Talk:West Midlands (county)

message: In the history section of this article, it states that certain districts were absorbed by the County Boroughs in 1966.
This isn't quite correct, as a large number of the districts were in fact split.  For example, Wolverhampton did not absorb the entirety of Bilston MB, Wednesfield UD and Tettenhall UD, but a large proportion of each.  Quite large parts of Tettenhall UD are now in South Staffordshire district, a reasonable-sized part of Wednesfield UD are now in South Staffordshire, and a smaller part is now in Walsall MBC, and parts of Bilston UD are now in Dudley MBC and in Walsall MBC.  A small part of Willenhall UD isn't in Walsall MBC, but in Wolverhampton CC.
This section therefore should be rephrased. Steven J 14:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I have proposed the creation of WikiProject: West Midlands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#West Midlands. If you are interested in participating in the project, if created, please add your name to the list. Thank you. - Erebus555 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject: West Midlands proposal 

message: :Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

message: Could this unusual expression be explained? Does it mean a ceremonial county?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: a geographic frame of reference

message: Am I the only person who's never seen the recently added flag before? After a couple of quick searches online, I can't even see any indication that there actually is one. Matthew (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're not the only one.  I find it, erm, unlikely that any of the metropolitan county councils survived long enough and had enough time on their hands to start creating flags. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply a banner of the arms of the former county council: the design of the shield turned into a flag. Any armigerous body is free to make and fly a flag like this. However, as the county council has been extinct for 13 years now (a year longer than it existed!) it is hardly a current emblem. Also, it should be noted that the arms (and therefore flag) were the property/symbol of the council, not the county and are so are obsolete. I think it can safely be removed from the infobox. If there is any evidence that such a flag was ever made and flown by the council it can go down in the Local Government section where the county council is discussed.Lozleader (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not invented, a version of the flag appears on the crest of the West Midlands Police and the West Midlands Fire Service among other organisations. G-13114 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are emblems used on crests of organisations that operate within the metropolitan county. Neither means that the design is the "flag of the county". The design is a banner of the arms of the former county council. It's not a flag. --Inops (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So how come you can buy the said flag from various retailers such as herehere here or here? G-13114 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I understand it, flag retailers are free to label any design as the flag of a particular area. A good percentage of these from flagpoleexpress.co.uk are novel designs. --Inops (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Other Metropolitan Counties have their flags on their respective pages; all are in the same legal standing. In the view of consistency, the West Midlands one should remain - or all should be removed. Sammich28 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag passes the 'real world test' in that we have established that it is real and not made up as some have claimed; it is is used on the crests of several existing organisations, the former county council, and you can buy versions of the flag from various retailers. I can't therefore see any reason not to use it. G-13114 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned, flag retailers are free to sell any design they want. They could sell a pink on yellow pokerdot design as the "flag of the West Midlands" if they wanted. The "flag" is really the charge of the arms of West Midlands County Council -- some councils use/used this charge as a banner. None of that indicates that it is the county's "flag", merely that some institution uses it in their heraldry. That's the situation with the flag of Worcestershire, flag of Gloucestershire, flag of County Durham. In none of those situations do we recognise the (former) council banner as the county's flag. --Inops (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is the said flag used on the crests of the West Midlands Police and the West Midlands Fire Service if its made up and doesn't exist? The flag retailers haven't made it up, what we have is something which is verifiably described in outside sources as the flag of the West Midlands, it therefore passes Wikipedia:Verify it isn't original research. G-13114 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said its use in heraldry was "made up". The design is however wholly unofficial as a flag and shouldn't be included because of that. The arms of the former county council don't make it the flag of a county. For comparison, the Union Jack isn't in the Royal arms -- they have nothing to do with each other. Flag retailers don't meet the criteria of "[verifiable]...outside sources". --Inops (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag

message: To state bluntly that the West Midlands is a county (without any qualification) and talk about it bordering other counties like Worcestershire, etc. implies it has the same status as those counties (administrative and historic). Rather it is a rump, used only for statistical purposes and some rump administrative functions. The description of the West Midlands as a county should be qualified early in the article, otherwise it is misleading for people who are trying to get to grips with UK political geography. 
Note that the city-region stuff is now well out of date. Urbanewarrior (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a look at WP:UKCOUNTIES, and in particular the bit about metropolitan counties. The West Midlands is a metropolitan county and continues to have a full legal existence, albeit without a county council. It is not a "rump", it is just as much a county as Worcestershire in statute, still has a lord lieutenant and a high sheriff. Historic or ancient counties have zero "status", and the lead clearly identifies that it was formed from parts of Staffs, Warks and Worcs in 1974. The fact that the boroughs act in most ways as unitary authorities is also clearly stated. Describing it as not being a county would in fact be "misleading for people who are trying to get to grips with UK political geography" and would make things *more* confusing.  :-) . Lozleader (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a county like other counties 

message: There is an editor who uses IP addresses to edit articles to state that Hagley is in the West Midlands. It is not it is in Worcestershire on the borders of the West Midlands.  In this case the IP address used was 31.205.37.45.
The local sorting office for Hagley used to be in Stourbridge which was itself in Worcestershire. When the West Midlands metropolitan county was created, the Post office did not move its sorting offices, instead it changed its addressing method. The postal address was changed from  "Hagley, nr Stourbridge, Worcestershire" to "Hagley, Stourbridge, West Midlands" because Stourbridge was now in the West Midlands metropolitan county -- no inference shoudl be drawn from that, Hagley and the other villages in Worcestershire (such as Clent) that were/are served by the Stourbridge sorting remain in Worcestershire.
If another editor reinstates Hagley in this article then please revert the edit, point them to this section and ask them to explain why it should be included here. -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagely 

message: I propose History of the West Midlands be merged into West Midlands (county) on several grounds: 1. the county article already has a dedicated history section (West Midlands (county)#History) and this could be 'fleshed out' with the topics discussed in History of the West Midlands, 2. there are several points duplicated between the two articles, and 3. History of the West Midlands has a confusing title which could refer to the region, while the article itself refers to the metropolitan county. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammich28 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 July 2015‎
:This isn't at all sensible, give that the county was only formed in 1974, while the history article covers all periods. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not. History of the West Midlands only covers the metropolitan county, not the region. I suggest you re-read the article thoroughly. Sammich28 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on West Midlands (county). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315074635/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/metropolitan.asp to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/metropolitan.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/mayors
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello! I've just made a BOLD edit to the infobox collage to reduce the number of images from eight to four. The previous layout had an image for each metropolitan borough, which was equitable but made for rather cramped images; I've reduced it to the four images of the largest settlements in the county: Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, and Solihull. While I acknowledge the old layout was more representative, I think think is a good compromise between fairness and image quality. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be seven images today: and what do they tell me about the county? That it has a lot of buildings. No open spaces. No particularly exciting individual buildings. Really the list of town/district names does the same job as that set of images. Nothing gives a newcomer to the article much impression of modern vitality, industrial heritage, open spaces, culture, etc. PamD 11:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the present collage is an improvement on some versions that went before, it leaves me rather Steve Austin. As you say, surely, these collages need to reflect something more than non-descript shopping parades, town hall and aerial shots. Then again, perhaps the general image of the West Midlands is bland and these images reflect a neutral POV? Anyway, here's links to possible replacement images. Just ideas. Birmingham bull , Sutton Park  Black Country Museum (to represent the Black Country as a whole, canals and history)  and Coventry Cathedral, symbol of history and recovery after WWII bombing . Rupples (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox collage