Talk:Birmingham/Archive 5

message: I think this article is getting rather long and out of control, it seems to grown enormously since I last saw it. Perhaps the culture section and some other parts, should be moved into a seperate article perhaps?, as that seems to take up more than half of it. Having read through it, It seems somewhat perverse that history and government sections are relegated to sub-pages, whilst culture is not. I shall return to see what has happened in a week or so. Gem 20:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Culture is what makes Brum unique from any where else in the world Gem, Government, travel etc is important also but it doesn't really give a feel for the city, the transport infrastructure and council will shift like sand but culture is there always, from inventions to musicians and it should stay on the main page. It gives the city identity. After having said that i do agree that some sections could be shortened with their own pages, please discuss here before doing anything drastic. :) Nick Boulevard 00:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The info from Birmingham at War section rightly belongs in the History of Birmingham article. It would expand a fairly short section on the war there whilst reducing the main article considerably and avoiding duplication. The 'nearby places' section seems to be unnecessary especially as the page already contains links to surrounding areas in the 'Districts of England - West Midlands' template at the bottom of the page. Valiantis 21:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd missed the specific link to the Birmingham military history article - in which case that is the proper place for the info in the Birmingham at War section - currently it just seems to duplicate. The Birmingham at War section could be reduced to at most a couple of paragraphs. Personally, I'd suggest not having a seperate section but just linking to the detailed B'ham military history article from the existing History overview section and also cross-linking the History of Birmingham with the Military History article. Valiantis 00:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the nearby places should probably stay as it doesn't take up much space. I agree with Valaintis about the Millitary history. Also I think that the inventors section is somewhat specialist, and doesn't really belong on the main page, it probably should be put into its own article. I also agree with Gem that something about transport and government should be put on the main article. G-Man 22:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally each existing topic could have a short section on the main page (say 2 to 4 paragraphs) with a link to a separate page with a more in-depth article - I think there is sufficient scope to do this for each of the existing sections (and thus add back in brief Transport and Government sections to the main page). The Wales page is an example of this format (though the page itself is a bit of a mess at the moment). The Popular Music sub-section could probably stand to be a section in its own right with a linked in-depth article. To my mind Birmingham's history of invention and industry is central to the character of the city and the Inventors section should stay on the main page (at least as a summary section linked to a separate in-depth article). It might be worth renaming it 'Science and Industry'. Still don't see the point of the Nearby Places, regardless of its size. Valiantis 18:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I posted the above over a week ago and no-one has objected in principle to what I'm proposing. I'm therefore about to create subject-specific articles for each of the sections of this article that do not already have them and include a link at the head of each section. The initial text of each subject-specific article will be a cut-and-paste from the existing section, therefore none of the current text will be lost. The aim then will be to re-write each section to highlight the most salient points and give a broad-brush overview - obviously this will hopefully be a collaborative effort. Why does this need to be done? 1) The article now clocks in at 55KB which is about 60% longer than the guidelines recommend. 2) Because of the length (and the lack of organisation of some sections) it is hard for the reader who is not already knowledgeable about the city to sort out the essential (e.g. Birmingham's major role in the industrial revolution) from the illustrative and interesting but trivial (e.g Birmingham's major role in the invention of Brylcreem). There's a place for both on Wikipedia, but when there is so much to say about Brum, the main article should concentrate on the essential, and leave the interesting detail to a series of clearly linked sub-articles. Valiantis 21:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two other tweaks whilst doing the above: - I made 'Film & media' a subsection of 'Culture and arts' and not an independent section. I renamed 'Inventors & invention', as 'Science and invention' as several of the individuals mentioned (e.g. Galton and Hall-Edwards) were not inventors as such and the new rubric is more inclusive. Valiantis 21:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Might I suggest that anyone adding new info now either adds it to the subject-specific article only, or adds it to the subject-specific article as well as the main article. If this is not done, then info may get 'lost' as the main page articles are edited down Valiantis 17:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: looks great, could we still include the architect from the city though? cheers 195.92.67.68 12:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you mean Ken Shuttleworth? He's still on the Architecture of Birmingham page. Has he actually built anything in the city yet? To my mind, it unbalances the "main page" section to pick one architect especially if he hasn't actually designed any buildings here and his work is not necessarily typical of the 'look' of the city. The section is IMO about the architecture of B'ham not architects from B'ham - who might more reasonably be covered in a section of the sub-article. Of course, if you disagree, add him back in to the main page, preferably contextually - I won't remove him. Valiantis 21:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: No, your right. :) Nick Boulevard 23:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is very long

