Talk:Birmingham/Archive 5

Article is very long
I think this article is getting rather long and out of control, it seems to grown enormously since I last saw it. Perhaps the culture section and some other parts, should be moved into a seperate article perhaps?, as that seems to take up more than half of it. Having read through it, It seems somewhat perverse that history and government sections are relegated to sub-pages, whilst culture is not. I shall return to see what has happened in a week or so. Gem 20:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Culture is what makes Brum unique from any where else in the world Gem, Government, travel etc is important also but it doesn't really give a feel for the city, the transport infrastructure and council will shift like sand but culture is there always, from inventions to musicians and it should stay on the main page. It gives the city identity. After having said that i do agree that some sections could be shortened with their own pages, please discuss here before doing anything drastic. :) Nick Boulevard 00:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The info from Birmingham at War section rightly belongs in the History of Birmingham article. It would expand a fairly short section on the war there whilst reducing the main article considerably and avoiding duplication. The 'nearby places' section seems to be unnecessary especially as the page already contains links to surrounding areas in the 'Districts of England - West Midlands' template at the bottom of the page. Valiantis 21:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well for a start i agree that the West Mids template could go but the Brum at War is a massive part of the city's history and should definately stay, it is a much shortened version of the war history main page... I would say that if you or anyone else were to update the history article then I would be all for it. Nick Boulevard 23:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd missed the specific link to the Birmingham military history article - in which case that is the proper place for the info in the Birmingham at War section - currently it just seems to duplicate. The Birmingham at War section could be reduced to at most a couple of paragraphs. Personally, I'd suggest not having a seperate section but just linking to the detailed B'ham military history article from the existing History overview section and also cross-linking the History of Birmingham with the Military History article. Valiantis 00:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

mmm... that's an interesting point about mixing it into the history run down, then again i think the D-notice and Gun quarter aspects are quite important to the main page, military history has played a huge part in the evolution of the city. I am sure we can compromise, personally i would like it to stay but maybe watered down a little (seeing as i wrote it), I've tried lobbing bits off already. Nick Boulevard 18:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the nearby places should probably stay as it doesn't take up much space. I agree with Valaintis about the Millitary history. Also I think that the inventors section is somewhat specialist, and doesn't really belong on the main page, it probably should be put into its own article. I also agree with Gem that something about transport and government should be put on the main article. G-Man 22:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ideally each existing topic could have a short section on the main page (say 2 to 4 paragraphs) with a link to a separate page with a more in-depth article - I think there is sufficient scope to do this for each of the existing sections (and thus add back in brief Transport and Government sections to the main page). The Wales page is an example of this format (though the page itself is a bit of a mess at the moment). The Popular Music sub-section could probably stand to be a section in its own right with a linked in-depth article. To my mind Birmingham's history of invention and industry is central to the character of the city and the Inventors section should stay on the main page (at least as a summary section linked to a separate in-depth article). It might be worth renaming it 'Science and Industry'. Still don't see the point of the Nearby Places, regardless of its size. Valiantis 18:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I posted the above over a week ago and no-one has objected in principle to what I'm proposing. I'm therefore about to create subject-specific articles for each of the sections of this article that do not already have them and include a link at the head of each section. The initial text of each subject-specific article will be a cut-and-paste from the existing section, therefore none of the current text will be lost. The aim then will be to re-write each section to highlight the most salient points and give a broad-brush overview - obviously this will hopefully be a collaborative effort. Why does this need to be done? 1) The article now clocks in at 55KB which is about 60% longer than the guidelines recommend. 2) Because of the length (and the lack of organisation of some sections) it is hard for the reader who is not already knowledgeable about the city to sort out the essential (e.g. Birmingham's major role in the industrial revolution) from the illustrative and interesting but trivial (e.g Birmingham's major role in the invention of Brylcreem). There's a place for both on Wikipedia, but when there is so much to say about Brum, the main article should concentrate on the essential, and leave the interesting detail to a series of clearly linked sub-articles. Valiantis 21:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Two other tweaks whilst doing the above: - I made 'Film & media' a subsection of 'Culture and arts' and not an independent section. I renamed 'Inventors & invention', as 'Science and invention' as several of the individuals mentioned (e.g. Galton and Hall-Edwards) were not inventors as such and the new rubric is more inclusive. Valiantis 21:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good stuff :) Nick Boulevard 23:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Might I suggest that anyone adding new info now either adds it to the subject-specific article only, or adds it to the subject-specific article as well as the main article. If this is not done, then info may get 'lost' as the main page articles are edited down Valiantis 17:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've 'done' the Architecture section but there was some weird edit conflict and my initial re-edit and someone else's minor tweak both appear to have got lost. Hence the fact that my edit comments make minimal sense now. Hopefully the text speaks for itself. Valiantis 20:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * looks great, could we still include the architect from the city though? cheers 195.92.67.68 12:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean Ken Shuttleworth? He's still on the Architecture of Birmingham page. Has he actually built anything in the city yet? To my mind, it unbalances the "main page" section to pick one architect especially if he hasn't actually designed any buildings here and his work is not necessarily typical of the 'look' of the city. The section is IMO about the architecture of B'ham not architects from B'ham - who might more reasonably be covered in a section of the sub-article. Of course, if you disagree, add him back in to the main page, preferably contextually - I won't remove him. Valiantis 21:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No, your right. :) Nick Boulevard 23:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Old Birmingham Workhouse in Lichfield St
I removed the reference to this building for the paragraph beginning Many Georgian, Tudor, Edwardian and Elizabethan buildings still survive dotted around the city as the Workhouse founded in 1734 appears to have been knocked down when the Victoria Law Courts were built over 100 years ago and there isn't even a street called Lichfield St in the city centre anymore! There is a single building of the replacement workhouse opened in 1852 in Winson Green still standing but that isn't Georgian and IMO scarcely worth mentioning in the main body of the article even under a discussion of Victorian buildings. See here. Valiantis 17:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Provided you know this as fact i agree. Nick Boulevard 23:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lime juice
Lime juice was produced in the city??? That's not what the source here actually says. I don't think you can cultivate the lime in the climate of the English Midlands.

