Talk:Birmingham

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Birmingham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 3 months

Birmingham was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 17, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 2, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
September 17, 2007	Good article reassessment	Kept
November 17, 2018	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 9, 2018	Peer review	Reviewed
August 15, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Birmingham Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Birmingham, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Birmingham on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BirminghamWikipedia:WikiProject BirminghamTemplate:WikiProject BirminghamBirmingham
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

UK geography High‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

West Midlands: Birmingham Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Birmingham task force.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

On 3 October 2009, it was proposed that this article be moved from Birmingham to Birmingham, England. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Political make-up of local councils in the United Kingdom#Unitary authorities|Executive]] Anchor Political make-up of local councils in the United Kingdom#Unitary authorities links to a specific web page: Unitary authorities of England. The anchor (#Unitary authorities) has been deleted by other users before.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Public services

I think the nature of the public services section needs to be looked into regarding cuts. Too much emphasis on cuts made almost a decade ago, is it the same today? Perhaps an update is needed. --148.252.141.75 (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the same today. In fact, Birmingham Council is bankrupt and has needed to impose more cuts Cal3000000 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Birmingham

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: No improvement from a very low starting location; consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Significant sourcing issues (36 citation needed tags) and an update banner mean that this 2006 listing is at risk of failing GA criteria 2b and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In its current states, it fails the GA criteria. Delist unless someone takes care of the problems, in particular the sourcing problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - clearly doesn't meet the GA criteria, with all of those tags. Please ping me if anyone volunteers to work on the article as then I'll support giving them time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second Largest Local Authority in Europe.

This is uncited, and seems dubious. It is difficult to compare local authorities from one country to another, but it is easy to find local authorities that are larger in terms of population served: for example Moscow, London, Paris and Rome all have some form of city government that is larger than Birmingham, some have elected councils too. It's not clear from the quote what criteria have been applied here. Zeimusu | Talk page 17:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. birmingham city council, being a NUTS-3 area, is smaller than, for example, berlin, paris, and Torino (Turin). This statement is not true. someone might want to check if it is the second biggest in UK, though Cal3000000 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the metro or urban region population be in the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no need for four virtually identical RfCs. Please see WP:MULTI and discuss in one place only. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that a contributor has changed the lead section of the Liverpool article just recently. The Liverpool lead section now only includes Liverpool's local authority population and the population of the official city region. Having looked at the Birmingham Leeds and Edinburgh articles, I notice that their lead sections make reference to the wider metropolitan area.

To quote the Birmingham article lead section: "The wider metropolitan area has a population of 4.3 million, making it the largest outside of London." The citation is worldpopulationreview.com

To quote the Leeds article: "The city is part of the fourth-largest built-up area by population in the United Kingdom, West Yorkshire Built-up Area, with a 2011 census population of 1.7 million" The citation is ONS Census 2011. The WY Built-up Area is out of date and is not calculated any more. But I am wondering if this needs to be in the lead section as an editor has removed mention of Liverpool metropolitan area from its lead section.

To quote the Edinburgh lead section, "The wider metropolitan area has a population of 912,490." The citation is OECD.

I am sure there are many many examples on wiki where city articles make reference to a wider 'urban region' or metropolitan area.

Should we be aiming for consistency in these articles? I have also started an RfC on the Leeds, Liverpool and Edinburgh articles. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 April 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Birmingham → Birmingham, England
Birmingham (disambiguation) → Birmingham

– No clear primary topic betwwen Birmingham, England and Birmingham, Alabama. 2600:1700:6180:6290:D0BC:DBF9:4BAC:181B (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, under WP:ENGLANDPLACE it would be Birmingham, West Midlands not Birmingham, England. Dank Jae 20:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose daily page views are 3578 for Birmingham, West Midlands, 1507 for Birmingham, Alabama. Numbers for the others at Birmingham (disambiguation) are negligible. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with over a 2:1 ratio. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 2:1 ratio is an incredibly weak ratio for a primary topic claim; even then, the correct pages aren't being compared; comparing incoming redirects to the current primary topic vs. the disambiguation page doesn't adequately illustrate a counterpoint. See my initial "support" comment. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a joke, right? Birmingham, Alabama (founded in 1871) was named after Birmingham in Warwickshire, England, one of the United Kingdom's major industrial cities that has existed for at least 1,000 years (probably established around 6th or 7th century). Rodney Baggins .talk. 21:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per page view analysis. The relevant page view comparison here is the page view comparison for "Birmingham" vs "Birmingham, Alabama" (since Birmingham, West Midlands and Birmingham, England target Birmingham anyways, meaning any views for those will be added to the views for Birmingham currently). Going on page views alone, the claim for a primary topic needs to have a rather high ratio of page views for "primary topic/everything else", something like at least 10/1 everyday ... per the page view analysis, its ranging from 3/1 to 7/1, which is not high enough just when comparing the current primary topic solely to Birmingham, Alabama. (In other words, the ratio will just get lower while adding additional topics from the disambiguation page to the page view analysis.) Yeah ... it's time to put the disambiguation page at the base title, at least for now. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original Birmingham is clearly the primary topic. The rationales from the last time this discussion took place remain equally valid now. Fish+Karate 05:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all the rationales which have been given before. I think the current setup of Birmingham AL, being given a special link in the disambig is a good compromise. G-13114 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for exactly the same reasons as G-13114; the rationales in the previous move discussion are still valid. Waggers TALK 08:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per my previous statements surrounding Primary subjects, the should not exist. We have an inconsistent approach, which like here we are arguing the Primary subject. Birmingham in England should be Birmingham, England as there is only one place with that name in that country (if more than one I would agree with the county/district distinguisher), and the disambiguation page should just be Birmingham.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing hs changed, the rationales in the previous move discussion are still valid. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If there was no primary topic then many people were arriving here would be navigating next to either the dab page or the Alabama city. Wikinav data shows this is not the case, with only 1.78% of readers following the link to Birmingham, Alabama making it only the 8th most common destination; the disambiguation page is not in the top 20 destinations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]