Talk:Birmingham/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10

Famous people etc

I think the famous people section should be put back on the main article, I dont see the necesity of putting it in its own artice, the article was already brought below the "too long to edit" threshold. the article is in danger of looking like a directory rather than a proper article at the moment.

Also I think the transport and local government subsections be removed and their links put into a new "see also" section. What does anyone else think G-Man 12:08, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If anything's moved (or left) off, it should be long lists; it should be transport and/ or Government (aside from lists of wards/ districts) which (again, if anything) return. Putting important topics into "see also" will remove them from the TOC. Returning stuff because the article is below the threshold will simply shorten the time until that threshold is reached again. Andy Mabbett 15:27, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm the article is looking somewhat bare at the moment though with lots of subsections with nothing underneath them. Anyhow I dont think I've seen any other city articles which have their "Famous people" section moved elsewhere. G-Man 22:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes i agree G-man and Andy, the places of interest should stay as it was (for a long time)! Places of interest are very important to show what a city has to offer a tourist at a glance, you've got to entice someone to a place before they feel the need to learn about other areas like government and transport surely? see other cities "long ramblings" (to quote Andy), Bham has a lot to offer but other sites on the net don't really provide a straight forward run down like WE have compiled here, so please could we agree to revert as was. User:Nick Boulevard
Yes I quite agree. G-Man 22:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm impressed that you can agree with Nick, when he agrees with you, and with me disagreeing with you. That's quite a trick. Andy Mabbett 22:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ah! At last we all agree then, the places of interest and famous people should stay as was, and Andy if the inclusion of Nick Mason upsets so much then, hey... lets remove it :), but i would like to remove your little add-on words on architecture, and i would apreciate that you leave my inclusion of the motor economy and history, is that a compromise??????????????????? User:Nick Boulevard
"At last we all agree then" And, where, do you imagine, do we do that? Thanks, though, for agreeing that Nick Mason need not be included. As to your other points, please note: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it., as has been pointed out to you previously. Andy Mabbett 13:40, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, thats right. ,,, We all agree to agree on the points that we have agreed on then. :)
So, as i asked before but you were too conviently ignorant to answer as per usual (it's easy to ignore someone when you are safely sat behind a p.c. monitor you have found). Seeing as you haven't taken offence i can assume that you ARE proud to be a Brummie then Andy, well i guess i don't feel so much animosity towards you now. User:Nick Boulevard

Is Mandy Abbott a Gig Girls Blouse?

Well after establishing that Mandy isn't from the city due to her willingness to destroy the Bham page and show the city in it's worst possible light with her spitefull, childish little edits i now find that i have been stalked on other pages of music like Traffic (band) who were clearly formed in Aston as any Traffic fan would know but Mandy has started removing text saying the band were from brum and saying they were formed in Berkshire (where they went into a studio as the already fully formed Brum band.. Traffic)??? Is this person spoiling for a fight or just down right obnoxious to the point of me actually feeling sorry for them and don't think stalking is ok just becuase someone is hidden behind a p.c. it's actually quite a serious obsessive type display of behaviour and possibly needs help, and i am serious! :( User:Nick Boulevard

You really do have to stop this now, see Bham wire gauge history that you have mongrelised, from my original text you added:
...Wire Gauge is a defunct standard... Birmingham wire gauge ceased to be recognised by the US government in 1914. etc...
Another editor has even removed your work as it is so negative, why are you so damn negative about anything Birmingham???? i really do wish you would concentrate your negativity on other great cities like..erm.. Derby (sorry G-man that would be the kiss of death for Derby on here) and now i see that you have followed me to Thin Lizzy and removed the word Birmingham??? Sorry but you do have a serious problem here, i think you need to either get help or get a life, why do you want to stalk my edits here and remove anything vaguely Birmingham related or edit it to show it in a negative light, it is a bit wierd and you are wasting alot of your life doing this pointless vandelism, it's up to you but don't you think it would be alot easier to try and get on here or are you not intelligent enough to understand this???

User:Nick Boulevard

Please Unprotect

Ok so the Bham page has been protected twice now since i have been here and both times it has been protected only after Andy Mabbet has acted out his evil quest of edits and deletions of my work like for example the Birmingham Motor Transport History.

