Wikipedia talk:WikiProject West Midlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Proposed Black Country category

Do you think that a category for the Black Country would be a useful way of drawing all such articles together? Last time I looked I don't think there was one, but I held off creating it until this project was going and I could moot the idea here. (I think!) Matthew 13:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think such a category would be sensible considering the number of articles that would fall within it. However, problems, as identified on the article itself, are that it is loosely defined and this may lead to some disagreements when it comes to putting some articles into this category. - Erebus555 13:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too. My inclination with articles such as Wolverhampton, where it's arguable whether or not the subject of the article is in the Black Country, would be to include them and then let the reader use his judgement. Matthew 14:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a tough one. I think (although I personally disagree with the definition), anything within the Metropolitan Boroughs of Walsall, Dudley and Sandwell, plus anything within the City of Wolverhampton perhaps should be within the category - simply because it's a cleaner definition than anything else. However, what about the areas within the conurbation that don't fit into the above, such as Essington which is clearly a mining village, is within the West Midlands Urban Area and is quite similar to the villages of the Black Country in nature prior to the completion of the conurbation (if you see what I mean). There's also completely borderline cases such as Perton - within the WM Urban Area, outside the WM County. Fingerpuppet 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
More thoughts. There's already categories for Wolverhampton, Walsall, Sandwell and Dudley. Would everything in those categories also be in the Black Country category? Fingerpuppet 08:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to say yes unless the inclusion would seem silly or counterintuitive. And on the other side, anything self-identifying with the Black Country but not part of the standard area should be included, I think, unless again silly or counterintuitive. Matthew 18:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article and Image Requests

I will be creating a requests area for the project where participants and non-participants can add an article which has not been created. I have my own personal requests area which I will move to the page. Will it be useful to create a separate image request page where the user can name the article they want an appropriate image to be inserted onto? - Erebus555 15:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the article requests page is now up and running - it needs work still in terms of structure, layout etc.. So should an image requests page be merged into the article requests or have a separate page of its own? Currently, the project page says that the template of image requests should be placed on the articles talk page. I do not feel this is good enough and probably will not get the attention of the users. The category for image requests in the West Mids is here with currently four articles. - Erebus555 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject scope

Would it be more sensible to have the WikiProject deal with articles within the county rather than in the region? That way, it leaves space for the possible creation of sister projects for the surrounding counties which would fall under the region. Your thoughts please. - Erebus555 17:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. There's plenty of scope within the West Midlands county alone for a project, and also ensures that there's no duplication of effort should any sister projects spring up for the surrounding counties. Matthew 18:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles across the entire region, that's for sure. I would suggest, however, that the initial concentrations are on the West Midlands county, plus the other "county towns", plus any town that is either a Unitary Authority today, or was a County Borough prior to 1974. That should be a manageable amount, especially if we can get editors from throughout the region interested. Fingerpuppet 23:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I changed the scope so that it says the project is intended to improve the coverage of the West Midlands county on Wikipedia. Slight problem though! On the Project templates such as the userboxes and talk page banners, the image used was of the region and not county. I editted them so that the county map was used instead and upon previewing, I found that is near impossible to notice the shaded area representing the West Midlands county. Here's an example of what a new talk page banner template would look:

This article is within the scope of the West Midlands WikiProject. This is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the West Midlands. In so doing it works and collaborates with the two related projects UK Geography WikiProject and UK Subdivisions WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
As you can notice, the red shaded area is very difficult to see! - Erebus555 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess then that we need to remove the banner template from the likes of Talk:Newcastle-under-Lyme (borough) and Talk:Telford, given that the scope's now changed. Can I suggest that the image is changed to the outline of the county then? Additionally, is the parts of the West Midlands conurbation that are outside the Metropolitan County to be covered? It would seem pretty daft to miss them out to me. Fingerpuppet 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to include them - and places such as Redditch, that aren't part of the conurbation but may as well be for the level of influence it has on them. Matthew 00:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to include the commuter villages and satellite towns like Cannock and Bedworth (which is part of the Coventry Urban Area), and how about the other overspill New Towns of Telford and Tamworth? Fingerpuppet 08:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So am I right in thinking that whilst we are not doing the region we will still be including the following in the project scope:
This could become quite complicated to some participants. And I will be changing the banners to the map showing the county as opposed to the West Midlands region.- Erebus555 12:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I'm not so keen on the inclusion of Newcastle-under-Lyme but agree to the inclusion of the others. Is there anything that sets out exactly what the West Midlands metropolitan area is? Perhaps it could be used to put a more-rigid boundary on the scope. Matthew 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Newcastle-under-Lyme. The boundaries of the county are on the article page but here it is anyway:

