Talk:Birmingham/Archive 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 00:45, 8 August 2023

This is an archive of past discussions about Birmingham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

New Montage

We've had the current montage for a long time now and I think it's time that we changed. Many new things have appeared in Birmingham since that montage was created and It would help if we updated it to suit how Birmingham really is. If any body has any montages please post them here and please comment on this idea. Many thanks.--Sploderjak (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming a bit of a tradition! The situation's pretty much the same now as it was before Christmas when you raised the issue before here. The current montage has a rationale behind it documented here, but is certainly up for debate and consensus as with any wikipedia content. I'm not sure that Birmingham's changed that much in the last 18 months though - what do you think should be there, and in place of what from the existing montage? JimmyGuano (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be cautious of any proposed changes, they would need to be well thought out and rationally considered before implementing. That said, the new Library springs to mind..... Pahazzard (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Will you add the Birmingham library in the montage? The Alpha tower really is quite embarrassing. It's empty as well. The new library is supposedly the largest in Europe, which I think makes it a new, as well as distinct landmark. I don't think many people like to think about the Alpha tower or consider it as something remarkable or unique about Birmingham. How many or what percentage of users are required to request a change before it is considered a consensus according to Wikipedia rules? Thank you. Phantomcrown (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phantomcrown. I'm not sure that I know how to make the necessary changes to the photo-montage! But before that I would think it prudent to gather some comments and suggestions from whomever regularly watches or patrols this particular page. I'm not up to speed on Wikipedia protocols for these sort of things, but I am sure that there is someone who will point out some pertinent guidance on this issue Pahazzard (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The library is certainly notable and distinctive enough to go in the montage. Which picture of it do you think would work best?

If we do add the library it arguably ought to replace Selfridges rather than Alpha Tower though, as it is similarly a 21st century building. Alpha's there to represent the city's post-war architecture. Although the popular image of the city as wall-to-wall 70s stuff is unfair, at the same time the city was redeveloped under Manzoni to an extent probably unparalleled in the UK. Birmingham still bears the mark of this and the montage probably ought to reflect it one way or another.

Having something to represent the city's notable and very visible multiculturalism is also a good idea, though the image of the mosque that appeared for a bit was just a rubbish photo. There might be a better way though?

I've got a psd of the existing montage so can easily make changes without leading to generation loss on the jpg once we've all agreed what we should do. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So what buildings should be included and which buildings should be replaced? Also, there's a montage near the bottom of this page which reflects more of the modern buildings in Birmingham. It's still a fantastic montage. --Sploderjak (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to replace Selfridges with the Library if that's the consensus, but it's not clear that it is, it's just me making a suggestion at the moment (the library seems to have a lot of support in general though). I'm not quite sure how the Bloc hotel one is better than what we've got, though - a lot of the pictures could be anywhere, they're hardly distinctive to Birmingham. That page has also got a different job to do - it's there to market the city to visitors, ours is to represent the city to encyclopaedia readers. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll start off by saying that I am inexperienced with Wikipedia protocols on these things, I am merely assuming that after garnering some thoughts and ideas we might have some sort of consensus (support/neutral/oppose, etc) on a number of proposed images. However after 1 week since suggesting such a course of action I am somewhat surprised by the lack of comments. Surely there are more than 5 people who watch this page??? I'm happy to give it one more week and them firm up on proposals. What I'm keen to avoid however is any of us making changes which then end up in an edit war - or am I being overly cautious/pessimistic perhaps? My personal preferences are to include the new Library, and possibly something around Brindley Place. Rather than replacing an image(s) in the current montage, is it possible perhaps to add more images and/or increase the physical size of the montage perhaps, as London or New York City?Pahazzard (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to add more images, though the London montage actually has the same number of images as the existing Birmingham one, they're just far too large and mean that on a mobile phone you have to scroll down two and a half pages just to reach the first bit of content. The point made at WP:UKCITIES remains a good one - "A small number of bold, identifiable, well-chosen images will represent the settlement more effectively than a greater number of less distinct images appearing at lower resolutions". We also need to be wary of the dangers of WP:RECENTISM: Birmingham isn't Dubai and most of it wasn't built over the last two decades - we don't want to fill the image up with the city's newest and shiniest buildings at the expense of being properly representative. If we add the Library how about adding the School of Art instead of Brindleyplace? As the most important building by arguably the city's most important architect, and the centre of the Arts and Crafts revival in the late nineteenth century that tied in with the Civic Gospel and was to have global political and cultural impact, it's a lot more notable than a bunch of office blocks.

Re consensus, I don't think it's that scientific, we just move ahead when we've reached agreement, which we feel pretty close to? JimmyGuano (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The montage is probably looking a bit tired now compared to other city montages. For what its worth i think the skyline picture should stay. There should also be a picture of Town Hall and Birmingham Cathedral but maybe better ones. The Library should be put in there, and the University of Birmingham should stay as is. Maybe another of Sutton Park the largest urban park in Europe or something that shows our industrial heritage, i don't know what though. Also maybe the canals theres a good picture of seen by Brindleyplace.Bs0u10e01 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

OK how about this. [1] I've added the new library, which seems uncontroversial. I couldn't find any pictures of Sutton Park that didn't look like any other park anywhere in the world - its main distinguishing feature is its sheer vastness but that's hard to capture in a photograph. I've therefore added a picture of Matthew Boulton's Soho House as a representative of the city's pivotal role in the Industrial revolution. I've replaced the picture of the cathedral with a bolder and clearer one that focuses on the dome. The Town Hall picture still seems by far the best of the ones available. I still have a nagging feeling this is now too big, but I seem to be in a minority of one on that one. Thoughts? JimmyGuano (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done an alternative here: [2] See what you think. Bs0u10e01 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The graphic designer in me isn't convinced, I'm afraid! The challenge with a montage is that if all the pictures are different sizes and shapes then it just looks a mess, but at the same time you want each picture to look properly composed in its own right so you can't just crop things at random to fit. Those pictures of St Philips and the University of Birmingham are too obviously cut off abruptly half way down, for example. And given that most people looking at this won't have seen the city before having the picture of the Town Hall in darkness just seems perverse. That picture of the Bull Ring look very useful though, but I can't work out where you got it from? JimmyGuano (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree yours looks neater and more symmetrical. Its just i think you could use better pictures in the case of the library and selfridges which i don't like. I think my picture of the library is better, even if i am biased. The picture of the Bullring is [3] if you substituted some of your pictures i would think it would look great. Bs0u10e01 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How about the use of {{Photomontage}}? It's not great, but allows changed without uploading a totally new montage, although the images need to be the same size so it fits.

List of images here.

-- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 23:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I really like the above. The only comment would be that there is too much sky in the Bullring picture. I can trim it in commons. Bs0u10e01 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That montage template looks really useful, and should give us much more flexibility in the future. The mock up doesn't look a million miles away either, though could do with a bit more balance in terms of image size and proportion. I'll have a go with recropping some pictures and we can chop and change them until it works. Still not convinced by the nighttime Town Hall shot though, and good though that Library shot is, the other one seems to capture its unusual shape and texture better. JimmyGuano (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

How about this? New image of the library, a better image of the cathedral, a good balance between old and new and the black seems to make it all stand out a bit more. I couldn't crop the other Bull Ring image in a way that fitted into the montage without dominating it without making it to small to be clearly intelligible, but I found another image that also had the church and Selfridges together with some towers in the background in a way that seemed to slot in nicely. It's also simple, ordered and concise, fitting nicely on a mobile screen. Any good? JimmyGuano (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy that is very good i like the black trim and think the number of pictures is right similar to other montages for other cities. Still i think my library picture or the one on the wiki page for the Library are better than the one you used. I am a huge fan of the architecture of the library and think when the sun hits the gold section on the front the building is at its most striking and when i see pictures taken of it that don't show this or taken on cloudy days are doing the building a huge disservice. Bs0u10e01 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the great things about this new template thing is that it's easy to test versions. I've added in a crop of your photograph from the Library article into a second sandbox montage. Personally I think that that photo (and the more rectilinear one in the mockup further up this page) work better as standalone images than as part of the montage. They're almost too dramatic to sit comfortably alongside less stylised shots – the very thing that makes that picture work so well as the headline image on the library's own page makes it work less well as part of an ensemble. It's a great shot though so if the consensus disagrees I'll happily go along with it. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added a third option with this image of the library - File:Library of Birmingham 2014-05-17 crop.jpg - which might just be the best of both worlds? It has a lovely lustrous quality to the glass as well. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, I think the first of your three should be used as the Birmingham montage. You should put it on the page. It is an improvement on the current one and looks very good. Bs0u10e01 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Just back from holiday - I'll update it now. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks really good. I'm just sorry that I have not been around enough to help more with this, but the new montage has no objections from me. Pahazzard (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Birmingham suburban rail

Does Birmingham suburban rail have a unified brand or even overseer? I ask, because I can't seem to find a page. You can find articles for the individual lines, but not a system-wide page for Birmingham suburban train services. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's an article at Transport in Birmingham and Urban rail in the United Kingdom. G-13114 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this page, but does the system not have a single/individual branding? It's amazing for a system this large there is not an independent article; this is highyl unusual. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that London Midland City is the current branding. It used to be Centro branded until about ten years ago. G-13114 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of cities by size

@JimmyGuano: you say people expect to see cities ordered by size of local authority area, but this actually causes some degree of WP:ASTONISH. For example, I had a book some years ago that made a list by ripping off the list at List of English districts by population, sticking Greater London on the top, and then ripping out any other London boroughs and entries that are not cities, to give something like:

Rank	District	Population
1	London	8,416,535
2	Birmingham	1,074,300
3	Leeds	750,700
4	Sheffield	551,800
5	Bradford	523,100
5	Manchester	502,900
6	Liverpool	465,700
7	Bristol	428,100
8	Leicester	329,600
9	Wakefield	326,400
10	Coventry	325,949
11	Wigan	318,100
12	Dudley	313,300
13	Nottingham	303,900
14	Doncaster	302,500

I'd argue this ranking isn't what people "expect" - Bradford bigger than Manchester? Using the census urban places population or urban/metro populations would be more in line with common perceptions. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Number of mosques

I've reverted MiBorg's addition of the number of mosques in Birmingham to the article. It was based on this source. I'm not sure if that meets WP:RS, but regardless of that, it appears to include mosques in places that are near, but not part of, Birmingham, such as West Brom and Halesowen. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Google Map that is displayed will show PoIs for every mosque in the frame including any from neighbouring areas. The list that bis displayed in the left frame is all those that fall within the 8 Birmingham parliamentary constituencies and 12 from within Halesowen and Rowley Regis(3), Warley(6), and West Bromwich East(3). I'm happy to amend the entry to note exclusion of these 12, but the total does not include a similar number of others within Birmingham that appear on the map that are classed 'E' in the source's reliability index (i.e. the information is old and unreliable). In respect of WP:RS, I am the owner of the source website; the data is crowd-sourced, verified by me, and published back to "the crowd". I and the website are a cited authority on the subject matter: briefly citations include British Religion in Numbers (brin.ac.uk), Innes Bowen's recent "Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent", the Defence Academy of the UK's Shrivenham Papers Number 1, OSCE's ODIHR (http://tandis.odihr.pl/?p=country,gbr,tool&qid=6b6e41dadf4d07c45d1d79026f20dea8&format=doc_list&sort=pubdate&items=5&offset=55), and a number of academic citations referencing my name or the MuslimsInBritain.org website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiBorg (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, MiBorg. I will post on the reliable sources noticeboard to garner opinions on use of your source. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern about West Bromwich and Halesowen. I have amended my database and therefore the map results so that the only places that show Birmingham as the postal town are those that fall within the parliamentary constituencies "Birmingham, Ladywood, Birmingham, xxx..." etc. (Exceptionally these are recorded as individual boroughs in the data I published because otherwise the data set for Birmingham local authority is unwieldy for the use to which most users put it - Birmingham is much bigger than any other single unified authority in the UK.)

Regarding authority of MuslimsInBritain.org as a source, actually it is the only comprehensive and validated primary source for this data. Here are some academic and journalistic citations of this point: A. "I found that the most detailed, publicly available research had not been carried out in a university or government department, but in the spare bedroom of a terraced house in London. The man who has done all of this (unpaid) research is Mehmood Naqshbandi, an English convert to Islam who works full time in IT. For many years his job took him to different parts of Britain, and wherever he went he sought out a local mosque in which to worship. He started to share his knowledge of mosque, locations, size and affiliation on a website. The numbers of visitors to the sire grew rapidly. Naqshbandi estimated that the site was receiving over 120,000 unique visitors per month by March 2013. The site's popularity has brought with it the opportunity to 'crowd source' information as users contact Naqshbandi with updates and corrections. After the UK Census, the site is the single most useful dataset on Islam in Britain." Innes Bowen, "Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent", Hurst Publishers, 2014, Page 6. Innes Bowen is a noted BBC journalist and producer.