Please can someone un-protect the page so that i can rebuild MY work that has been deleted. Andy Mabbett refuses to enter into any sort of mature discussion with me on here or on his talk page and i'm not wasting any more of my preciuos time trying to reach him so we may as well carry on as before, at least if there are enough people protecting what is right the page will stay as it was, warm, informative and inviting as opposed to cold, bleak and regimental.

Thanks User:Nick Boulevard

Hmm I'm thinking perhaps it might be a good idea to hold a vote on whether to have Nick's version of the page or Andy's, that might solve the problem once and for all? G-Man 19:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It would be nice to change the photo as well since Brum is looking a lot nicer now! Cheers kumo
If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. Andy Mabbett 08:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes Andy but where does it say... "If you do not want your writing to be deleted or changed to present a subject in a negative light, then do not submit it" which is exactly what you do and it is very sad and a waste of your life, edit my work so that it is enhanced, that would be a kind, friendly type of thing to do don't you rekon and maybe we could work together seeing as you seem to enjoy editing my work so much and we have similar interests! i won't wait for a response. User:Nick Boulevard

p.s. And who the hell is Kumo???

I am an ex-brummie, who are you? I wish the photo could be changed because it makes Birmingham look like a nasty city. Rob Clarke (kumo)
Oh right, well Hi! i am a current Brummie and there is one person here that is intent on showing Birmingham in a negative light, please can we unprotect the page now so that we can continue adding to Bham page. Thanks. User:Nick Boulevard
Re pictures: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birmingham/archive1#Pictures Andy G 19:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duplication problem

This article has a serious duplication of text that was begun with the "01:43, Aug 6, 2004 Air luigi (Music)" version of this article. Since other changes were made since then, I don't know if it would be easier to revert it and let people go back to re-enter their work than to try to undo the duplication by hand. (I'm not going to touch the article — only point out the problem for the other editors to fix.) —Mike 18:37, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'll fix it. Andy Mabbett 18:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that's done it - will someone else please check? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 18:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)}
I checked it. Nothing seems to be lost. Angela.

Pronounciation

Surely this is POV or at least depends on regional dialect? I don't think I'm the only Brit who pronounces the "ham" although I can understand a "Brummy" accent might not do so.  ??? Dainamo 19:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I objected to this in archive1 where it was apparently pronounced Burmingum. I don't think that or the more recent BIRming'm are correct or helpful to the article. Angela. 20:28, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

As I have said before every other encyclopedia I have seen has a pronouciation note added, so I dont see what's wrong with having one here. Especially to distinguish it from Birmingham, Alabama. Many other wikipedia articles have pronounciation notes like Towcester and Leicester. G-Man 19:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this IMO is that many people do pronounce these place names differently, i pronounce it "BirmingHAM" or Birming'm depending on whom i am talking with, but i felt the need to correct a guy from London recently that pronounced it "Burmin'm" his reply was "Wot Eva" (eyes roll) I don't have a problem with it i guess but i can't say it bothers me too much! :)

Nick Boulevard 19:47, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved

I moved this about Birmingham from Wikipedia: Featured article candidates:

Partial self-nomination, I think this article is probaby about as good as it's ever going to get. G-Man 22:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Object. The leading paragraph is too short. Some of the Introduction should be moved or summarised to the leading paragraph. --mike40033 07:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. It would be nicer if there were more pictures towards the middle and end of the article. Perhaps some of the existing pictures can be moved down? --mike40033 07:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object - I really want to support this, but, as said above, the introduction is too short, and the images are all bunched together at the start. Additionally, many sections contain one-sentence paragraphs (I've tried to ameliorate the problem by consolidating or bulleting, but the article is still quite ugly). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I don't hope this is "as good as it's ever going to get", because a lot of work is needed to make this feature-worthy. 1) Add a lead section (use parts of the introduction section for that). 2) Many sections are way too short. Some should be incorporated with others (e.g. Famous residents in History), others expanded like the history and government sections. If there's enough to warrant a subarticle, there should be more than just a one sentence summary in this article. The Architecture and Economy sections are good examples of how most of the sections should be: short and containing all the basic information. 4) The Culture section is at the other end: it's getting a bit too long. Perhaps consider moving parts to a sub-article. Also, the writing is not that great, much of is bulleted information, some of it reads like bulleted information. I can see not all information can be presented as prose, but some of it surely can. 5) The infobox should not contain a list of MPs. 6) It needs to be better explained what the article is about. Only the city, the metropolitan area, or the entire borough? (And I'm not too sure what the differences are between these.) 7) The lists of villages, nearby places and partner cities should be moved elsewhere. They're taking up a lot of space while not being that interesting. 8) We need references. Where did all this information come from? Books (either as reference or as further reading) are also preferred. The current links need to be properly formatted according to the WP:MOS ("Another website about Birmingham" is not how it should be). 9) I agree with Mike40033 that the pictures should be placed where appropriate. I would expect one in Architecture, f.e. Jeronimo 11:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Points taken, I have made some changes that have been suggested, such as moving images around etc. What exactly would everyone like to see in the introduction exactly?. Could someone show me an example of how they think it should be done so I can learn how to do it better. G-Man 19:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • You could take a look at some of the articles already featured, but generally the lead section should be, say, 1 to 3 paragraphs, depending on the length of the article. It should serve as a quick introduction and summary of the article, and maybe also as an invitation to read the rest of the article. Of current nominations, Regular polytope and John Millington Synge both have what you may consider good examples of a lead section. Jeronimo 22:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mothers Nightclub