Image:WestMidlandsNumbered.png

  1. City of Wolverhampton
  2. Dudley
  3. Walsall
  4. Sandwell
  5. City of Birmingham
  6. Solihull
  7. City of Coventry -Erebus555 13:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the metropolitan area rather than the county area, even though the West Midlands is a metropolitan county! Matthew 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your comment (I'm having a funny day today)! From looking around, I don't think there really is an actual defined metropolitan area. As this is the case, I'd say we stick to what has officially been defined which seems to be the county itself. - Erebus555 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, I think that there's a few of my comments that have been misunderstood!

  • Regarding the talk page images on various pages was simply that I'd placed several on the talk pages of large towns such as the examples given within the original scope of the project that are no longer within. Therefore I'm double-checking that they should be removed.
  • The comment regarding the WM county image was in response to the fact that the WM county is so hard to see on the new banner - I was suggesting removing the map of England and replacing it with the WM County.
  • As for scope, how about:
    • Anything within the WM County.
    • Anything within the WM conurbation.
    • Anything within the Coventry/Bedworth Urban Area.
    • Anything within an approximate 5 mile radius of any of the above. That will catch pretty much all of the satellite towns and villages, plus items such as Wolverhampton Airport that are outside the area technically, but are clearly related.
    • The three overspill New Towns.

Fingerpuppet 19:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. First we will need a couple of maps created. A map for the project itself to show the area which will be included in the scope of the project and another for the talk page banner. A map of the WM county without the numbers should be created - that won't be too hard - for the talk page banners. This could become a little confusing but I think it could work. I'm not really a map maker myself so do we know anyone who is and who is willing take this up? - Erebus555 19:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure, is everyone happy with this or does anyone have any queries with Fingerpuppet's comment? - Erebus555 16:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monthly article improvement drive

As a participant in the Architecture WikiProject I thought this project should adopt a scheme that they use. Every month, an article under the project scope is selected to be specifically improved with the project's efforts being focussed on expanding the article to a high status. For example, say Highgate, Birmingham was chosen for an improvement drive then the project participants will be urged to help expand this article with references, information and images.

A subpage will be created for nominations so an editor can add article name and a couple of sentences on why they believe it should be selected for the improvement drive. Below that other editors can add Support, Oppose or Comment similar to the process of AfD. When the decision is made, the nominations are archived.

I thought it maybe useful if there is a log kept to show what was done to the article during the improvement drive so that it could be decided if the improvement drive was successful for that month.

This is basically to get the project moving and working actively. It will also get the editors working together in one collaborative effort. Your thoughts please. - Erebus555 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this. My nomination would be Dudley - its Wikipedia page does not properly befit a town of its size and it's also the biggest town in the county. Plus I live there, but don't actually know a great deal about the place! Matthew 16:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I like your enthusiasm but I think before we set this up, we should get other views. I agree Dudley does need work. I can see a lot of articles that could benefit if this were to take off. - Erebus555 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Dudley would be a good one, for a "first go" I think. Looking at the former County Boroughs, the Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Coventry articles are pretty good; Walsall, Solihull, West Bromwich and Smethwick aren't too bad. Dudley is really a bunch of lists with not much content. It will also be easier to get the ball rolling with one of the larger towns, as more people should have more to say! Fingerpuppet 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's good we seem to have chosen Dudley already to be improved. I think we should start it next month so that we have time to establish the scheme on the project. - Erebus555 18:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! Matthew 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well thanks to your enthusiasm, I have moved the subpage to it's own page branching off the project. I think Dudley is a good one because not that much work is actually needed and so we can see how successful that was quite easily!
I have started the page under a user sub-page: User:Erebus555/Monthly improvement drive. Feel free to edit it and if you have any queries about the nomination or voting process then make the known on here or on the talk page. If this page is agreed upon then I will move it to a WikiProject sub-page and it should get going! - Erebus555 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