B. "Mehmood Naqshbandi at the excellent Muslims in Britain site and online directory has been running a project for several years to identify every active mosque (masjid) in England and Wales, and has reached a count of 1595 mosques – some way above the officially-registered total of 870. He suggests that perhaps as many as 20% of the entries for mosques in the official Register are for mosques which no longer exist, while the running total does not capture about half of the actual Muslim places of worship. In some cases, this may be because they are prayer rooms within universities or similar, or exist as facilities within larger community and cultural centres, and therefore there is no financial benefit in registering. ... He is currently working through his own files and the Register to categorise mosques in Britain in as much detail as possible: by administrative boundary, religious tradition, size, location and so forth. The project also aims to uncover where under- or over-registration is most prevalent. The most recent summary of his data is available here [link to MuslimsInBritain.org]. We will write more in due course on Naqshbandi’s fascinating data later, but provide the link to interested readers now." Siobhan McAndrew, British Religion In Numbers (BRIN), http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2011/places-of-worship-in-england-and-wales-1999-2009/ BRIN is based at the University of Manchester.

C. "Mosques "By far the best source of information about mosques in the UK is the database maintained by Mehmood Naqshbandi as part of the (unofficial) Muslims in Britain website. According to the latest report generated from the database, on 19 October 2014 and extending to 64 pages, there are 1,743 active mosques (including prayer rooms) in the UK, of which 1,625 are in England (an estimated 37% being registered as charities). They belong to a variety of Islamic traditions, but with Deobandi (43%) and Bareilvi (24%) being the most dominant. There are 59 mosques which accommodate more than 2,000 people, the largest being a Bareilvi mosque in Bradford, with space for 8,000. The data are also analysed by parliamentary constituencies and local authorities. The report can be downloaded from: http://www.muslimsinbritain.org/resources/masjid_report.pdf "An earlier (April 2013) snapshot of the database was recently summarized on pp. 6-7 of Innes Bowen, Medina in Birmingham, Najaf in Brent: Inside British Islam (London: Hurst & Company, 2014, x + 230p., ISBN 9781849043014, paperback). At that time, there were 1,664 mosques in the UK with an estimated capacity of 837,000. Bowen’s book is a useful introduction to the diversity of British Islam and its constituent ideologies and cultures." Clive Field, British Religion In Numbers, March 1, 2015, http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/page/2/

D. "Naqshbandi would go on to ... host the most authoritative guide to Muslim Britain on the internet" Dr Robert Lambert, "Countering Al-Qaeda in London: Police and Muslims in Partnership" Page 59, Hurst Publishers, 2011

E. "The most comprehensive mapping of mosques in Britain in terms of such 'schools of thought'" [...] "This data is drawn from the exhaustive research produced by Mehmood Naqshbandi that includes ethnicity, maslak and estimated size of congregations. It can be found on his website ...." Dr Philip Lewis, University of Bradford, in "Pakistan and Its Diaspora: Multidisciplinary Approaches" page 171, by Marta Bolognani, ‎Stephen M. Lyon, Palgrave Macmillan 2011.

F. Bibliography citation in Islam in the West: Key Issues in Multiculturalism By Max Farrar, ‎Simon Robinson, ‎Yasmin Valli, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

G. "Figures are taken from the largest ongoing survey and comprehensive directory of British mosques, by Mehmood Naqshbandi (www.muslimsinbritain.org) ... Figures supplied November 2008." The Change Institute, "The Pakistani Muslim Community in England - Understanding Muslim Ethnic Communities" page 40, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, 2009

I hope that helps. MiBorg (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Do any of these secondary sources report a figure for Birmingham based on your data? If so, it was suggested in the RS noticeboard discussion that we use the secondary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag

One or more IP editors have replaced file:Flag of Birmingham.svg with a new promotional image. No evidence, other than a claimed BCC press release mentioned in one edit summary, has been offered that the older flag has been superseded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the new flag is a "community flag", whereas the existing one remains as the city's "civic flag". The information about it on Birmingham City Council's website doesn't say much about its use. In the competition announcement, the deputy lord mayor is quoting as saying "You may well think that Birmingham already has a flag, but this isn't the case. The flag flying over the Council House belongs to the council and no one is allowed to fly it without permission". Cordless Larry (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Birmingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on Birmingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Birmingham. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/mayors
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=26205&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=11333
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media?MEDIA_ID=172964
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=37342&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=126
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=23945&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=5247
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=76113&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=260
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=24761&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=12535
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=2474&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=260
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=89806&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=10277
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=19750&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1453
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=13971&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1453
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=1787&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=5255

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on Birmingham. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6H7Jql2A9?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fresearch%2Finteractives%2Fglobal-metro-monitor-3 to http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6H7Jql2A9?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fresearch%2Finteractives%2Fglobal-metro-monitor-3 to http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010004859/http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2010t.html to http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2010t.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/mayors
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bham.ac.uk/about/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=2392&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=10596
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/images/wmgifs/wmgeol.GIF
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpservicez-searcharticles.com/article.detail.php/179361/17/Travel/144/Vacations/The_Geography_of_Birmingham
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=26205&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=11333
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/Media?MEDIA_ID=172964
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6563&More=Y
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6MIIQzzCP?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leeds.gov.uk%2Fdocs%2FLEH%252004%2520Leeds%2520Economy.pdf to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/LEH%2004%20Leeds%20Economy.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=37342&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=126
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=23945&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=5247
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=76113&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=260
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=24761&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=12535
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.memonline.com/news8.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pub-explorer.com/wmids/pub/ladinlaneerdington.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=2474&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=260
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gees.bham.ac.uk/research/cpp/membersfiles/phil/leebankabstract.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=89806&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=10277
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=19750&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1453
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.future-systems.com/company/awards.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=13971&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=1453
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/canals
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centro.org.uk/wwwroot/Bus/Bus
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bgfl.org/services/nqt/primsec.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bgfl.org/services/nqt/sen.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kingedwardthesixth.org/grammar.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=1787&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=5255
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928204852/http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/xray to http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/xray
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marketingbirmingham.com/media_office/fun_facts/fun_facts_sport/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thebears.co.uk/history/alumni/brianlara.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.broadstreetbid.com/flash/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506154335/http://www.transdiffusion.org:80/emc/studioone/circles.php to http://www.transdiffusion.org/emc/studioone/circles.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frankfurt.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=502645
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705094933/http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns to http://www.completefrance.com/language-culture/twin-towns

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Birmingham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Headline should read as the Second City of Great Britain and as a major world city, please give permission for this

please give permission for this Brettspry (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Demonym

Should the demonym linked to the page about the Birmingham accent? Surely the demonym should refer to the name of e people from there and not their accent. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on Birmingham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

New Montage

We've had this montage since around 2014 which is 3 years ago and as a resident, I can tell you a few changes have been made to the city, namely the new New Street station and the mass redevelopment of the city centre, including city centre tramways. Does anyone else think a new montage is necessary? Also I saw Manchester got a new montage at some point this year also. (Which is not really relevant but worth noting) Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Birmingham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Birmingham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birmingham. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Population