Erm... very confused, why has Mothers nightclub dissapeared, i wrote the article and Andy Mabbett edited and added to it (i think?) it was original material from my own memory i merely provided a link to a much needed Mothers site with minimal info? why has it gone? who wiped it? when will my work be back? .....

Nick Boulevard 23:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I might have deleted it accidently, sorry. Feel free to put it back. G-Man 23:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No worries mate, thanks ;) Nick Boulevard 10:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposals for culture section

The present culture & Arts section takes up nearly half the article, and is to the detriment of other areas of information. I would like to move the current culture section to its own article Culture of Birmingham, as there is enough info there for a seperate article and it could be expanded.

I was thinking of putting a short summary on the main page of perhaps a few paragraphs, with a link to the full article at the top, like is done with the history section.

Does anyone object to this? I'm thinking mainly of you Nick seem as you wrote most of it. G-Man 18:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi G-Man,

mmm, that's a tough one.

Before i answer can i ask, do you know what Search Engine Optimisation is and how it works?

Nick Boulevard 21:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Erm not really but you could try looking at search engine to see if that answers it. G-Man 12:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Each page on the net has it's own page rank, Birmingham main page ranks at 5 out of 10 (googles class of importance on the net) this in turn makes anything written on Brum main page quite a strong body of text when someone types in say... Birmingham Music from google, the problem is that all these sub pages aren't ranked as highly becuase not so many other pages link to them as the bham main page, hence i would like to try and keep at least the music section or i could try and water it down and create sub categories? how much do you want it changed? Cheers

Nick Boulevard 17:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking of having a summarised version which included the most important information, whilst having a link to the main article. G-Man 16:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed culture section

Here is what I propose to put something like:

Modern Music

Birmingham has witnessed the evolution of a thriving music scene harboured from over two hundred years of classical, traditional folk, blues, jazz, rock, reggae, dance music, bhangra and hip hop.

In the late 1960s Heavy metal music first evolved in the city and its neighbouring districts with bands such as Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, The Fortunes, The Move and Led Zeppelin. Early progressive rock and blues bands to evolve from the city in the Brum Beat era included: Wizzard, The Spencer Davis Group, Idle Race, The Moody Blues, Judas Priest, Traffic, and The Electric Light Orchestra.

Other successful Birmingham singer/songwriters and musicians include Joan Armatrading, Steve Gibbons, Mike Kellie (of Spooky Tooth), Jeff Lynne, Phil Lynott (who formed Thin Lizzy), Carl Palmer (of Emerson Lake and Palmer), Steve Winwood, Roy Wood and Nick Mason (of Pink Floyd).

1980s super-group Duran Duran originated in Birmingham, as did Dexy's Midnight Runners. The late 1980s/1990s indie music scene saw bands such as The Charlatans, Dodgy, Ocean Colour Scene, WonderStuff, Pop Will Eat Itself and Ned's Atomic Dustbin who all eminated from the city and its surrounding satellite towns.

Birmingham's immigrant populations from the West Indies and India brought with them new styles of music such as reggae. The groundbreaking 1970s band Steel Pulse originated from Birmingham, as did the mixed-race UB40, The Beat and Musical Youth.