More to the point, can this paragraph be defined as central to an understanding of the city? I'd suggest not. Can it not be added to the Arts in Birmingham sub-article - which includes all of the text of the Food & Drink subsection - or perhaps better to a separate sub-article on Food & Drink (which sits uneasily in a culture section IMO)? Valiantis 00:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I changed the text to my own version, by the way surely the production of Lime Juice in the food industry is relating to extraction etc, the article doesn't say "grown in the city"? It's a bit of food history that I certainly never knew Nick Boulevard 23:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Valiantis
You have made some great edits to the Brum page and its linked articles most of which have been for the better, however I would appreciate it if you would concur here first in future before tempering with the main article, the page has been long fought over by myself and others to achieve an interesting read. Any major changes to the main page should be debated first, if you raise a point and no one responds then make a change but please do not expect that change to remain just because no ones has made an instant reply. Nick Boulevard 23:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Nick, I discussed my plans above - I said I intended to create sub-articles for all the sections and to 'boil down' the sections on the main page. I wrote this on the 15th and left it a week. No one commented so I then posted again stating that I'd created sub-articles. Again no-one commented and I made several edits to other sections. With the exception of yourself, again no-one commented and your comments were broadly positive. I think everyone who may be interested has had fair time to pass comment now!


 * Presumably you have reverted my edit to the popular music section because you believe the previous section was better. I very much disagree. The previous section was rambling, unstructured, in places little more than a list of band and/or club names, repetitive (no need to list individual musicians like Roy Wood and Steve Winwood when their bands had already been mentioned in the same paragraph) and of questionable accuracy in a few places. Obviously you are not going to agree with me, but I would draw your attention to the be bold principle. The edit I've made to the music section is not perfect but it preserves all the main themes and most of the information (beyond the repetition and lists of obscure bands) so I am unsure why you describe my edit as 'tampering' (which implies there was mischief involved). More to the point, the complete text is held in the article Arts in Birmingham which is a more suitable place for an indepth discussion of music in the city. I'm sorry, but the fact that Boltthrower and Pram come from Birmingham is not a relevant piece of information for the main page.


 * I'm somewhat irritated that you've simply reverted rather than adding back whatever important info you feel I missed from my edit. It might be helpful if you made clear what you think is missing. I'm not going to re-revert as that would be pointless. However, in the event that no-one else adds their opinions to this discussion then I do intend to re-write the popular music section again in the near future for the reasons I have outlined above. Valiantis 03:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * PS - by reverting you've also managed to double up the paragraphs on jazz and venues. Perhaps you would like to fix this. Valiantis 03:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there :)

Firstly you need to pay more attention to what people write and understand it before passing judgment, I did not accuse you of "tampering" with the article, I used the word "tempering" which can mean: To modify by the addition of a moderating element; moderate: &#8220;temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom&#8221; (Robert H. Jackson).