I have submitted two nominations for did you know; AB Row and Hillfields. If successful, they should become the first articles to enter our showcase section! Hopefully we can get some more articles into 'Did you know' and hopefully we can expand articles into 'Good' or 'Featured' status. Come on! Lets get us some silverware! - Erebus555 17:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In a sudden turn of events, AB Row has been put up for deletion! - Erebus555 20:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added Hillfields to the showcase. It appeared today on the Did You Know column! - Erebus555 11:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice to have had something there so soon after the project's start! Matthew 12:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pidgeon Park

This article was recently created, but is it notable enough to be on wikipedia? It describes the area around St Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham. There really is no set standard for places, so I came here, seeking the advice of a resident of the area, who can perhaps help a yankee editor like myself. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable enough to merit its own article. If it is to be mentioned on WP then it should be in the article about the cathedral. Besides which, the original editor can't even spell 'pigeon'! :-) Matthew 09:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is not the official name for the area as it is simply St. Philips Churchyard (even though the building is now a cathedral). I believe the article should be merged with the cathedral article. - Erebus555 13:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Birmingham City Council URLs

Please note that all "long" BCC URLs (in the form "http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=321&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=6&MENU_ID=1760") will cease to work, later this year. Short URLs, in the form "http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/towerhilllibrary" will continue to work. Short URLs with the appended ".bcc" (e.g. those in the form "http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/towerhilllibrary.bcc" are not supported, and may also cease to work. A list of many, but not all, of the currently available short URLs is at http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/urls and will be added to over the coming weeks. Apologies for any inconvenience. BCCWebTeam 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us. It saves alot of panic! - Erebus555 16:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The process of trawling Wikipedia and replacing the outdated links with the new ones is something that would lend itself well to automation. Could we get a bot to do this? I have no idea how these things work! Matthew 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I am permitted use AWB but I have no idea to how to replace the links! - Erebus555 17:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New infoboxes

A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regards, Jhamez84 02:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reservations about "the West Midlands Wikiproject"

I have already raised with Erebus my reservations about this overarching approach to the West Midlands Area and would like to learn more about the project and who is involved before feeling comfortable with the rather arbitrary criteria being applied to this and other articles. My experience suggests that Wikipedia works best via collective iteration rather than through interventions into many articles within a region by a consortium's view about about what is best. I know that people are welcomed if they wish to join in, but what happens if you get free spirits who don't want to join, but who are good researchers and writers but may have views the consortium regard as idiosyncratic. it seems to me that Wikipedia encourages such people while also allowing their views to be debated and contested. I see wikipedia encouraging its contributors to arrive at best versions of the truth by constant rewriting and tweaking of what may be initially sketchy. Simply placing a label on an article suggesting it doesn't come up to a partcular standard of accuracy or reliability impugnes the integrity of a contributor striving to arrive at the truth via successive approximations. There are as many West Midlands as there are West Midlanders and it doesn't do to impose a consortium standard on this heterogeneity. by all means contest and rebut and reinterpret and edit but don't issue edicts or blanket judgements on the reliability of different articles or assume the right to do this. Even if an individual is in breach of Wikipedia's conventions of good practice or civility this should be a matter that can be dealt with through individual complaint and appeal - not through having an article passed around among a self-appointed group of referees who presume to set a standard for articles about the area, is it the intention of members of the WestMidlands Wikiproject to decide what is true and untrue about the West Midlands? If so why not seek work with a more conventional encyclopaedia?