House music has played a more recent role in the city's youth culture. Acid House nights such as Spectrum took place at the Digbeth Institute (now the Sanctuary) and the Hummingbird (now the Carling Academy Birmingham) in the late 80's. Some of the UK's most influential dance nights have evolved in the city such as Gods Kitchen, Miss Moneypenny's, Gatecrasher, Sundissential, Atomic Jam, House of God and the original C.R.E.A.M..

The Birmingham Hip Hop scene developed in the city in early 1980. A popular pirate radio station called 'Fresh F.M.' (a forerunner to the city's many present day pirate radio stations) broadcast from a tower block in north Birmingham. The station played hip hop and breakdance records and inspired a rap crew called Jump who released two records, 'We Come to Jam' and 'Feel It', as early as 1985.

More recent artists include electro dub creators Rockers Hi-Fi, Big Beat musicians Bentley Rhythm Ace, Garage/House band The Streets, Electronica band Broadcast, R&B singer Jamelia is also from the city as is Ocean Colour Scene.


Hi G-man, sorry havn't replied sooner but i agree that popular music section is too long although the rest seems not too bad, i have trimmed your/my? popular music section (see above) and maybe i can lose some more provided the whole content will be available to see from the bham culture page? cheers Nick Boulevard 23:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Size of city

Birmingham isn't the second biggest city. Taking the word "city" literally, it is the biggest city in the country. Taking the word more loosely, it's unclear whether Manchester or Birmingham is bigger, since it depends on the definition of borders.

  • The 2001 census is pretty clear on the point. Manchester recorded a population of 392,819 as against 977,087 for Birmingham. If you're not counting London as a city then you're surely taking the word a little *too* literally, I would think. Mattley 10:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should either take the definition literally, which I think we both agree woul be silly; or take a more sensible definition that takes into account the conurbation around the city. It would be absurd to do this for London but not for other cities. --Khendon 10:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • There is, however, more than one way to define a city. As important as the conurbation may be, if you take it as the only criterion you end up telling people in Walsall, West Bromwich, Solihull and Dudley that they are in fact from Birmingham. Good luck with that! It is possible to differentiate which parts of the conurbation form part of the core 'City of Birmingham' and which do not. The same is true of Manchester. The population figures quoted above aren't meaningless. They reflect the fact that the Birmingham conurbation is more densely populated at its core, ie in inner Birmingham, than is Greater Manchester. Manchester - lovely place. Cultural capital of the north. Maybe second city, maybe not. I'm not too bothered. But not as big as Brum... Mattley 12:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They reflect the fact that city borders are arbitrary; no more and no less. It makes no sense to compare the city-proper of Birmingham with the city-proper of Manchester, but compare both to the wider conurbation of London. The article as-is is just inaccurate. --Khendon 13:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • City borders may sometimes be arbitrary, especially when defined for administrative purposes. But they are also a matter of tradition and accepted usage. It's messy. There is no one tidy definition which works in all cases because cities are complex social phenomena. So I can't agree with the points you make above. It's by the by in this instance however, since Birmingham is larger on both counts.

West Midlands (Met County) 2555592 [1]

Birmingham 977087 [2]

Greater Manchester 2482328 [3]

Manchester 392819 [4]

Mattley 15:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh not this silliness again, the term "London" is universally used in reference to Greater London, which to all intents and purposes is a single city, the City of London is tiny. Birmingham is almost universally refered to as the second city, apart perhaps for a few Mancunians, although Bimingham is bigger than Manchester in terms of the city proper and the conurbation (slightly) G-Man 18:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Greater London, if anything, is even less like a single city than Greater Birmingham. Birmingham at least has a markedly strong city centre; the City of London is rather an anticlimax in that respect. At least in one case (the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames), over half those inhabitants who are in employment work within the borough, and there are large commuter flows into the borough. This doesn't do much good for the "one city" hypothesis. If anything, Kingston is less part of London than Wolverhampton is part of Birmingham - the difference, however, being that you couldn't tell a Wulfrunian he lived in Greater Birmingham. 82.36.26.229 02:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Manchester and second city claim

I've reinstated this. I think it's appropriate to mention Manchester along with the second city claim. I think a bit of give and take is necessary over the whole second city thing as it can easily turn into a generally pointless and inconclusive argument. Mattley 23:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Matt,

try typin in second city uk from google, brum companies have for many, many years used the term in their logo's etc and i'm sorry but Manchester city is less than half the size of Birmingham city unless we start looking at towns like Trafford, Stockport, Solihull, West Bromwich and so on and i can assure you that even Salford is seperated from Manchester (after a recent ear bashing), Leeds has a larger population than Manchester now and in the next twenty years may overtake Brum.