I feel a little irritated now also, I agreed with your idea of condensing and creating sub articles and leaving the inventors and music section as they were (which I am sure is what you originally propositioned?), It seems to have worked great, however the condensing of the music section has been too extensive in my opinion, I agree it is more structured as oposed to a ramble but there are key facts that should stay on the "main page" (the most visited page relating to any subject on Brum) The main page needs to be hard hitting and informative at a single glance to entice the reader to look further into the specific article, the reason why no one else seems to reply often here could be something to do with the fact I have added the majority of what you seem to be condensing in the culture section, I cannot always use the same user ip address for various reasons, anyway I am quite excited to see my (and others) hard work being edited down but I think that my opinion should also count seeing as the amount of research I have done has been quite laborious. Thank you. Nick Boulevard 17:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I am sure we can reach a compromise.Nick Boulevard 17:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I assumed you had mistyped tampering. I have never seen the word tempering used in the exact context you used it and don't think the way you used it is the same as the definition you quote. However, if that was your intended meaning then I apologise.


 * I never said that the music and inventors sections should stay as they were. I wrote the Inventors section should stay on the main page (at least as a summary section {...}). I didn't make any comment re: the popular music section. As I created new articles for both Arts in Birmingham and Science and invention in Birmingham, I think my intention was clear even if my words weren't. As I said in my edit summary, popular music should probably have its own separate in-depth article as well as maintaining an overview article on the main page. This is because there is a lot to say on the subject - much of it researched by yourself - but there is insufficient room in the main article for all this information. The main article is already 60% longer that the guidelines suggest and growing daily - something has to give.


 * I did ask you to state what these key facts are that you felt were missing from my edit. Please do so, then we may be able to reach a compromise. Until you tell me what they are, there isn't anything to make a compromise about! The revert page states You should save reverts for cases where the new version is actively worse than the old version. You've agreed my version is better structured, your issue appears to be with missing info - why did you not add the info back in? I would quote to you If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Clearly as you say you have put a lot of work into researching the popular music info and none of it has been lost - all of it is on the new Arts in Birmingham page. If I'd just deleted your work, I could understand why you imply I am disregarding your opinion, but I didn't delete it and I'm not disregarding your opinion. However, to be clear (again) I welcome your input to improving this section, but you haven't told me what else needs to go in the article.


 * BTW, I understand that you may be posting from more than one IP address and/or more than one computer. I do so myself, but I always login under my username so that all my edits are attributable to me. What I'm not clear on is why you can't actively login under your own username each time you visit? (There may be a reason, if so fair enough, similarly you're within your rights to edit anonymously. However as you raised the issue...) Valiantis 23:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tempering may be a US word? regardless, its a word and as an English man I like it: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tempering

The key facts are not that many or great and I will get back to you on this, maybe I have had bad experiences on having my work removed rather than "edited" due to people that NEVER add a thing but are quite happy to play EDITOR, (I'm not referring to yourself). I was actually quite impressed with your edit to the music section but I did wince at certain deletions from the main page. Maybe I should leave this page for a while? Nick Boulevard 01:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

p.s. You use the word "obviously" quite often in reply to my posts as if you already know me? Nick Boulevard 01:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've used the word obviously once so far in this section. I only know you from your contributions to this page and to other pages that relate to Birmingham. BTW, you state you've had bad experiences with people removing your work. You will perhaps appreciate then the extent of my annoyance that you reverted my edit to the music section - which took a number of hours to write - rather than adding back any info you thought I'd missed.


 * This article cannot encompass everything to do with Birmingham - a city of a million people with a thousand years of recorded history - hence my attempt to create a series of lower-level articles with room for more information and analysis than the main page can carry. I was hoping that more people would contribute to this - especially those who raised and responded to the issue at Talk:Birmingham - but, with the exception of yourself, most people who've been regular editors in the past don't seem to have visited in a while. Frankly, I don't have the time to do it by myself, especially if I run the risk of reversion if someone feels I've been too vigorous in my pruning, so I have already decided to take a break from this page for the time being.


 * I'm not therefore going to touch the music section myself (thanks for fixing the jazz and venues duplication by the way - though I wonder if the Jug of Ale really needs its own article!), but I would point out that you have managed to duplicate the paragraph beginning In the late 1960s heavy metal music when fixing the removal of the paragraph about Jimi Hendrix. (I'd also suggest that the Hendrix paragraph has no place in this article, but as this appears to be an on-going edit war between you and a third party or parties, having stated my opinion, I have no interest in getting in the middle of that fight and will leave the page alone). Valiantis 20:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with the other people that the culture section does definitely need some serious cutting down. I dont see how it can be justified taking up half the article. And Nick I dont think your concearns are justified, as everything you have written will be on the sub-article. The main page is there to introduce the most important facts about the place, detail should be on the sub-articles. G-Man 20:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, you are probably right. As I said I have hardened a little from previous experiences here and maybe I have become too protective over some of my additions, I know my work is far from perfect, I really enjoy researching info that I have remembered from Grandparents (that are now gone) tales (re: Inventors etc), I guess my skills lie more in research here than page appearance.