The use of the passive voice in this introduction suggests that it is received opinion. I would really appreciate having some idea, as I would with a refereed academic article, of who are the authors in this case and their referees. I worry about relative anonymity and lack of transparency in this ambitiously worthy plan. Is it really the best way to discuss and describe the region? A book would list authors by name and provenance. If such a list exists my apologies.Suffice it to say that for the time being I am worried. Simon Baddeley 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I don't see it as a way of deciding what's right and what's wrong - simply that of trying to improve as many articles in the area as much as possible. The "Monthly Improvement Drive" is all about trying to encourage people to do what they can for an individual article, not that they must do anything. People are more than welcome to join the project - equally people are more than welcome to stay outside. The project is just a way to try to co-ordinate efforts at improvement, perhaps by pointing thoughts at articles that people don't normally think about, yet that their knowledge can improve.
If I thought it meant to be "we know better than anyone else", I wouldn't be here.
Can I ask which articles you refer to when you state 'Simply placing a label on an article suggesting it doesn't come up to a particular standard of accuracy or reliability impugnes the integrity of a contributor striving to arrive at the truth via successive approximations'? Can I also ask what the problem is with bringing articles to wider attention so that others may participate in 'collective iteration' - which as you state is the way Wikipedia works best? Fingerpuppet 08:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that Simon is conflating the addition of the project tag to Black Patch Park with my tagging that article due to {{Essay-entry}} & {{nofootnote}}

[edit] My reply

It is such a relief to see such moderate and considered responses to my troubled paragraphs penned in the pre-dawn hours of Saturday morning. I was reacting to the continued appearance of a box at the top of an article on Black Patch Park. I think that in a more sober mood on Saturday afternoon and in the light of these remarks, I can begin to get my concerns into proportion. I have also had a private communication from another Wikipedia editor that clarifies things for me.

To take an example. i have never worked out where one inserts an entry - top or bottom - of a talk page. Thanks for moving my words to their right place.

I have regarded the actual Black Patch Park, not the Wikipedia article about it, as a labour of love for the last three years. I am, with many others, a campaigner and lobbyist for urban parks. I and others have passed anxious months fearing that Black Patch Park was going to be decommissioned and built over as has happened far too often with cherished places in my life. The article in Wikipedia has been used regularly to inform politicians and journalists about this park - simply by emailing them its URL. The article with its hyperlinks and references has been an incomparably useful means of diffusing information about the place in order to further the goals of The Friends of Black Patch Park. While I realise there is no problem about forwarding a wikipedia URL as part of a political campaign or quoting it in polemical pamphlets, what is entirely innappropriate is for that tone to enter the article, except as a secondary cited source that informs a Wikipedia reader of an actual event relevant to the facts of the case. I got my aspirations for the safety and integrity of the Black Patch mixed up with a duty to pursue the objectivity that should inform work in Wikipedia. I am well aware this problem arises in relation to more prominently contested themes e.g. the Middle East, foxhunting, euthansia and so on. There are other weaknesses relating to citation and format. At times my defensiveness in relations to criticisms of an article on a subject of passionate interest to me have mingled in my impressions of what is being put to me with corrections rightly made in matters of format, style and approaches to reference, citation and links. I appreciate the tolerant tone of the responses above to my earlier remarks. My mood is contrite, but I would appreciate help with making the article on Black Patch Park exemplary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Patch_Park Regards Simon Baddeley 15:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone have a map?

Does anyone have a good, high quality map of the West Midlands county? I'm looking for one with detailed county and borough boundaries in particular so I can set up a map for the county to use in the new UK infoboxes asap.