Whatever your personal opinions, it's clear that there isn't a factual answer to such an ambiguous question, and that there is significant dispute. NPOV demands that we don't make a decision, but mention the dispute fairly. (And we should never, ever resort to googlecounting). --Khendon 07:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the second city claim is rather un-important in every day life, all UK cities should strive to be their very best in all aspects although NONE will ever compete on any scale with London, however Birmingham has been regarded by the majority of the people of Britain for many decades to be second to London, in size, industry, multi-ethnicity and economy... this fact can be seen in the amount of extremely well established businesses that have claimed the title in their company name for many years, Manchester holds about as much claim to the title as Leeds or Liverpool, that is taking nothing away from the city what so ever but if Manchester was by some means more cultural or of a larger population than Birmingham then yes i could understand the claim, but as it stands, Birmingham is the second city, whatever that is anyway?

Nick Boulevard 22:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5 million population

Where does the "5 million in a 50 mile radius" figure in the article come from? --Khendon 07:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See West Midlands (region). G-Man 19:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re-organisation

Hello, I have made some re-organisations to the article, mainly removing the "Introduction" header, as the wikipedia manual of style reccomends that the introduction to an article should be before the TOC. I hope it's OK with everyone and I havn't messed things up.

This is a good article by the way. Gem 30th Dec 2004

Actually I think it's a big improvement, I wish I'd of thought of it myself, thanks G-Man 23:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inventors etc

is this right title and should it be better immediately after film and media? feel free to alter :) Nick Boulevard 19:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

brum ethnicity???

brum is 4% missing on ethnicity, have a look, is the remaining 4% irish or other decendancy or are all the figures wrong? Nick Boulevard 00:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the other 4% are of ethnic groups who make up less than 1% and are not included, I'll check it out sometime. G-Man 00:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

cheers gman, i'm thinking the remainder are irish!Nick Boulevard 00:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok i looked into this and i could not see what ethnicity the remainding 4% were, i do remember seeing a graph a year or so ago showing the city population as roughly 75% white but of that nearly 4%were irish origin, i.e. born in ireland or regard themselves still as irish, unless i can see otherwise i have updated the ethnicity to make sense in favour of what i know. Nick Boulevard 00:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You appear to have just added 4% to the 'White' total - people who profess Irish ethnicity are already included in the 'White' stats. The ethnicity stats as per the 2001 Census are available on the web at the ONS site here [5] and the previously quoted 70.4% white figure was correct (of whom 3.2% identify themselves as Irish). I've therefore corrected the figures as per the official stats using the 'top-level' categories available in the census (which, by the way, add up to 100.1% - presumably the result of rounding!). Valiantis 19:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have provided a link to the 2001 census. You need to register to aquire the statistics. From memory i didn't see the Irish included in the 70.4% white, please provide a direct link to the stats you quote from, incidentally why do you find it important to "reduce" the number of white people in the city? And are mixed race people regarded as more black or more white? I do not like this % thing at all, why black, white, muslim etc... why not simply Brummie and proud? Nick Boulevard 00:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not registered at the site but the link worked yesterday - I followed there form the Council website. However it doesn't seem to work today. Try this one [6]from the Council's website which should bring up a PDF document. This rounds to 2 decimal places not one and breaks the topline categories down into sub-categories - but the numbers add up the same. I don't find it important to 'reduce' the number of white people. I do find it important to quote accurate information rather than to make up figures! I didn't add the ethnicity stats box - it was already there - I have merely made sure the stats are correctly sourced. The terminology I have used is that of the census - my own opinions of its usefulness are beside the point. You appear to be implying I have some sort of agenda here. This is not the case - I noticed that the stats were incorrect and corrected them. As to whether it is appropriate to include ethnicity stats I would say yes for 2 reasons - firstly, most other pages on cities and boroughs in the UK do so - it is part of the standard template - see Manchester, City of Leeds, secondly one of the main statements about Birmingham in the article is "Birmingham is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the UK". The stats are the evidence that support this statement. Valiantis 20:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Birmingham is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the UK ~ I agree that this should stay and you are right to correct anything i may have added in error. I do feel a little discomfort at percentages though, as i already stated and you failed to answer... why not simply Brummie and proud? Nick Boulevard 23:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did answer this point. Firstly, the ethnicity demographics in the stats box is part of the standard template used for UK boroughs. If you wish to choose not to include such stats for Birmingham, I feel you need to make a good case for this exclusion - a decision to exclude something can be as much POV as a decision to include something. Secondly, if any article makes a statement about cultural diversity (or anything) and there are hard facts to back this up, my thinking is an encyclopedia should offer the hard facts. The use of the phrase 'Brummie and proud' suggests a strong degree of POV (in my opinion) - not a neutral approach. Valiantis 23:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well i guess you are right, my heart has ruled my head on this issue, if i can spare some time to give the subject some considerable thought then i may come back to you on this. :) Nick Boulevard 18:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