The statement in the first paragraph that Birmingham is the most populous city in the UK seems counter-intuitive and (if true) might need some explanation to the reader by way of a footnote. My understanding is that Birmingham is in fact the most populous city because the City of London and the area of Greater London are considered separately in terms of population, therefore London as a city is not the most populous. If you look at the table in the List of cities in the United Kingdom article, this shows Birmingham to have the highest population and the City of London is way down the list. Just to confuse matters, if you look at the Demography of Birmingham article, it states that Birmingham is the second most populous city in the UK, so does that need to be changed? Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Alas no-one wants to talk to me about this! @Moriori: can you help here? I would be tempted to alter the Demography of Birmingham article so it states that Birmingham is the most populous city in the UK, with a footnote explaining the reasoning, and something similar in the main Birmingham article. Today's minor edit (and my reversion) have highlighted that it is still an area of confusion. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The figure in the List of cities in the United Kingdom article is out of step with the rest of that list as it quotes a year of 2013, the whole list should be brought up to 2013 or the Birmingham entry should be reverted back to a 2011 figure to be compatible. Keith D (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Birmingham

@Kbb2: Locally the 'g' is pronounced quite strongly so another form would be:

/-mɪngəm/

This uses a stronger 'g' than the 'ŋ' in /ˈbɜːrmɪŋəm/

I agree that the 'g' is sometimes missed altogether, giving the variation:

/-mɪnəm/

I wouldn't take the liberty of making any changes to this myself as I don't know enough about IPA. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: The reason I removed the first variant is that it's already covered by the first transcription, which is diaphonemic. See also Help:IPA/English. Historically, there was no distinction between the ng in Birmingham, finger, sing and thing - all had /nɡ/ (phonetically [ŋɡ]). There's no reason to mention it explicitly. We could also remove the /-mɪnəm/ variant if it's too predictable. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The only people that miss the “g” are people who do not know how to pronounce it. For example, Americans would pronounce it wrong, that doesn’t make it a way of pronouncing it; I’ve lived here my whole life and not once have I ever heard a Brummie say “Birminem”, usually southerners say it like that. An IP tried to remove it, I think it should also. ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Most populous city in the UK

Should we put something in the header saying that Birmingham is the largest city in the UK in terms of population? Greater London isn't a city, and the City of London has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. 83.136.45.195 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Good faith point but we don't typically list cities based on the city walls; it is just not correct to say London is smaller than Birmingham since we always base a city's size on its urban or metropolitan area. London doesn't link to the City of London because they are different. ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This question keeps on rearing its ugly head and we need to get it sorted once and for all. You will notice that I brought up the subject on 23 April (Population section above), where I stated "My understanding is that Birmingham is in fact the most populous city because the City of London and the area of Greater London are considered separately in terms of population, therefore London as a city is not the most populous." – but no-one wanted to talk about it at the time!

The London infobox lists the population of Greater London as 8,787,892 and the Greater London Urban Area as 9,787,426. However, the List of cities in the United Kingdom article states that "In some cases, the area holding city status does not coincide with the built up area or conurbation of which it forms part. In Greater London, for example, the City of London and that of Westminster each hold city status separately but no other neighbourhood has been granted city status, nor has Greater London as a whole." In other words Greater London is not considered to be a city because it has never been granted city status, but the City of London is and has, so strictly speaking the fact that Greater London has a population of 8,787,892 does not make London the most populous city because Greater London is not a city. In the city list, if you sort on the Population column, you find that Birmingham heads the list with a population of 1,092,330, Leeds and Glasgow are 2nd and 3rd, and the City of London is way down the list with a population of just 7,375 in 2011 (needs updating). Greater London does not feature at all as it is not considered to be a city so does not belong in the list.

Of course I understand that this is all very counter-intuitive, but if we mean to be accurate (and that surely is the purpose of an encyclopedia), we should state that Birmingham is the most populous city proper in the UK, probably with a footnote explaining the reasoning behind that using the arguments I have just given. I would be happy to implement this if others agree. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC) (Proud to be a Brummie!)

I think the right approach is the other way round. Add a footnote that explains that by some definitions Birmingham can be argued to be the largest city, but only because Greater London, an urban area with 8.7 million people, is not denoted as a 'city', because the title of City is taken by London's Square Mile.

It's important to remember that "city" has two meanings here, its ordinary English meaning of "large urban area" and the specific practice dating back to the middle ages of the Crown awarding the title "City" to certain settlements. It is that latter definition which awards Birmingham the title of largest city, and also means that Bangor (population 18,000) is a "city" ahead of Redditch, and St Davids (population 1,800) is a city ahead of Alvechurch. Jim Killock (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jim here. In everyday discussion, no one would ever say that Birmingham is the UK's largest city. By some technicality it might be, but that can be mentioned in a footnote. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. I'll try to work it in that way round then. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This is completely absurd. In general terms, London is a city. On the United Kingdom page it says "Capital and Largest City: London". To say Birmingham is the largest in the country is ridiculous; Wikipedia isn't written on technicalities. Consider WP:COMMONSENSE. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 22:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The concept of cities in the UK certainly is … archaic at least. And probably absurd. I've adjusted the text as per this discussion and added a footnote. Fine by me if it is removed btw but it might settle the temptation to dispute the point further to leave the explanation in a footnote. Jim Killock (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The concept of British cities is not absurd; this discussion is absurd. Not one person that I know of would agree with this because everyone knows and thinks Birmingham is the second city. Like I said, Wikipedia isn't written on technicalities, that's why the City of London and London aren't the same article. Do they realise they're also suggesting the Palace of Westminster and Buckingham Palace aren't in London. Seriously, we don't rank cities on the Roman walls built over a thousand years ago. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 22:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

… but the Government does "rank cities on the Roman walls built over a thousand years ago". In my opinion the concept of the state recognising British cities largely on the planning priorities of medieval monarchs, rather than, for instance, objective criteria, is absurd. But that is my opinion, perhaps it is not yours. Where we can agree is that it leads to an absurd result, which is that people misunderstand what city means, assuming that there is an objective reason for the idea of a "city proper" that might lead us to conclude that Birimngham is the largest UK "city" — a position with which, after all, our government agrees. I think that may be worth a footnote, not least to avoid boring most readers of the page with the full discussion ;) Jim Killock (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: there is no suggestion that the Palace of Westminster and Buckingham Palace aren't in London; just that they are not in the "city" and belong instead to Greater London, not recognised as a city.

