Talk:Birmingham

GA Reassessment

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Birmingham/1}}

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)

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)

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)

---

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 The WY Built-up Area is out of date and is not calculated any more.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) Template:Closed rfc bottom

Requested move 22 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 09:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

---

• Birmingham → Birmingham, EnglandBirmingham, England
• Birmingham (disambiguation) → BirminghamBirmingham

– 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)

• Comment, under WP:ENGLANDPLACE it would be Birmingham, West Midlands not Birmingham, England. DankJae 20:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  Ratios are not IMHO a way to evaluate things. Something might be so common people do not look it up, but go to alternative uses... - Melilac (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support per page view analysis. The relevant page view comparison here is the page view comparison for "Birmingham" vs "Birmingham, Alabama" (since Birmingham, West MidlandsBirmingham, West Midlands and Birmingham, EnglandBirmingham, 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose for exactly the same reasons as G-13114; the rationales in the previous move discussion are still valid. WaggersTALK 08:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose Nothing hs changed, the rationales in the previous move discussion are still valid. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

Comment The views ratio could be interesting to observe considering the origin of viewers. What is the ratio for US viewers and what is it from elsewhere? It may indicate if the move is globally "beneficial" or if it would be mostly for US viewers. I have a feeling that the ambiguity exists mostly in the US. Taillevent (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That information is not publicly available, indeed I'd be surprised if the data existed anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. England's second city is the primary topic by long-term significance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Are you joking? Birmingham is England's second city. Clear primary topic by every criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Demography/Demographics

There seems to be an argument going on about the correct word to use for this section heading. I'm of the opinion that it should be "Demographics" not "Demography". The first refers to the actual population stats/characteristics (which is what we want), the second simply refers to the study of population stats/characteristics. Main article is called "Demographics of Birmingham" so that should be a clue File:Face-wink.svg but interestingly, some of the other big city articles have it wrong (London, Edinburgh, for instance). If the heading were "Demography", that would literally mean that the section covered the study of Birmingham's demographics, rather than presenting the actual stats that have come out of that study. See what I mean? Rodney Baggins .talk. 08:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements prefers the term Demography. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

So it would seem. Thanks, Rodney Baggins .talk. 10:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about it. G-13114 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)