I'm intending to produce a map akin to the Greater Manchester map, in which simillar settlements also use this style (see Acton, London, Salford and Ryhope as examples). Please reply to my talk page if you think you can help. Thanks! Jhamez84 03:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've since created the map. Any problems, issues or inaccuracies, feel free to drop me a message and I'll ammend as appropriate. Enjoy. Jhamez84 06:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me - but you've missed off a motorway: the Aston Expressway (A38(M))! And Bromsgrove. And a good-sized chunk of Cannock (ie the bits south of the M6 Toll). And I think Balsall Common (between Coventry and Solihull) has also vanished. :-) Matthew 14:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The urban areas appear to have shrunk! Wolverhampton and Dudley MBC both have urban areas going right up to the western border, and over in the case of Wolverhampton. Birmingham is built-up right to the southern border, and M5 is entirely west of Birmingham. There's also no part of the southern section of M42 or M40 within the county, and Coventry is built-up pretty much to the border in the south and east. We've also lost Sandwell Valley as a non-urban area right down to M5 J1. I think what's happened is that the political boundaries layer is to a different scale from the rest, as Wolverhampton and Coventry seem to be out by pretty much the same amount as each other. Fingerpuppet 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem guys - thought it best to post to the experts first!!! These things are easy enough to fix - I'll see what I can do for you! Jhamez84 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've ammended some of these issues. Please review it for inaccuracies and get back to me if you spot anything. Again, the map is found here. Jhamez84 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
More moaning, I'm afraid! Wolverhampton is built up all the way to the northern border, with the odd bit (such as Westcroft) going beyond, and in the SW the urban area reaches out beyond the borough boundary towards Wombourne. Codsall/Bilbrook just to the NW is missing completely, as is Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley between Walsall and Cannock. In Walsall MBC, Brownhills is a little larger than shown, and there's less of a gap between Aldridge and Streetly than that shown. Birmingham is still shown as being west of M5 in places - it's completely east of the motorway. It's getting there, though! Fingerpuppet 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Bromsgrove etc. are still AWOL too! :-) Matthew 14:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I've ammended these issues (I think). Please check the link again to review. You may have to refresh your browser to see the changes. Any more inaccuracies, feel free to contact me by all means! I have no objections to this kind of feedback! Jhamez84 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trial

Per the above, Dudley, Halesowen, Blackheath, Solihull and Wolverhampton are each using the West Midlands specific map as a trial. It is expected that these will be indicated in the wrong position. These five places have been selected so that contributors from this WikiProject can identify exactly were the pointer should be for each.

Please state below in what direction each of these settlements should be shown as their true location. This way the map can be calibrated correctly. Jhamez84 01:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wolverhampton's a bad choice of test article, as there's only one article for it (as the urban area is larger than the MBC), so it doesn't have an appropriate box. The Dudley marker should be slightly to the south west, as it's shown on the Sandwell/Dudley MBC border right now. Halesowen is south of the marker, Solihull should be closer to the M42 than the Birmingham border, and Blackheath's not bad at all. Fingerpuppet 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do with this, though it is incredibly difficult to set (I managed it on Greater Manchester as I knew the locale.) Jhamez84 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help still needed on 'Black Patch Park' article

I keep hoping that someone will respond to my pleas for help with bringing the Black Patch park article up to standard. I am finding the general criticism that it reads like an 'essay' rather unhelpful and would appreciate guidance or direct editing that would remove the offending elements and replace then with ones that conform ton Wiki standards. Please will someone respond! If the whole article is going to be pulled I'd like to have a chance to ste it right first but how? And if I cannot do it can someone else? At the moment it seems like death by a thousand (well a hundred cuts). i remove an element that might seem subjective and yet the notice at the head of the article remains whenever I drop into to see if the article passes muster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Patch_Park Simon Baddeley 10:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing articles for disused WM railway stations

There's a list of missing articles for disused WM railway stations at Template talk:West Midlands railway stations. Andy Mabbett 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added this to the WikiProject Article Requests as well. - Erebus555 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AlexWilkes

User:AlexWilkes has been greatly helping the West Midlands category with the creation of articles such as newspapers, neighbourhoods and schools but the problem is, he doesn't reference them, categorise them and inevitably orphans them. So I thought I should ask you lot to just look through his contributions and just pick out the articles he has created and sort them out.

I have already contacted him about it to prevent any further problems in the future and I hope he is still encouraged to create articles. Thanks! - Erebus555 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive tie break

It appears we have a tie break in the improvement drive nominations area. I don't know what the process is when we get one of these :-S. Anyone got any ideas? I'm favouring the West Bromwich article... - Erebus555 18:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sutton Coldfield category

Seeing as there are now numerous articles related to Sutton Coldfield, should there be a category for them all? - Erebus555 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so - categorisation is really quite dull, but very useful. Fingerpuppet 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_West_Midlands_63e7.html"