I'm happy to leave it in a footnote but I oppose to this being in the lead, that's all. For example, Tokyo is considered the largest city in the world but going by the city walls, Shanghai is the largest and London doesn't even make the top 100. Again, using WP:COMMONSENSE we can say that going by the city walls is not correct. Even on the European Union article, London and Paris are listed as the largest so does that article also need to be changed. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 12:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The city walls aren't the point, it is just UK nomenclature or naming practice, which requires the Crown to designate a settlement as a city. In my examples – I mentioned that Bangor (population 18,000) is a "city" ahead of Redditch, and St Davids (population 1,800) is a "city" ahead of Alvechurch. Neither of these towns or villages that are also UK cities have ever had town walls. They just happen to have been designated as cities in the middle ages. One cannot realistically compare "cities" of the UK with designation practice elsewhere. You just have a series of non-comparable no doubt often seemingly bizarre processes for city designation. In the end it's hard to see where any of this leads, except to note the difference between the archaic practices of the UK state, and common sense. Jim Killock (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Archaic is Britain's middle name I suppose. Even so, the Greater London Urban Area then becomes the largest town in Britain as opposed to the largest city. Regardless the footnote will stand purely for argument's sake as this will clearly continue for a while if it doesn't. My final word is read the first sentence of the London article, a level-3 good article. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 23:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm in agreement. To be clear I agree with the common sense use of "city' that you have advocated, just I do see the reason for confusion. Jim Killock (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just made some corrections to the footnote. I've been quietly watching the conversation and, far from being absurd, it's been quite fascinating... I've noticed that the first sentence in the lead of the London article is technically incorrect, stating that "London is the most populous city of England and the United Kingdom." OK, it might be the largest city (and clearly the centre of the universe in so many other ways) but it isn't the most populous seeing as it isn't actually a city! But I'll not attempt to do anything about that as I expect there would be a huge hoard of opposition, and quite frankly I have no interest in touching that article anyway! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC) (Proud to be a Brummie!)

Sketch maps for Birmingham

On the Birmingham page you have a sketch map of Birmingham within the West Midlands, but no map to indicate the various suburbs and areas that currently make up Birmingham, much less those that made up Birmingham before 1974. Those of us not familiar with the area are left without much information on its geographical divisions, particularly if we are seeking information on the past as well as the present.

Recently I have discovered a series of pages dealing with Birmingham's political constituencies. In each of them the wards making up the constituencies are given. This is the information we need. BUT in discussing the constituencies the comment is made that around 2006 the number of constituencies was reduced from eleven to ten. Comparing the sketch maps for Edgbaston and Perry Barr shows that the Edgbaston maps shows the 11 constituencies and Perry Barr shows the 10 new ones. Also the Edgbaston map is a *.png while the Perry Barr is a *.svg.and *.png diagrams are much more easily reproduced than *.svg diagrams.

Could we have an easily reproduceable diagram showing the ten constituencies on the Birmingham page with the constituences labelled? It would really help to clear up a lot of questions.

Thanking you, --Oldontarian (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Origin of name: Bromwich, Bromwich Ham, Castle Bromwich

Although not mentioned in the article, there is evidence (see Castle Bromwich) that the name of Birmingham was originally Bromwich/Bromwick. The first settlement being at what is now known as Castle Bromwich - a iron age fort which overlooks the valley of the River Teme. Birmingham was thus, originally, Bromwicks Ham or the village of Bromwick/Bromwich. The same Bromwich from whom the castle took it's name. The settlement of West Bromwich/Bromwick supports this. Thus you have a development of Castle Bromwich (east of current city), Bromwich Ham (now Birmingham) and West Bromwich Ham (to the West and now West Bromwich). 92.34.233.91 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source, whether online, an article or a book, that someone could check? Jim Killock (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject template disambiguation proposal

There is a RM at Template talk:WikiProject Birmingham#Requested move 29 November 2018 proposing to disambiguate this template. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Complete tosh has been written here in the Intro - please change

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The resulting high level of social mobility also fostered a culture of political radicalism which, under leaders from Thomas Attwood to Joseph Chamberlain, was to give it a political influence unparalleled in Britain outside London, and a pivotal role in the development of British democracy.[17] - This is complete tosh - please remove or explain this "opinion". -What pivotal role in British democracy???

From the summer of 1940 to the spring of 1943, Birmingham was bombed heavily by the German Luftwaffe in what is known as the Birmingham Blitz.

- Birmingham Blitz - I've never heard that phrase. Almost all large cities/towns in England got heavily bombed in England - Coventry, Southampton, Portsmouth, Exeter etc etc. It was just known as the Blitz. Coventry got a special name - to "Coventrate" i.e. completely destroy a city. Birmingham just got Blitzed like everyone else - no special name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.124.238 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 16:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know enough about the first issue to comment, but I'd point out we have a whole article about the Birmingham Blitz, as part of a series of similar articles about different towns and cities - see Template:The Blitz. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

This edit request to Birmingham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "ranked as a gamma+ world city" to "ranked as a beta- world city". This is in the fourth paragraph of the article summary. The 2018 rankings now put Birmingham as a Beta- world city, please see link: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2018t.html Jfk91 (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Done Bradv🍁 06:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request: Updated 'Transport' description

Birmingham has a - recently expanded - Tram network, and I've noticed that the wikipedia articles for other major cities with tramways have these listed in their respective infoboxes (see Manchester). The article for Birmingham is currently missing this information, and I believe it should be inserted under the listed 'Major Railway Stations'. The tramway in question is the West Midlands Metro, and the link for UK tramways, to spare you the trouble of finding a link, is here. Is there any chance someone could add the relevant information? Also up for discussion should be the new Curzon Street station that's due to start construction in Summer 2019 (initial groundwork has been completed). At what point does it become 'official' as a station for it to be listed? As one of the major terminals of the planned HS2 line it'll eventually be added, but I just thought I'd stick it on everyone's radar. Oldhamtw (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Oldhamtw (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oldhamtw: I think the reason this edit request has so far been ignored is because it potentially opens up a can of worms. Of all the cities that have tram networks, Manchester is the only one that mentions it in the article's infobox. See Edinburgh, Nottingham, Sheffield, Newcastle upon Tyne – none of these has the tramway in its infobox, so Manchester appears to be the exception rather than "rule". It might be argued that the Manchester infobox is rather cluttered and over-complicated in comparison to other cities, as it mentions motorways, trunk roads, tramways, airports. Is that all really necessary? It might also be argued that the tramway covers Greater Manchester rather than just the city, so might it be more appropriate to provide a link to it in the GM article's infobox instead (if anywhere at all)? Tramways is an optional blank field that has been created and inserted into infobox settlement specifically for the Manchester article, likewise Motorways, Trunk primary routes, Major railway stations, and International airports. In the Birmingham article, the only equivalent optional blank field that's used is Major railway stations. MOS:INFOBOX asks us to consider whether a field is of value. How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? We don't want to add optional fields just for the sake of it and produce unnecessary clutter in the process. I'm all for consistency myself, but just because Manchester does it, doesn't mean it's the best solution and Birmingham doesn't necessarily need to follow suit. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

New Montage

It has been 5 years since the last montage. I think it is about time a new montage of Birmingham is made, considering the changes to the city in recent times.