festival

should each festival section be merged into the appropriate category instead of a single area highlighting the events the city hosts? it's a bit pointless as it is because if you wnated to go to a music festival you would look under music first? or go to film and media for info on the film fest? Nick Boulevard 23:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've sort of half done this anyway, merging relevant links into the apropriate categories. Nick Boulevard 00:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moseley

Some photos have been added to Moseley by an anonymous user. They're not bad, but absolutely huge. Anyone fancy following it up and scaling them down? I have no idea how images work, sadly. Mattley 20:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inventors section

This article is getting a bit long again, I was thinking that perhaps the inventors section should probably go into its own article. G-Man 20:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I decided to start the invention section and i never thought it would grow so quickly, i've even left out a couple of other firsts for the city so as not to create a sprawl, maybe we could have a few sentences of the more important inventions and then a link to a main page like you suggest? Nick Boulevard 18:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brummagem

The user at the IP address 195.92.67.71 removed the comment about "Brummagem". The comment was true, and is part of Birmingham's history, and I've restored it. We want histories to be full, warts and all. As the Oxford english dictionary says:

1. a. Made in Birmingham. b. With primary allusion to counterfeit groats coined there in 17th c.; but, also, with later reference to plated and lacquered wares still manufactured there: Counterfeit, sham, not genuine; of the nature of a cheap or showy imitation.

1637 Calendar Dom. St. Papers 105 Those swords which he..pretends to be blades of his owne makeing are all bromedgham blades & forraine blades. 1688 T. BROWN, I coined heroes as fast as Brumingham groats. 1827 Blackw. Mag. XXII. Oct. 410/2 Brummagem Statesmen. 1853 LYTTON My Novel I. 120 (Hoppe) A work-table..inlaid with brass..in that peculiar taste which is vulgarly called Brummagem. 1861 A. K. H. BOYD Recreat. Country Pars. Ser. II. 47 The vulgar dandy, strutting along, with his Brummagem jewellery.

...and I've seen it in later use, in Punch from the 1890s for example.

It's just part of the history. At one time, Hong Kong manufacture was poor quality, and Japanese. It's just a phase in industrial development.

  • What utter nonsense, Birmingham was well known for it's desired gold and silver of extremeley high quality hence the Jewelry quarter, also guns and just about any other type of skilled manufacture eminates from the city. The quality of the city's workmanship has been exactly the same as every other major industrial or creative hot bed in the world... unskilled workmen will exist alongside the skilled, the two go hand-in-hand but i can asure that the shoddy workmanship was completely a by-product of the more extensive skilled industries and the fact you have likened Birmingham to Hong Kong manufacture and poor quality Japanese??? shows your bias i am afraid. rvrt :) 195.92.67.71 00:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you know anything about Birmingham you will know that in the city and its environs the word "Brummagem" means "Birmingham" and does not have these negative connotations ascribed to it. Also, it is the origin of the terms "Brum" and "Brummie", and belongs in the article. The word predates any perjorative meaning by several hundred years and has outlasted it. Leave it in and make it clear to the reader that it just means the city (which we do in the introduction). Detailed discussion belongs in the article on Brummagem. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Muslims in Brum

