Talk:Birmingham

Please add new topics at the end, in sequence, and indent appropriately, so that the discussion may easily be followed by others. Thank you.

Flag

Does the Flag of Birmingham have any legal precedent in its offical use? If so, an image should be included in the article.

http://flagspot.net/flags/gb-e-wmd.html

--Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 08:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Liveability

No mention of this in the article? http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/livable_cities_worldwide/ (B'ham is joint 55th) Matthew (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction wording

Does anyone else think the introduction reads a bit weirdly? I was thinking something more along these lines:

"Birmingham (pronunciation (help·info), /ˈbɝːmɪŋəm/ BIRR-ming-əm) is a city and metropolitan borough in the West Midlands county of England. Birmingham is the largest of England's core cities, and is the second largest British city after London, with an urban area population of 970,892 (2001 census). Often considered to be the second city of the United Kingdom[2], the City of Birmingham forms part of the larger West Midlands conurbation, which has a population of 2,284,093 (2001 census)[4] and includes several neighbouring towns and cities, such as Solihull, Wolverhampton and the towns of the Black Country."

Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Often considered to be the second city of the United Kingdom" is a dubious statement; if you watch the BBC's summary of the national weather, it focuses on Edinburgh, Belfast, Cardiff and London - i.e. in North to South order - which puts poor old Birmingham firmly in its place! 91.110.136.198 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a dubious statement but this has been discussed at length with a number of factors considered. The wording has been specifically chosen to reflect this. The fact that the BBC's national weather forecast programme focus on the capital cities of the nations of the United Kingdom and omits Birmingham means very little in such a discussion.

Personally, I think the opening paragraph is fine in comparing Birmingham to other areas of which it is comparable against and has an affect on. - Erebus555 (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say that Birmingham's rather spurious claim to be the "second city" (of England, Britain, or the United Kingdom or whatever?) is somewhat contradicted by reality of living here; quantity of population is NOT a meaningful measure of quality of life I'm afraid! This is a city which put up Raymond Mason's original sculpture "Forward" in 1991 for it to be burnt down in 2003! You cannot imagine - as the current council leader does - that Birmingham will ever join the top 20 'world' cities; a recent book called "501 must-see cities" (available at "Sainsbury's") does not even include Birmingham, other than with a side reference under Manchester! Birmingham itself has yet to recover from the awful "Crossroads" TV soap series. 91.110.136.198 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well but this is not the place to discuss it. You can talk about it on the talk page for the Second city of the United Kingdom article. - Erebus555 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Population has clearly got to be one of the key things in defining a 'second city'. It is the second largest city, after all. But alas, this has already been discussed at length, so stop editing the article and removing content which has been agreed-on. I'm afraid we can't reference your personal opinions of the city to substantiate your claims. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7672464.stm

91.110.138.145 (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

From which: "may follow". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I note that, despite the above, you have again removed the cited text with which you seem to disagree. The fact that (per your edit summary) Pebble Mill has been demolished is irrelevant; the BBC still maintains a drama production facility in Birmingham. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Casualty will move to Cardiff, see here. That source is much newer than the old one which was on the article. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Amritsar & Birmingham - twin cities?

Insertion, removal, followed by reversion and warning. Is Amritsar a twin city? FYI: google search. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Amritsar twinned with Sandwell rather than Birmingham? Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears so [1]. Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Second most populous British city?

Can we get a grip on the facts please? [2]

Either Birmingham is the UK's most populous city or it isn't. Urban Area, conurbation, metropolitan area, city-region could all be used to present the facts as they are. London is not a city, as it does not have city status (that would be the City of London). There's no point having articles saying it is, then others that it isn't. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It all depends on how you define "city". Birmingham is the largest local government district holding City Status in the UK. London is a city, but not a City, as "city" can easily be defined as "a large or important town". It has a single Mayor, has London Boroughs (i.e. Boroughs that are part of London) and is functionally a single city. It's not uncommon for this to be an issue - there are loads of cities that have the opposite problem: City of Leeds isn't a city in any meaningful sense (unlike Leeds), it's just a large local government district that holds City Status, just like City of Carlisle/Carlisle.

Conurbations aren't really anything to do with the size of individual cities within (just as the Greater London Urban Area isn't entirely London, or the Greater Manchester Urban Area isn't entirely Manchester - and the West Midlands conurbation isn't Birmingham to an even larger extent). Larger Urban Zone (LUZ) data (or city-region) is also another method of measurement, and in that definition Birmingham is the fourth largest in the UK (after London, Manchester and Leeds-Bradford), and Travel to Work Areas could also be used to define the size of a city. Even the Government gets confused sometimes - Primary Urban Areas are referred to as "cities" in the State of the English Cities Report - even though they contain PUAs like Rochdale or Aldershot which aren't even particularly large towns, and the "Birmingham" PUA contains the city of Wolverhampton and the "Manchester" PUA includes the city of Salford!

Different definitions give different results - as you well know! Clearly therefore, Birmingham is anywhere from first (district) to fourth (LUZ) in size, but the most meaningful placing on population size terms is second behind London. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't the issue of whether London's lack of a Royal Charter means that it isn't a city be neatly side-stepped by stating that Birmingham is the largest British city outside London, which is true either way? JimmyGuano (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work

This article has come on in leaps and bounds since I last looked at it a while ago and now looks very profeesional. i would just like to say good work to all those involved. Gem (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity Breakdown

Currently the ethnicity breakdown is erroneous in that it does not add up to 100%. Visiting the citation shows this to be because the percentage of the population classified as "mixed race" was simply omitted from the list. Either it should be added to the list, or added to the figure for "other." Does Wikipedia have any policy on which approach should be taken? 78.105.102.92 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes?

It seems like Birmingham's been attracting some attention recently for its apostrophe fiasco with its street signs. Worth mentioning in this or a related article?

• Selva, Meera (30 January 2009). "Its a catastrophe for the apostrophe in Britain". Associated Press. Retrieved 8 February 2009.
• Zwicky, Arnold (31 January 2009). "Apostrophe Catastrophe". Language Log. Retrieved 8 February 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesdate= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
• Quinion, Michael (7 February 2009). "Abandoned apostrophes". World Wide Words newsletter (625). Retrieved 8 February 2009.
• Quinion, Michael (7 February 2009). "Possessive Apostrophes". World Wide Words. Retrieved 8 February 2009.

rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No it's a trivial non-story, blown out of proportion by the press (and by the gratuitous use of words like "fiasco"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

The image used is of Birmingham, Alabama and not Birmingham, United Kingdom but says it is a view from Bartley Green which is a place in Birmingham, United Kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.75.71 (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely Birmingham UK. That's Bartley Reservoir, with Harborne, Five Ways and the back of Alpha Tower. I should know - I took it! JimmyGuano (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Without doubt: Birmingham, England. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the main image is taken from Edgbaston Reservoir (1 mile south west of city centre), rather than Bartley Reservoir, at least 5 miles South West of city centre. Edgbaston Reservoir is reknowned for its views of the city centre, and that view looks far too close to be Bartley.

It is Bartley Reservoir,I lived two minutes walk from it for three years.If you have any doubts ask Bill Oddie,it`s where he did his first birdwatching.94.196.167.100 (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

New images

I recently uploaded the image to the right of Birmingham, engraved in the 17th century by Wenceslas Hollar. Feel free to use or not use. Dcoetzee 11:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

I've been discussing nicknames over on the Talk:Manchester page and have come over to the opinion that they need referencing as nicknames. As I mentioned on that talk page, there is a difference between stating, for instance, that 'many consider {city} to be the second city' and that '"Second City" is a nickname of {city}' - I may be male, but that doesn't make 'Male' my nickname. There is one reference, for instance, for 'city of a thousand trades', and that comes from a newspaper headline - so what? I feel that more is needed. Matthew (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no objection in, what, nearly 3 months, I've gone and removed "Workshop of the World", "City of a Thousand Trades", and "Canal City" from the nicknames section as they are historic, unreferenced, or both. Matthew (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Workshop of the World is a phrase used about so many areas that I agree that even if Birmingham is one of those areas it hardly constitutes a nickname. "City of a Thousand Trades" is quite a specific phrase used for Birmingham though, even if primarily from a historical standpoint - I don't see why that should be a problem. Never come across "Canal City" in my life. JimmyGuano (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored "City of a thousand trades" as it has a reference from quite a recent source in the text JimmyGuano (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Second City (ad nauseum)

As has been observed by a few of the more disinterested editors on the Talk:Manchester page, the concept of a "Second City" is really little more than a meaningless bit of hype.

Birmingham can probably legitimately claim that "Second City" is a fairly widely used nickname, but this is hardly one of the three or four most important things for anybody to know about the place, and the endless attempts on this page to try and create the impression - implicitly or explicitly - that this establishes as a fact that Birmingham is more important than cities x, y or z (or even "widely thought of as such") are just as tiresome, logically flawed and unencyclopedic as the similarly turtuous attempts on the Manchester page to do the same thing in reverse.

