Talk:Birmingham/Archive 1

message: Re: more canals more parkland and more trees etc.
The usual litany goes something like: "more canals than Venice, more parks than Paris, more trees per head of population than Milton Keynes; and the Number 50 is the most regular bus route in Europe".
It is easily extended thus: "more Big Issue sellers than Dundee, more traffic circles than New York City, more wrongly-convicted IRA bombers than Guildford".
:I was the one that originally included the inevitable Venice comment, at the time I found a webpage that some guy with plenty of time has put together which 'proved' the statement from OS maps... sadly it seems to have disappeared from google so I can't add it as a source. :( Pete 08:51, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: No sooner do I type that than think of a better search term and get a hit on the first page. The page was this one:  Pete 08:54, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: More canals than...

message: The following paragraph is not NPOV but contains elements that could be put back in the article rephrased. -- Sam 13:05, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Birmingham people, or "Brummies"", are generally hard working with an unusual sense of humour that is quite unique, it is often said that "you can always tell a Brummie, but you cant tell him much".
*fixed Andy Mabbett 13:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: you can always tell a Brummie...

message: I dont think sub-headings are surposed to be used for short sentences, IMO there should be at least two paragraphs for something to justify having it's own sub-heading. It just makes the article look looks messy and unreadable. G-Man 00:20, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Subheadings 1

message: I suggest we try and move on from the debate about subheadings and focus on making the "transport" section of this article as good as it can be. It is currently lacking information about bus services, among other things. 
Having looked at a number of other city articles (eg. Amsterdam, Coventry, London) and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities page (which makes no mention of transport), I think it's obvious there is no standard approach to transport sections of city articles yet. So maybe we can start here by suggesting a general structure: most of the good articles I looked at listed Public transport as a header, then some listed Roads etc. Another interesting one to note is the Venice article, which, due to its unique transport situation, has a "transportation" section which mainly discusses the canals, then mentions an airport. Thoughts? And any comments on the structure I just introduced in the article? --Sam 18:39, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transport section 

message: How about an article on the West Midlands conurbation? It just struck me that the second sentence of the paragraph below is superflous in a Birmingham article, and I think a simple link to a "West Midlands conurbation" article would suffice! Any thoughts? --Sam 23:21, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The city is situated in the West Midlands conurbation, of which it forms the largest part. Along with the city of Wolverhampton, the Black Country and a number of surrounding towns, this conurbation consists of around 2.25 million people.
I think the West Midlands (County) article coveres that subject perfectly well G-Man 17:34, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Conurbation

message: There are way too many unneccesary sub-headings in this article and it is a complete mess, the TOC is almost as long as the article. I shall continue to revert it to a sensible version whenever I get an oppertunity G-Man 22:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Subheadings 3

message: I think there is enough material in the history section of this article for it to go into its own History of Birmingham article, where it could probably be expanded upon, and the main Birmingham article brought back to a sensible size. Does anyone agree/disagree. If no one objects I'll do just that in the next few days G-Man 21:46, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: According to this story  the 2001 census has been highly innacurate at recording the population of large cities, and so it's figures should be treated with a pich of salt. 
I find the 2001 census figures for Birmingham somewhat suspect, for example the 1991 census recorded a population of 1,017,000, but the 2001 census recorded a population of 977,000. 
I find it hard to believe somehow that the population of Birmingham has shrunk by nearly 40,000 in ten years.
I think this article should list the 1997 population estimate of 1,014,000 rather than the 2001 census results as it is likely to be more accurate. Does anyone agree/disagree. G-Man 21:17, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind what figures we use as long as we use the same figures throughout the encyclopedia consistently.  Personally my preference would be for 2001 census as it is so complete, if not infallible, but if we can find equally complete estimates, that's fine.  Census doesn't give us figures for populations of towns within districts anyway. Morwen 21:45, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently the 2001 census was a bit of a cock-up and has been widely criticised. Several cities have had their populations undercounted, on some occasions by tens of thousands. So the 2001 results for Birmingham are hard to believe.
I still find it hard to believe somehow that 40,000 people have "dissapeared". If you look at the Esparanto WP link it uses the 1997 population estimate for Birmingham rather than the 2001 census results. G-Man 21:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: Is this supposed to be a joke?
:(pronounced Burmingum)
I don't think that's at all appropriate to have in the first line of the article, or anywhere really. Angela. 23:37, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Is it to distinguish from the American way of saying Birming-ham , Alabama? Or a pot-shot at the Brum accent? Maybe both! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:01, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only pronounced "Burmingum" by those making fun of the accent, although probably "Buuuuurmingum" would be more like that. I've never heard it actually pronounced that way. Angela. 15:58, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)
Actually it was to distinguish it from Birmingham, Alabama, I dont see anything wrong with adding a note about pronounciation, it is done on Leicester and Towcester and suchforth. G-Man 14:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: Why can't we put it at Birmingham (United Kingdom) and make Birmingham a dis-ambiguation page?? User 66.32.73.125
:Cause' Birmingham in England is the largest and most linked to place called Birmingham, and it is wikipedia convention that the most well known place of a particular name should have the namespace to itself, and provide links to other places of that name. If we were to do as you say then we would have to do the same with London, Paris etc etc. G-Man 00:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Where should this page be??

message: Beware the 70s, 80s and 90s! Follow the links and you will see that they are not the same as the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. --rbrwrˆ 
:Agree, but I merely removed the meaningless apostrophes. Feel free to insert appropriate links Shantavira 17:09, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Decades

message: I changed the bit about the fictitious characters in the Archers visiting Birmingham, to the fact that the actors themselves live in and around Birmingham. However, the original writer might have been trying to make a point that they visit Birmingham in the story, which would be reasonable, since it is set in the Midlands. However, it seems to me that either statement is quite unremarkable, not to say obvious, and this sentence could be dropped. Shantavira 07:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archers