 * What I would really like is to have the more interesting facts on the main page so as to ensure that people DO look at the wider main articles. The music section could be pruned I agree, it has become like a big hairy mamoth and I only try to add bits that I feel are influential to the wider UK music scene, i.e. featured on BBC and Sky music chanels etc. I will look at Valiants edit and try to combine it with what I have written, if you are happy with this then we could maybe start to look at other sections. Nick Boulevard 21:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Return of Andy Mabbett
I don't really know why I'm laughing but to those that don't know Any Mabbett... he deleted quite a lot of my work here and then argued till we were ALL blue in the face, I know it's you Andy because I noticed you deleted the references to Nick Mason form Pink Floyd and the Traffic additions (re: Hendrix) and also the following sentence that you added to the Hip Hop section: and sometimes inconveniencing. I haven't even looked at the band Traffic but I am guessing you removed from Birmingham... lets have a look! :) Nick Boulevard 22:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
G-mans pics to the music section looked great, i like the new pic added of the museum too, if i provide a pic of some graffiti on a tow path or alike could someone add this to the art section please? Nick Boulevard 195.92.67.69 22:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changes
As almost no progress has been made since I was last here I have decided to follow the advice at Be bold in editing and make some fairly drastic changes to the article. Hopefully broadly in line with the discussions above.

I have replaced the sprawling culture section with a summary. I have deleted some superfluous sections off the main page but added prominent links to them on the relevant sections.

I have also added summaries of politics and transport which were missing before. And have re-arranges several sections.

I agree this is rather drastic, but nothing was happening here before. I think this is now a far more concise and readable article. Gem 23:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The culture summary could perhaps be a bit longer but I'm broadly OK with the changes. This article certainly needed some slimming down. I dont know what other people will make of it G-Man 20:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Gem, way too much has been cut back, I am going to restore some of my work. Why didn't you discuss it first instead of just removing, that is a bit unfair don't you think? Nick Boulevard 195.92.67.74 16:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have reverted to the last full version, we all agree that it is too long but that is why we were discussing it here, I have just trimmed the science section to a bite size edit, I promise I will do the same with the sprawling popular music article by this weekend, I will do as I promised earlier and combine Valiants fine wording, and Gem, Valiantis carried out quite a few stream line edits not so long ago like sport etc, since he/she did this the page has risen to pr of 6 on google which means that the main page is becoming more important on the net and hence any major deletions without discussion could alter this. If you wish to add the government section again then I will revert that? Thanks Nick Boulevard 19:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nick please dont put it back exactly how it was, There were some good things to Gem's version. I agree that the cuts were a bit overdone, but you also removed the transport, and politics section. I have merged some of your and his/her version.

Perhaps you could add a bit more to the culture summary without putting it back to its former size. G-Man 19:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have reverted again but I will now restore what gem has added in transport and politics and I promise you all that I will radically reduce the culture section by this weekend which is the main culprit for the size of the page, since Valiantis trimmed the page a few weeks back I have been gradually fixing links back to Birmingham and the Google pr rating now reads 6 instead of 5 which is amazing, any massive alterations to the page could undo months of hard work, trust me. Nick Boulevard 19:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for deleting that but it's restored now :) there are many areas that need cutting back on but please, please discuss here first, it was a great idea to add these sub pages but if it will lead to the main page becoming and index again then I totally am against that, other city pages are packed with info especially culture, Brum is bursting with culture and culture, and the science and invention is what our forefathers built the city's foundations on, like I say I will take a break from adding anything and concentrate on reducing with the help of others. Thanks :) Nick Boulevard 20:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed war section on main page also, food will be next :) Nick Boulevard 20:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

trimmed food but could be smaller, trimmed and merged music section with valiants excellent edit from a while back, I would really like to keep the music section like this, it is a substantial part of Bhams history. Like I said I will refrain from adding too much more for a bit, thanks Nick Boulevard 15:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

My next plan is to index the galleries section and to cut down further the food section. (If I say it here first I am covering my back I hope) Nick Boulevard 22:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Harborne
Where is Harborne on the main page districts? 195.92.67.65 23:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)