! If this is the case the WikiProject West Midlands will never be up to date. I am amazed that in the digital age Wikipedia is prepared to stick to the old Encyclopedia rules and that the new section will always be an history. Even the old encyclopedia's tried to update their records with a yearbook. Perhaps wikipedia can drag themselves into the digital age and have a weekly update where it is clear the entries will need verification.

The Swan Center article has a request for an update by Wikipedia but from my experience they do not want to be up-todate unless the old guard, press government or someone has published the fact so we can refer to it. Most of the news I give is from Yardley Forum but they do not publish the minutes of the public meeting. I cannot remember the local journalists even attending this meeting.

Basically if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously in the fast moving digital age it has to give highly up to date articles not past news. Until this happens the previous comment that WikiProject West Midlands is moribund is correct. The project can only be a dusty history.

I will try again but I may set up my own webpage. I can then refer to my own quotes and may get my updates agreed.

Chzz was helpful but paranoid over the voracity of entries. What a shame that Wikipedia is Globally known for its inaccuracy and most people advise a check with other sources. {Source Open University course books M150 (now discontinued)}.

(Uksnapper (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC))

Chzz is one of the most helpful Wikipedia editors that I know of. Amongst other things, he was stating Wikipedia policy, which hangs on the three core principles of verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view. If Yardley Forum are unwilling to publish these minutes, I am afraid that such minutes are inadmissible as sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Red Rose

I am aware that Chzz is as helpful as he can be. I have read the post you made but cannot see how your kind help moves us forward. My suggestion that there should be an area where possible temporary postings can be made to keep the Encyclopedia open to new postings. The limits of the printed word are no longer valid and the constant updating possible opens new horizons for an encyclopedia.

The quote from the Wikipedia definition of an Encyclopedia follows:-

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[11]

— Diderot

No mention of verifiability but allowing the free interchange of Knowledge so that future generations can benefit from the "instruction" given. The knowledge given will make people virtuous and happy with contributors also pleased to have given a service.

I have no intention of critising any individual which your defence of Chzz implied Red Rose. I do however ask for wikipedia to drag the idea of an encyclopedia back to its roots and open it up to new horizons freed from the restrictions the printed world imposed. You are entitled to your opinion Red Rose but at least consider alternatives.

(Uksnapper (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

The Wikipedia article Encyclopedia does not mention Wikipedia policies because it does not, and is not intended to, define what Wikipedia does. I suggest that you read WP:ABOUT and WP:5P, also some (if not all) of the pages linked from the bog box at the top of your talk page. These documents, and not the thoughts of a Frenchman who died over two hundred years ago, govern how we edit. If you want to change the philosophy of Wikipedia, this is not the place to discuss it - you are perhaps best asking at the Policies Village Pump. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Note

I have nominated List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Article alerts

Wikipedia:WikiProject West Midlands/Article alerts has been created; generating Article alerts for this WikiProject. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Art Gallery and Museum Backstage Pass

Herbert Art Gallery and Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Herbert Art Gallery and Museum is hosting its first Backstage Pass on Saturday 1 October 2011. Attendees will experience behind-the-scenes tours of areas including the on- and off-site stores, archives and galleries (which include local history, geology and paintings by Old Masters). After a complimentary lunch, we will settle down for talks, more tours and an editing session, in which participants will work closely with curators on topics they're interested in. For more information and to sign up, see the event page. We hope you'll join us! The Cavalry (Message me) 18:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and input Redrose. I am new to wikipedia and its often weird rules and many constraints. I am learning and interaction helps. I have not looked into the articles you have mentioned yet but will. I would like to refer you to one of the five pillars which states "Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,733,064 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. When conflict arises, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution." I am trying not to annoy or misuse the encyclopedia but do find it irritating when I try to be proactive and my efforts can be just put down. I will get there with the help, openess and welcome the above pillar requests. I should again like to thank you for your advice Redrose and look forward to getting things a little more correct. All knowledge is a trip of questioning and not just accepting blindly the mistakes often made. If a 200 year old quote is a way of questioning then I will not baulk from using it. Our past is the key to our future and we should always be prepared to acknowledge the past as a signpost if not the end product. I am posting an article on the recent decision over the grant of a licence for a new local pub. I hope the references I cite will be acceptable.

(Uksnapper (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC))