Jump to content

Talk:Wolverhampton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fingerpuppet (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 23 September 2013 (→‎Difference between Wolverhampton proper/the wider city?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1

More nicknames for Wolverhampton

People also call it the City of Wolvo. And some people know Wolverhampton by it's Red Light Districs. Bleedanddie07 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people do call it Wolvo, although we'd need to find a reliable source documenting that to include it. As for the red light districts, the same could be said of a lot of places. I don't think we need to mention that in the article--it's not exactly Amsterdam, is it? --RFBailey (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

A number of places and features in Wolverhampton are in Category:West Midlands articles missing geocoordinate data. If you can provide coordinates, please do so. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, is there a tutorial anywhere for how to find out and reference geocoordinate data Davetaylor1972 (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Planet comment

Whilst the Lonely Planet comment that has appeared recently on the article is sourced, looking a little deeper into the article "5th worst" appears to be exclusively written due to a single forum entry that contains a joke that I've seen written about a large number of places with badly sourced "local accents" within it.

Therefore its source is trivial, and it should be removed. Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Image Proposal

I have created a collage of images of Wolverhampton and would like it to be considered as the new image for the wiki as I feel it gives a broader visual exposure of the city. Here is the link: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/3572/wolvesss.jpg

I have all copyright information ready also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeversoclever (talkcontribs) 23:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please find something to replace the infobox image. The neighborhood in the foreground overly dominates. Jd2718 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh

Wolverhampton is home to a large proportion of the Sikh community, who settled there during the period (1940–1970) from the Indian state of Punjab. Today, the Sikh community in Wolverhampton is roughly 8% of the city's population.

Why is this sentence located in the 19th century section? --Dionysos1988 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

Does anyone disagree that this [1] would be a better image for the infobox?  Badgernet  ₪  14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolvopedia: proposed project in Wolverhampton

Wolverhampton folk might be interested in Wolvopedia - please express support (you'll need to sign up, it's free) if inclined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did anything come of this Andy? I was unable to attend the MakeTheShift event, and haven't noticed further updates to the website? Æthelred (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverhampton place name

I have replaced information deleted by 137.28.54.57 on 15 April 2012 under the title 'corrections' and added new references. He / she had removed referenced information describing the city as being named after Lady Wulfrun, replacing it with a poorly cited 'factual' sentence about the city being named after King Wulfhere. I've retained the information relating to the possible abbey founded here in 659. The user made similar edits to History of Manchester & History of Chester. Thought I'd mention here as it will possibly be seen as a large edit. Æthelred (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Following a partial edit to the date of the estimated population figure I have repaired the link and inserted the latest published figure and date from the official Wolverhampton City Council site. Unregistered User 82.17.56.225 had changed the date from 2004 to 2008 but left the population as previously stated, and the citation access date as 2007. The original link was dead anyway so drawing attention to this anomaly was useful. Keomike (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Census 2011 1st Release - Key Stats for Wolverhampton Table Summary is also available on the same site [2] so maybe it is time for a rewrite. However the key population figure of 249,500 has already been included in the infobox under the heading 2009 est.? Keomike (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between Wolverhampton proper/the wider city?

Just wondering, after looking at other articles on cities and boroughs, why there doesn't seem to be any separate articles on The City of Wolverhampton, and the locality of Wolverhampton itself? Most boroughs/cities which contain additional towns outside of their namesakes have separate articles for the boroughs and localities themselves, such as City of Salford and Salford, Greater Manchester, for example. Seeing as the City of Wolverhampton (formerly a Metropolitan Borough itself) contains the towns of Bilston and Willenhall, along with other localities arguably distinct from Wolverhampton proper such as Wednesfield and Tettenhall, should this not also be the case here? LivingInMediocrity (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The status of Wolverhampton's "other towns" is debateable, hence why they're all included here and there is not a separate article for the Metropolitan Borough. Up until the 2011 Census, the Wolverhampton Urban Sub-division contained the entire Metropolitan Borough, plus areas outside such as Perton, Lower Penn, Underhill and so on. With the 2011 Census, Wednesfield and Bilston have their own Built Up Area Subdivisions, whilst Wolverhampton's area outside the local authority boundaries has grown to include places such as Perton Ridge. Unlike the Salford example above, Bilston, Willenhall (which is now mostly in the Metropolitan Borough of Walsall) and Wednesfield are all historically part of Wolverhampton - they (along with other places now well outside the Metropolitan Borough) were parts of the lands granted to Lady Wulfruna and named specifically in the charter used for the city's foundation. They were part of the Parish of Wolverhampton up until the mid-19th century, when the Chapels of Ease in each location became full parish churches, just in time for the three places to have their own Urban Districts (which were based on parishes) and not be part of the original County Borough of Wolverhampton, but all were/are parts of the various Wolverhampton Parliamentary Boroughs up until the mid-20th century (in the case of Willenhall) or today (in the case of the others). The towns mentioned are all functionally part of the city - being well within the Travel to Work Area (which expands further out, including places such as Darlaston and Sedgley), as well as the Wolverhampton Larger Urban Zone and ESPON 1.1.1 Functional Urban Area. This dichotomy of "together or separate" is a constant thread since the mid-19th century, which is why the population figures of Wolverhampton vary so much. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In short, it is better to have a single article explaining these subtleties, rather than a hodge-podged mess of separate articles, which may become inconsistent with each other at a later stage. --RFBailey (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then how come it is not applied to other places with similar circumstances, for example, Dudley? Its article refers to each separate area, for example, Netherton, Kingswinford, Brierley Hill etc. as distinct 'towns', despite historically being a part of its parliamentary borough and all being part of the lands belonging to the Lords of Dudley. All these places were also, until the 2011 census, part of Dudley's Urban Sub-Division, like Bilston and Wednesfield to Wolverhampton, yet they aren't considered part of the town? It just seems confusing that the rules seem to be different for each town/city/etc. LivingInMediocrity (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that's not the question you asked - the Dudley equivalent of the question you asked is the difference between Dudley and the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, which are clearly very different. Wednesfield, Willenhall and Bilston are towns - they hold their own market charters for example, but they are quite definitely "sub-towns" of Wolverhampton. Kingswinford and Brierley Hill weren't part of the post-Reform Act Parliamentary Borough of Dudley (although Netherton was), weren't part of Dudley Parish (as far as I can tell historically) and weren't even in the same county as Dudley! Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]