The current wording on this page ("Often considered to be the second city of the United Kingdom") manages to be a particularly blatant example of both WP:Weasel and WP:Peacock at the same time, and the "Second City" section further down seems to be just a long-winded statement of the fact that the concept is subjective and doesn't really mean very much (thus rather begging the question as to why is there a section about it in the first place).

Can't we just leave "Second City" sitting quietly in the nicknames section of the infobox, focus the article on a balanced representation of some properly referenced and useful encyclopedic facts, and let anybody who really is desperately driven to wikipedia to find out which is the "True" "Second City" to make their own mind up?

JimmyGuano (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Matthew (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you leave it in the nicknames section without any explanation it'll look like a statement of fact. I think there needs to be explanation that its claim to be the country's second city is disputed. BEVE (talk)  00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely the only fact it would be stating would be that it is a nickname? Sheffield is nicknamed the Steel City, but nobody actually suggests that is made of steel. Southampton F.C. are The Saints, but they don't claim that this gives them actual sainthood. JimmyGuano (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Crime and policing

I have just reverted out a change to the table in this section, but while investigating it the reference points to data for 2007-08 and not for 2006-07 as stated at the head of the table. The table figures do not match the detail in the reference so it is not just the header which is wrong. The referenced page also does not give figures for Manchester where are these figures from and why are they not referenced? Keith D (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, why are the crime figures for Manchester and Bristol included at all? Matthew (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Description 'Massive' removed

The Hindu population (standing at a mere 2 per cent) has been given the label "massive". It's been removed, unless anyone contests it. No references cited for the temple descriptions either. ~Skye (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

X-ray operation

Can we have a citation please, since this [3] and many others say it was Oliver Lodge in Liverpool in Feb. 1896. RodCrosby (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

History

Re: The founding of Birmingham. The name of the founder of Birmingham is uncertain, and is most commonly thought of as Birm, Birma, Beorm, Beorma or Beornmund. This is reflected in the Birmingham City Council website link at the end of the article, and is also confirmed in the History of Birmingham and Digbeth articles. The name Breme is a possibility, but is more commonly associated with Bromsgrove. Also is there any evidence for Birmingham being founded in the 6th Century rather than the 7th? Although the BCC website mentions the 6th Century, and I have seen other sources mention the 8th Century, more specific timelines tend to say around or after 600AD, which is technically the 7th Century Metabaronic (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is covered off now in more detail under the History of Birmingham article. Metabaronic (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

A more relable source is needed for the dispute between John Dudley and Edward de Birmingham. The current reference source at http://project-iona.co.uk/landscape/cityscape_past_and_present/birmingham is not reliable. For example, it states that "In the year 585 the Saxon Cridda, a military adventurer who founded the Saxon Kingdom of Mercia, gave the Manor of Birmingham to one of his lieutenants named Ulwine" which is patently incorrect as, according to the Domesday Book, the Manor of Birmingham was held by the Saxon Ulwine prior to the Norman conquest, and Ulwine was made a reeve by Richard de Bermingham, which means he existed at the time of the conquest, not 500 years earlier. Metabaronic (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birmingham

I know we have a WikiProject for the West Midlands, but given as there is also one for Coventry I was wondering whether anyone would be interested in helping to start a Birmingham WikiProject. I recently founded WikiProject Edinburgh and am looking to start a few others so we can get better coverage of some of the UK's major cities. As Birmingham is generally considered to be Britain's second city and has a lot of interesting history I think it could be a useful collaboration. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Birmingham → Birmingham, England — Between Birmingham, England and Birmingham, Alabama, whereas the British city is larger, the Alabama city is more likely to host a Summer Olympic. (Sources: the 2020 Summer Olympics article says the Alabama city might host the Olympics; it appears almost definite that the British city never will; no British city but London ever will. Georgia guy (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support For different reasons though. The city in Alabama is just as notable as the UK city and IMO just as likely (maybe more likely) of a search target. Either this page (Birmingham) should be for the Alabama city, or a disambiguation page. TJ Spyke 16:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Birmingham in England is clearly the wp:primary topic. Evidence for this includes:
  • According to [4], the article about the English city gets over twice the traffic of the one about the US city
  • The UK city is the second largest in its country (in fact the largest if you make the pedantic point that London isn't strictly a city), while the US city is only the 83rd largest in its country.
  • The US city was named after the UK city.
  • There are only 44 articles on the US city on non-English language wikipedias, compared to 75 for the UK city.
  • To illustrate the global perspective: of the 75 non-English language articles on the UK city, all but 4 (Tamil, Dutch, Georgian, Esperanto) feel the name "Birmingham" to be sufficiently unambiguous to not need qualifying with the country.