I agree with the removal of the section which refers to a certain percentage of muslims in Birmingham etc, if we wanted to be pedantic then we could boulster the fact that the city is a massive majority Christian (decendancy) but why bother... religious belief is played down in the Brum page so why add unnecessary antagononism. Nick Boulevard 01:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, Christians are the majority almost everywhere in Britain (Tower Hamlets might now be an exception). But to my opinion it is noteworthy when a particular religious minority is a characteristic feature of a certain city and equally when the respective city plays a role as religious centre for the repective group. Being the headquarter of important Muslim organisatiuons Brum qualifies for both. Marriex 08:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but the minority is just that, a minority and yes minorities do count towards the culture of a city but my point is that Birmingham is also home to many other large religious groups like Christian, Jewish and Sikh so the potential for more religious content on the page is quite apparent, the ethnicity population figures are mentioned as is the reference to other Asian influences on the city. Please can we keep religious links etc off this page, I just can't see it adding anything to the article. Thanks. Nick Boulevard 18:56, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the specific info on the number of Muslims in Birmingham is inappropriate in the introduction of this article - the introductory paragraph(s) should reflect the most definitive characteristics of the subject, so a general comment about Brum's cultural diversity is appropriate, hard stats on specifics are not. However I disagree that religious links should be kept off the page. At the last census almost 80% of the city professed a religion of some sort and several of the city's most notable institutions and buildings are religious in nature. I don't see that a NPOV recording of facts about religion in the city - e.g. 59.1% are Christian, 14.3 % are Muslim etc., B'ham is the centre of a Catholic archdiocese and an Anglican diocese etc. - could be seen as 'adding antagonism'. On the other hand, deliberately excluding references to religion is POV by omission. On this basis I plan on adding a section on Religion in the immediate future (in the same way there are currently sections on Economy, Culture, History, Education etc). Valiantis 19:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess a religion section could be added but my worry is that once you open the floodgates the page will be over-run with differing religions pulling this way and that, what about the population of the city that are non-believers? They might get turned off the page if it becomes another battle ground for religion, please can we leave it out of the page, we could add a link at the bottom of the page to a "religions" page. Nick Boulevard 00:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Religious section should restricted to demographic data and hte naming of important religious organisations/ institutions. Hoever, demographic data in generally should be removed from the introduction. Marriex 18:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think the purpose of an article is to be instructive to all readers - those local and those from the other side of the planet. I don't see that stating demographics and institutions will make the page a battleground. Demographics would include the fact that 12.4% of Birmingham residents stated they had no religion. The stats (as per the ones I quoted above re: ethnciity) are from the ONS Neighbourhood Statistics site but it appears you can't hotlink into individual pages. All stats can be seen here [7] but you will need to navigate to the Birmingham page independently. Valiantis 19:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before we continue Marriex and Valiantis, could i just ask an honest question... do either of you belong to any specific religion? I am from a Christian background. Nick Boulevard 23:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am an agnostic (and marked the census stating 'no religion'), but I had a Catholic upbringing. My interest in adding a religion section is:-
  • I feel Marriex's original edit re: the relatively high number of Muslims in Brum was pertinent info - the presence of a large Muslim minority has an effect on the character of the city and also arguably on the city's politics (see People's Justice Party (UK) and here [8]) but there was nowhere appropriate to include such info.
  • Birmingham is the see of an Anglican diocese and a Catholic Archdiocese - this is (IMO) pertinent info that is currently unrecorded and again has no obvious home in the existing sections.
  • If there are relevant facts about Islam and two Christian denominations, then there are likely to be similar facts about other religions.
I have already set up a skeleton article on Religion in Birmingham and I will add a link to the main page. Personally I think a short section on the main page is appropriate too for those who want an overview not an in-depth article, but as there is obviously no consensus on this (and given the existing article length issues), I won't add any sections for the time being. Valiantis 00:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that is a alot of work you have put in there and the page is well configured for more info, i know that Rastafarian has a large following also in the city as well as later day saints. I still do not think we need refer to any particular religion on the main article, what about... 'Birmingham is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the UK and is home to many faiths and non-believers. Nick Boulevard 18:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I can add your suggested wording to the sentence in question without it having a knock-on effect on the rest of the paragraph and I'm too dumb this evening to rephrase the paragraph to read smoothly. I'll stick with a link in 'see also' for now and hope inspiration strikes later! Helpful suggestion re: Rastafarianism - I'll have to research. I've also tweaked the Religion in Birmingham page to make the number of areligious people clear. Valiantis 18:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)