message: I removed the reference to this building for the paragraph beginning Many Georgian, Tudor, Edwardian and Elizabethan buildings still survive dotted around the city as the Workhouse founded in 1734 appears to have been knocked down when the Victoria Law Courts were built over 100 years ago and there isn't even a street called Lichfield St in the city centre anymore! There is a single building of the replacement workhouse opened in 1852 in Winson Green still standing but that isn't Georgian and IMO scarcely worth mentioning in the main body of the article even under a discussion of Victorian buildings. See here. Valiantis 17:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Birmingham Workhouse in Lichfield St 

message: Lime juice was produced in the city??? That's not what the source here actually says. I don't think you can cultivate the lime in the climate of the English Midlands.
More to the point, can this paragraph be defined as central to an understanding of the city? I'd suggest not. Can it not be added to the Arts in Birmingham sub-article - which includes all of the text of the Food & Drink subsection - or perhaps better to a separate sub-article on Food & Drink (which sits uneasily in a culture section IMO)? Valiantis 00:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I changed the text to my own version, by the way surely the production of Lime Juice in the food industry is relating to extraction etc, the article doesn't say "grown in the city"? It's a bit of food history that I certainly never knew Nick Boulevard 23:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lime juice 

message: I don't really know why I'm laughing but to those that don't know Any Mabbett... he deleted quite a lot of my work here and then argued till we were ALL blue in the face, I know it's you Andy because I noticed you deleted the references to Nick Mason form Pink Floyd and the Traffic additions (re: Hendrix) and also the following sentence that you added to the Hip Hop section: and sometimes inconveniencing. I haven't even looked at the band Traffic but I am guessing you removed from Birmingham... lets have a look! :) Nick Boulevard 22:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Return of Andy Mabbett

message: G-mans pics to the music section looked great, i like the new pic added of the museum too, if i provide a pic of some graffiti on a tow path or alike could someone add this to the art section please? Nick Boulevard 195.92.67.69 22:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: As almost no progress has been made since I was last here I have decided to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Be bold in editing and make some fairly drastic changes to the article. Hopefully broadly in line with the discussions above.
I have replaced the sprawling culture section with a summary. I have deleted some superfluous sections off the main page but added prominent links to them on the relevant sections.
I have also added summaries of politics and transport which were missing before. And have re-arranges several sections.
I agree this is rather drastic, but nothing was happening here before. I think this is now a far more concise and readable article. Gem 23:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The culture summary could perhaps be a bit longer but I'm broadly OK with the changes. This article certainly needed some slimming down. I dont know what other people will make of it G-Man 20:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I have reverted to the last full version, we all agree that it is too long but that is why we were discussing it here, I have just trimmed the science section to a bite size edit, I promise I will do the same with the sprawling popular music article by this weekend, I will do as I promised earlier and combine Valiants fine wording, and Gem, Valiantis carried out quite a few stream line edits not so long ago like sport etc, since he/she did this the page has risen to  pr of 6 on google which means that the main page is becoming more important on the net and hence any major deletions without discussion could alter this. If you wish to add the government section again then I will revert that? Thanks Nick Boulevard 19:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I have reverted again but I will now restore what gem has added in transport and politics and I promise you all that I will radically reduce the culture section by this weekend which is the main culprit for the size of the page, since Valiantis trimmed the page a few weeks back I have been gradually fixing links back to Birmingham and the Google pr rating now reads 6 instead of 5 which is amazing, any massive alterations to the page could undo months of hard work, trust me. Nick Boulevard 19:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for deleting that but it's restored now :) there are many areas that need cutting back on but please, please discuss here first, it was a great idea to add these sub pages but if it will lead to the main page becoming and index again then I totally am against that, other city pages are packed with info especially culture, Brum is bursting with culture and culture, and the science and invention is what our forefathers built the city's foundations on, like I say I will take a break from adding anything and concentrate on reducing with the help of others. Thanks :) Nick Boulevard 20:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed war section on main page also, food will be next :) Nick Boulevard 20:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Where is Harborne on the main page districts? 195.92.67.65 23:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Harborne