I think a new skyline picture is definitely needed with all the new buildings going up recently. A picture of the skyline at night possibly.

Also I think a picture of the Council House would look good, considering its historical importance and beautiful classic architecture. A better picture of Selfridges to contrast the old architecture of the Council House could work well also.

A picture of New Street station would be good along with the Town Hall and Old Joe.

Barlow95 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Dawn Baxendale photo request

Your city's CEO has just signed up for a new job with Christchurch City Council, and the level of her salary is causing an enormous community discussion. Notability is beyond question. I'd write a bio for her if I could illustrate it with a good photo. Could somebody try and take one of her while she's still at Birmingham council? Schwede 66 02:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Snow!

What are those snow averages on the weather box? There’s no way it snows that much in Birmingham. There must be some mistake. NewLoveking2019 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

They seem to be taken from the NOAA, which although a US organisation has records of data from UK aiports. You can see a list of other airport data here. [4]

I agree they don't look right though. I live in Bristol, not far from Cardiff where the NOAA says they had 32 cm of snow a year from 1961-1990. According to this [5] amateur weather station in Bristol, in the 16 years between 2003-2018 it averaged 5 days with measurable snow fall per year, and 3 days with some snow lying on the ground, which would be going some to get even halfway to 30cm. And this period included the major outlier of 2010. Unfortunately the station doesn't provide actual snowfall amount.

One thing is to allow for the fact that the NOAA averages come from 1961-1990 so wouldn't take into account increasing climate change. I think that although this time frame is useful for any historical extremes that occurred during it, to include it in the main table without noting the period from which it comes is misleading - it's 10 years older than the other average data for the airport, and 20 years older than the Edgbaston data. Personally, i'd actually be tempted to ditch any aiport data already covered by the more recent Edgbaston data, and just add the airport data for record temperatures, snowfall and humidity while noting the different sources - others may find that equally misleading, but the airport temperature, sunshine and precipitation data seems extraneous to me when the Edgbaston data is both closer to the city and more recent.

Apart from anything else, searching for this info has highlighted to me how lamentably difficult it can be to find detailed snowfall data for the UK. Granarian (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My mistake - i've just noticed that the year for the airport data such as snowfall etc. is recorded below the table. Granarian (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion happening in the article for Manchester

A discussion at Manchester#Recent changes to the lead section has expanded to include issues relevant to this page. Interested editors are invited to join the conversation there. Lowercaserho (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Birmingham is evidently no longer considered Britain's second city. This "title" went to Manchester at least 10 years ago. The citations provided in the Manchester article prove this, and this is by academic scholarship and not by tabloids as the Birmingham article relies on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.135.232 (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Um, this source and this one are considered “academic scholarship”? The first one is about Glasgow? The second is just an intro page to manchesterhive.com? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(Martinevans123) Yes, they are academic scholars, I know because I have studied the latter author at length during my undergraduate degree in Geography. Precisely, I am even more qualified than you to make that assertion. 82.4.135.232 (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The population statistics are coming from 2001. Why is that, considering the last census was in 2011? I have a particular feeling it is to with the fact that Manchester would be crowned as larger than Birmingham by metropolitan area population over Birmingham! 82.4.135.232 (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors, is this your way of forcing through your own agendas and pretending to not have a bias to the general public? If it is, then that is shameful. 82.4.135.232 (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You can't use population statistics from 2001 and write about a city in 2020?! I mean seriously??? Manchester overtook Birmingham five years ago by metropolitan population. 128.243.2.60 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the answer is to just remove currently sourced material, as you did here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the academic status of the author(s), I'm still not sure what an article about Glasgow can tell us about Manchester's "second city" status. Feel free to update the census statistics to 2011. I'm pretty sure that this has not been done just to "force through an agendas and pretend to not have a bias". Warm congratulations on your undergraduate degree in Geography; but I'm afraid that counts for nothing at Wikipedia, where we all have to just rely on sources. Perhaps it would be useful to clarify the relative sizes of Birmingham and Manchester in terms of "city" and "metropolitan area." But it's also not clear to me exactly what the phrase "second city" means. Is this just based on population, or are there other factors, such as economic output involved? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre population vandalism.

I've noticed an anonymous ip keeps popping in to vandalise the population figure of the metro population, making an unexplained change of it from 3.6 to 4.3 million. The most recent was today. I seem to often be the only editor to spot this though, and it has sometimes stood up for a long time. Can other editors of this page be on the lookout for this happening again? G-13114 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There's been an anon IP Birmingham vs Manchester slow edit war for several years now, I think. So I had assumed it was part of that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is definitely a minor edit war between Manchester and Birmingham articles. Apparently according to Wikipedia (but not the office for national stats) Manchester is somehow the 6th largest city in the UK? Even though there are multiple Wiki articles stating data that Manchester is in fact either the second or third largest city, depending on how you measure population and conurbation size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.64.137 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, some sources list Manchester as suspiciously small, possibly because they are separating some of the population into other areas such as the City of Salford. Certes (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I think on one hand it is appropriate to segregate the population statistics according, but I'm pretty sure the Birmingham article incorporates Wolverhampton's population into their own. Two can play at that game but there needs to be a more consensual and standardised way of stating the population stats. Metrolink123 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why we may need to give Birmingham and Manchester semi-protection

Recently, a lot of IPs have been vandalising the Birmingham population statistics as part of an ongoing Birmingham-Manchester rivalry for Britain’s ‘second city’. What these random IPs are doing are removing the referenced fact that Birmingham is sometimes called Britain’s second city, and randomly altering population stats for both the metro and city limits population. This is happening quite frequently, although fortunately editors are reverting these irrational edits. I assume a similar thing is happening on the Manchester page as well. This is problematic because this is a sort of edit war and will make it more difficult for Birmingham to become a featured article and for Manchester to stay as one. A quick solution to this would be put the two pages on semi-protection, at least temporarily. This means that these IPs couldn’t edit the page, and that if they register themselves simply to vandalise either page they will not be able to do this. I understand that this is just people being loyal to their cities and saying one is greater than the other (this is nearly pointless anyway as they are far less important than London), but this has gone too far. Should we make it semi-protected? Or should we just keep an eye out for them and revert them when they vandalise either page? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:47, January 6 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that I may have a conflict of interest as I have lived in Birmingham but not Manchester. I would like to see viewpoints from the other side and neutral viewpoints too, of course. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:08, January 6 2021 (UTC)

