Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBirmingham 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
April 2, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 2, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 17, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
November 17, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 9, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
August 15, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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. -- (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]

Birmingham second city?


Surely Manchester is the second largest city as it's conurbation is larger then the West Midlands County and Birmingham? WMC (2.928million) Vs GMC (7million within one hour of the city)? DragonofBatley (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I don't have a problem with either city claiming to be second largest as long as the criteria is properly qualified, e.g. "based on population of the core city" or "based on population of the city and its metropolitan area". If it that can't be done then the claim should just be removed. Besides I have never been a fan of WP:PEACOCK claims. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a policy called MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE, which says this:
"Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article.
I had thought that this policy was pretty plain. So I removed material from the lead, about Birmingham being UK's "second city", for a second time, here. But it was quickly restored, also for a second time, by User:G-13114 who said in their edit summary "Nonsense, the lead is supposed to summarise the main facts about a subject, this is extensively referenced". The sources for this claim are not in dispute. But I'd suggest that very clear WP policy is not "nonsense". (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely second city is a title? It doesn't need to be covered in the body of the article since it's covered in the Second city of the United Kingdom article in great depth. I'm not sure how your policy is applicable. G-13114 (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "second city" is just a description, not a title. Can you quote any definition of this term at the template description? Otherwise it's just a matter of personal interpretation. (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Manchester has a single sentence in the sub-section History > Since 2000, which says: "Birmingham has historically been considered to be England or the UK's second city, but in the 21st century claims to this unofficial title have also been made for Manchester." I would suggest a similar sentence, in a similar position, would be appropriate for this article. That would be consistent with the Second city of the United Kingdom article. (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment


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) · WatchWatch 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.