Three more practical considerations:

• • This page links directly to the Birmingham, Alabama article from the hatnote. Making this page a disambiguation page wouldn't help people looking for that article, who would still need two clicks to get to that page. It would however, considerably inconvenience the large majority of people who visit this page, who the statistics above show are looking for the article on the UK city.
  • According to WP:PLACE the canonical name for an article on a US city is "City, State", the naming convention for UK cities is "Where possible, articles on places in the United Kingdom should go under [[placename]]". Both articles are currently at their preferred canonical names according to the naming conventions and should not be moved.
  • "Birmingham, England" is definitely wrong as a name. If the UK city did need disambiguation, (despite the very strong evidence that it doesn't) then the correct name according to WP:PLACE would be "Birmingham, West Midlands" (which is likely to be far more confusing to most users who aren't intimately aquainted with post-1974 UK metropolitan counties than the existing situation). JimmyGuano (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support a dab page should live at the primary name. Birmingham, Alabama is certainly equal usage, since from the "usage" stats, everyone who accidentally went to Birmingham would need to click again to get to the right one, so for a 2:1 advantage, you can subtract most of that difference away, since there will be frustrated users, and there will be people who clicked through. Otherwise, it's just UK bias that favours UK placenames over the rest of the world. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for most of the reasons cited by User:JimmyGuano. (Pageviews do need to be discounted slightly for click-throughs to Alabama, but certainly not "most of the difference". And if Birmingham, Alabama is awarded the summer Olympics in 4 years, we should reopen this discussion at that time.) Station1 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons above. The nominator also offers no justifiacton for the crystal ball assertions about summer olympics. Time this was documented as a FAQ to discourage further repetition of this debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I almost want to oppose just because of the argument used in the nomination. The Alabama city may hold the Olympics, the English one probably won't. As arguments go it's an incredibly poor reason to move an article - we need to consider much more than just the Olympics. Anyway I'm undecided on the wider issue. I think the English city is the primary topic but by the looks of things it falls into that middle ground where I'm still undecided whether an article is enough of the primary topic to clearly be the primary topic and so at the main article title. If it looked like searchers were looking for one article in a ratio of 3:1 to other articles I'd contend it was clearly the primary topic, 3:2 in my opinion it clearly wouldn't be but this appears to fit in the middle at about 2:1 and I'm undecided on that case. Dpmuk (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support — the city in England (presumed primary topic gets a mere 2X the page views of just one other article listed on Birmingham (disambiguation). The city in England is not a clear primary topic. Move Birmingham (disambiguation) to Birmingham. --Una Smith (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - for all the reasons already listed, plus this one: the American city is about one quarter of the size of the British one, and its metro area about one half the size of the British one's. ðarkuncoll 08:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose – The Olympics argument of course relies on reasoning discourage by WP:CRYSTAL that is unacceptable as justification for a move. The page hit counts and statistics from other wikis do not by themselves seem strong enough for a strong oppose, however. Sswonk (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support, although move should be to Birmingham, West Midlands per WP:NCGN. West Midlands is the ceremonial country in this case. Yes, the English city is larger, but it isn't massively larger, nor is there evidence it is the primary meaning. Comparissons between the status of both cities in the UK and US are meaningless, as the US is by far the larger and more populous country. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The British city is massively larger - four times as large, in fact. ðarkuncoll 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Is this a can of worms? I note here that population is not a factor in the similar naming protocol for Cambridge (pop. 2001: 108,863) and Cambridge, Massachusetts (pop. 2000: 101,355). The Massachusetts city is an education, technology and publishing center very similar in nature to the UK city, tempered by the fact that it is located across the Charles River from the much larger and unambiguous Boston. If this move is supported, might a similar move also be indicated for Cambridge? Sswonk (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Boston is unambiguous? How about Boston, Lincolnshire? The British Boston is tiny compared to the American one, hence the primacy of the American one here. ðarkuncoll 16:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• 'strong oppose- Someone doesn't know the most commonly used name for a thing, which is what we always use on wiki. It is not correct, factually not the correct usage, to say 'Paris, France' as far as I know the oldest version of the cities/towns with the same name never have a suffix, as the American or whatever cities of the same name are younger, so they are the ones that need to explain that they're not the city that originally had that name. Sticky Parkin 17:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)