Both Manchester and Birmingham "less important than London"?? lol. I have no COI as I have never lived in any of them. But yes, protection might be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

InterstellarGamer12321 The reason the phrase about Birmingham being Britain's second city keeps getting removed is because a) It is not a definitive fact, legal entity or point of information. b) It is an opinion, which in itself is disputed by recent public polling which suggests that the British public beleive that Manchester is now Britain's second city.^[1] c) The sheer fact that the aforementioned "opinions" are disputed highlights that this phrase is far too controversial to be included in the opening paragraph. More discussion is needed with editors. RfC possibly needed. Metrolink123 (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, those were the days.... And we also have an entire article at Second city of the United Kingdom. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In that reference, A spokesperson for BMG stated: "Although Birmingham is the most populous UK city outside of London, and a larger contributer [sic] to national GDP, our polling shows that most Britons consider Manchester to be nation's second city. It goes on to clarify that "most Britons" means 38%. Certes (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think we should be using these polls as a guideline for ‘second city’ because, as you said, only 38% of Britons actually voted. This means that the vast majority of the population’s opinion has not been recorded and their could be a bias where many more people responded from one city than from the other or have been to or worked in one city but not the other. We should use statistics and discussion rather than polls for deciding anything, at least in this case. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 16:11, January 7 2021 (UTC)

BMG Research interviewed a representative sample of 1,520 UK adults, of whom 38% (about 578) mentioned Manchester. They didn't conduct the 25 million interviews needed to reach 38% of all Britons! Certes (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. However, 1,520 is a very small sample size, so my point about statistics being more reliable still stands. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 15:08, January 8 2021 (UTC)

Certes If you look at the Manchester article opening paragraph, four citations have provided a counter judgement to that of Birmingham's prerogative. If you wish to include that phrase for Birmingham, then I think editors are more than within their right to use the same phrase regarding Manchester in the Manchester article (with adequate citations). That however will be confusing and counterproductive and lead to an all right edit war. The best solution is for both Manchester and Birmingham articles to exclude such phrases from the opening paragraph and keep the discussion elsewhere in the article. As I said previously, the "second city" aspect is not fact or legal entity, but only an opinion. Should opinions genuinely be expressed in an opening paragraph? Especially disputed and controversial opinions? Metrolink123 (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think there are two possible solutions to this:

1) Remove the ‘second city’ line from both Birmingham and Manchester and either put it somewhere else in these articles (economy or culture would be best) or delete it completely. Semi-protection being needed is unlikely.

2) Keep them where they currently are (maybe include that Birmingham has a claim to second city on the Manchester article and vice versa) and do not move or delete them. Semi-protection will be needed to protect against the IPs.

We will probably need a discussion and eventually a consensus on both where the ‘second city’ fact will be in each article and also where semi-protection will be required. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 16:04, January 7 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that Birmingham has been commonly referred to as Britain's second city for well over a century, including in academic sources such as this for example. In wikipedia, academic sources trump dubious opinion polls. That Birmingham is refered to as the second city is one of the most commonly stated facts about Birmingham. G-13114 (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I would say that a version of Solution 2 is the better option. Even if more people say Manchester is Britain’s second city (biased or not), statistics-wise Birmingham is definitely the second city. If Manchester does exceed Birmingham statistics-wise then we should keep Birmingham’s claim but say that Manchester is probably the one. If the position of Birmingham and Manchester in this ‘second city’ debate is clarified (both talk and article) then we may even not need semi-protection. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 15:14, January 8 2021 (UTC)

User talk:G-13114 I agree than certainly before Manchester's economic boom Birmingham was Britain's second city, but now as you say, academics and opinion polling suggests otherwise. This must be reflected in both articles. There is plenty of recent academic literature showing that Manchester is now Britain's second city. Check out the reference. ^[2] Metrolink123 (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Solution: Add ‘although this is disputed’ with the references form the opposing article to the sentences. This will happen to both articles, and since both things are referenced semi-protection will be unlikely unless the IPs keep the edit war going. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:52, January 8 2021 (UTC)

I have done this to both articles. We will see in time whether semi-protection will be needed for Birmingham (I just realised that it is already there for Manchester). InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:16, January 8 2021 (UTC)

References

[1] ttps://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/more-people-think-manchester-uks-12433529

[2] ttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2007.00230.x

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 547: / Line 547: @@
 :::Regardless of the academic status of the author(s), I'm still not sure what an article about Glasgow can tell us about Manchester's "second city" status. Feel free to update the census statistics to 2011. I'm pretty sure that this has not been done just to "force through an agendas and pretend to not have a bias". Warm congratulations on your undergraduate degree in Geography; but I'm afraid that counts for nothing at Wikipedia, where we all have to just rely on sources. Perhaps it would be useful to clarify the relative sizes of Birmingham and Manchester in terms of "city" and "metropolitan area." But it's also not clear to me exactly what the phrase "second city" means. Is this just based on population, or are there other factors, such as economic output involved? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 15:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
+== Bizarre population vandalism. ==
+I've noticed an anonymous ip keeps popping in to vandalise the population figure of the metro population, making an unexplained change of it from 3.6 to 4.3 million. The most recent was [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Birmingham&diff=1063010563&oldid=1062990615 today]. I seem to often be the only editor to spot this though, and it has sometimes stood up for a long time. Can other editors of this page be on the lookout for this happening again? [[User:G-13114|G-13114]] ([[User talk:G-13114|talk]]) 21:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
+:There's been an anon IP [[Clash of the Titans (1981 film)|Birmingham vs Manchester]] slow [[Idiot Wind|edit war]] for several years now, I think. So I had assumed it was part of that. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 22:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
+Yes there is definitely a minor edit war between Manchester and Birmingham articles. Apparently according to Wikipedia (but not the office for national stats) Manchester is somehow the 6th largest city in the UK? Even though there are multiple Wiki articles stating data that Manchester is in fact either the second or third largest city, depending on how you measure population and conurbation size?  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/95.146.64.137|95.146.64.137]] ([[User talk:95.146.64.137#top|talk]]) 10:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:Yes, some sources list Manchester as suspiciously small, possibly because they are separating some of the population into other areas such as the [[City of Salford]]. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
+I think on one hand it is appropriate to segregate the population statistics according, but I'm pretty sure the Birmingham article incorporates Wolverhampton's population into their own. Two can play at that game but there needs to be a more consensual and standardised way of stating the population stats. [[User:Metrolink123|Metrolink123]] ([[User talk:Metrolink123|talk]]) 10:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
+==Why we may need to give Birmingham and Manchester semi-protection==
+Recently, a lot of IPs have been vandalising the Birmingham population statistics as part of an ongoing Birmingham-[[Manchester]] rivalry for Britain’s ‘second city’. What these random IPs are doing are removing the referenced fact that Birmingham is sometimes called Britain’s second city, and randomly altering population stats for both the metro and city limits population. This is happening quite frequently, although fortunately editors are reverting these irrational edits. I assume a similar thing is happening on the Manchester page as well. This is problematic because this is a sort of edit war and will make it more difficult for Birmingham to become a featured article and for Manchester to stay as one. A quick solution to this would be put the two pages on semi-protection, at least temporarily. This means that these IPs couldn’t edit the page, and that if they register themselves simply to vandalise either page they will not be able to do this. I understand that this is just people being loyal to their cities and saying one is greater than the other (this is nearly pointless anyway as they are far less important than [[London]]), but this has gone too far. Should we make it semi-protected? Or should we just keep an eye out for them and revert them when they vandalise either page? [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|talk]]) 18:47, January 6 2021 (UTC)
+:Just a note that I may have a [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] as I have lived in Birmingham but not Manchester. I would like to see viewpoints from the other side and neutral viewpoints too, of course. [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|talk]]) 19:08, January 6 2021 (UTC)
+::Both Manchester and Birmingham "less important than London"?? lol. I have no COI as I have never lived in any of them. But yes, protection might be justified. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
+[[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] The reason the phrase about Birmingham being Britain's second city keeps getting removed is because
+a) It is not a definitive fact, legal entity or point of information.
+b) It is an opinion, which in itself is disputed by recent public polling which suggests that the British public beleive that Manchester is now Britain's second city.<ref>https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/more-people-think-manchester-uks-12433529</ref>
+c) The sheer fact that the aforementioned "opinions" are disputed highlights that this phrase is far too controversial to be included in the opening paragraph. More discussion is needed with editors. RfC possibly needed.
+[[User:Metrolink123|Metrolink123]] ([[User talk:Metrolink123|talk]]) 11:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
+:Ah yes, [[Second City Firsts|those were the days]].... And we also have an entire article at [[Second city of the United Kingdom]]. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
+:In that reference, {{tq|A spokesperson for BMG stated: "Although Birmingham is the most populous UK city outside of London, and a larger {{sic|contributer}} to national GDP, our polling shows that most Britons consider Manchester to be nation's second city.}}  It goes on to clarify that "most Britons" means 38%. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 12:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
+:: I don’t think we should be using these polls as a guideline for ‘second city’ because, as you said, only 38% of Britons actually voted. This means that the vast majority of the population’s opinion has not been recorded and their could be a bias where many more people responded from one city than from the other or have been to or worked in one city but not the other. We should use statistics and discussion rather than polls for deciding anything, at least in this case. [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|talk]]) 16:11, January 7 2021 (UTC)
+:::{{tq|BMG Research interviewed a representative sample of 1,520 UK adults}}, of whom 38% (about 578) mentioned Manchester.  They didn't conduct the 25 million interviews needed to reach 38% of all Britons! [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 16:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
+::::Thanks for clarifying. However, 1,520 is a very small sample size, so my point about statistics being more reliable still stands. [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|talk]]) 15:08, January 8 2021 (UTC)
+[[User:Certes|Certes]] If you look at the Manchester article opening paragraph, four citations have provided a counter judgement to that of Birmingham's prerogative. If you wish to include that phrase for Birmingham, then I think editors are more than within their right to use the same phrase regarding Manchester in the Manchester article (with adequate citations). That however will be confusing and counterproductive and lead to an all right edit war. The best solution is for both Manchester and Birmingham articles to exclude such phrases from the opening paragraph and keep the discussion elsewhere in the article. As I said previously, the "second city" aspect is not fact or legal entity, but only an opinion. Should opinions genuinely be expressed in an opening paragraph? Especially disputed and controversial opinions? [[User:Metrolink123|Metrolink123]] ([[User talk:Metrolink123|talk]]) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
+I think there are two possible solutions to this:
+<p>1) Remove the ‘second city’ line from both Birmingham and Manchester and either put it somewhere else in these articles (economy or culture would be best) or delete it completely. Semi-protection being needed is unlikely.</p>
+<p>2) Keep them where they currently are (maybe include that Birmingham has a claim to second city on the Manchester article and vice versa) and do not move or delete them. Semi-protection will be needed to protect against the IPs.</p>
+We will probably need a discussion and eventually a consensus on both where the ‘second city’ fact will be in each article and also where semi-protection will be required. [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|talk]]) 16:04, January 7 2021 (UTC)
+:This doesn't change the fact that Birmingham has been commonly referred to as Britain's second city for well over a century, including in academic sources such as [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Birmingham-Geography-History-Planning-Cities/dp/0471949000/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=0471949000&qid=1641580649&sr=8-1 this] for example. In wikipedia, academic sources trump dubious opinion polls. That Birmingham is refered to as the second city is one of the most commonly stated facts about Birmingham.  [[User:G-13114|G-13114]] ([[User talk:G-13114|talk]]) 18:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
+::I agree, which is why I would say that a version of Solution 2 is the better option. Even if more people say Manchester is Britain’s second city (biased or not), statistics-wise Birmingham is definitely the second city. If Manchester does exceed Birmingham statistics-wise then we should keep Birmingham’s claim but say that Manchester is probably the one. If the position of Birmingham and Manchester in this ‘second city’ debate is clarified (both talk and article) then we may even not need semi-protection. [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|talk]]) 15:14, January 8 2021 (UTC)
+[[User talk:G-13114]] I agree than certainly before Manchester's economic boom Birmingham was Britain's second city, but now as you say, academics and opinion polling suggests otherwise. This must be reflected in both articles. There is plenty of recent academic literature showing that Manchester is now Britain's second city. Check out the reference. <ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2007.00230.x</ref>
+[[User:Metrolink123|Metrolink123]] ([[User talk:Metrolink123|talk]]) 23:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
+Solution: Add ‘although this is disputed’ with the references form the opposing article to the sentences. This will happen to both articles, and since both things are referenced semi-protection will be unlikely unless the IPs keep the edit war going. [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|talk]]) 17:52, January 8 2021 (UTC)
+:I have done this to both articles. We will see in time whether semi-protection will be needed for Birmingham (I just realised that it is already there for Manchester). [[User:InterstellarGamer12321|InterstellarGamer12321]] ([[User talk:InterstellarGamer12321|talk]]) 18:16, January 8 2021 (UTC)
+{{reflist-talk}}