Talk:Birmingham Voyage Tips and guide

This article was the Collaboration of the week between 26 February 2007 and 7 March 2007.

Contents

So, I moved this page from Birmingham, since that name is also used for Birmingham (Alabama). According to our article naming conventions, we use the next largest containing geographical area -- I think it's the Midlands for Birmingham -- to disambiguate two cities. I did that, and then added a page for the Midlands for good measure. If someone can think of a better way to do this, go to it. --(WT-en) Evan 07:55, 2 Dec 2003 (PST)

Moved from Project:Votes for deletion.

• Birmingham (Midlands). Clumsy title, not suitable for redirect. Content moved to Birmingham. -- (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 21:42, 2 Dec 2004 (EST)
  • Unsure. Can you explain why it's a "clumsy title"? It's in line with the naming conventions isn't it, unless this is either the world's only Birmingham or by far the world's most famous Birmingham? Is either of those the case? -- (WT-en) Hypatia 02:36, 3 Dec 2004 (EST)
    • Well, it's certainly the most famous Birmingham in England. If people think it's not significantly more famous than Birmingham, Alabama, to have the Birmingham page by itself, then it should be moved to "Birmingham (England)". "Birmingham (Midlands)" doesn't really sound right. (WT-en) Professorbiscuit 22:56, 3 Dec 2004 (EST)
      • Yes, the policy of choosing the name of the item immediately up in the hierachy is more honoured in the breach than the observance and, often, rightly so, since the lower level regions often have ambiguous names themselves. -- (WT-en) Hypatia 23:09, 3 Dec 2004 (EST)
  • Birmingham (Alabama) is more famous in the United States (mostly for historical reasons having to do with the civil rights movement), so I don't think the "world's most famous" rule applies to the one in England. I think Birmingham should be a disambig page. So Birmingham (Midlands) or Birmingham (England) seem better to me. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:59, 4 Mar 2005 (EST)
  • There seem to be 2 almost identical pages at the moment: Birmingham (Midlands) and Birmingham. One needs to be a disambig or redirect before we have two forked pages. (WT-en) DanielC 16:02, 12 May 2005 (EDT)
    • Too late, we have a forked article and it needs to be merged. Considering Birmingham was originally a disambiguation page and discussion about deleting Birmingham (Midlands) has gon on here rather than at Talk:Birmingham (Midlands), where there is NO hint of this controversy (fiasco), and no-one has taken steps to stop the articles being forked, I assume the VFD is lost and the name change does not take place. Consequently I propose to plunge forward and move all content on Birmingham to Birmingham (Midlands) and the restore the disambiguation page to Birmingham. To discuss that move further please go to the Talk:Birmingham (Midlands) page, where this conversation should be continued. -- (WT-en) Huttite 04:37, 19 Jun 2005 (EDT)

Conversation now continues Talk:Birmingham (Midlands).

OK, as per discussion above - Birmingham (Midlands) just sounds incredibly clumsy to English ears - I'm gonna plunge forward and move the page to Birmingham (England) - sounds a little better. If we must disambiguate fully (surely Birmingham in England is the most famous Birmingham? - it is the 2nd largest city in England, after all!), then this seems to be the better option.... I'm actually in the middle of splitting the Midlands into East and West Midlands in any case.... (reflect actual regions). So _Midlands_ by itslef would have been inconsistent.... (WT-en) Pjamescowie 13:39, 19 Jun 2005 (EDT)

It's not a question of being the most famous; it's a question of being by far the most famous. Examples being, say, Los Angeles in California vs. Los Angeles (Chile) or Moscow in Russia vs. Moscow (Idaho).

Well Birmingham (England) was there for a thousand years beforehand, the others are just a tribute to the first. If you don't want Birmingham (Alabama) then get an original name. :)

Anyways, Birmingham (England) seems fine; although it's not strictly within the ANC, I think it's fine. --(WT-en) Evan 12:13, 30 Jul 2005 (EDT)

FYI, see the discussion at Talk:St. Petersburg. --145.99.202.92 04:57, 13 April 2006 (EDT)

"Also take care at either end of Broad Street where the traffic-flow speeds up and radical Muslim youths in cars throw missiles at drunken revellers. Immodestly dressed women can also expect to receive sexist verbal abuse."

Is this true? I can't possibly imagine such a thing happening on a frequent basis. Of course, I'm American so I've no idea, but I've never seen anything like this in my travels to the UK. 69.86.199.51 22:18, 12 July 2006 (EDT)

Unfortunately it's true and happens all too frequently. The favoured missiles seem to be eggs, occaisionally higher powered water pistols containing dubious liquids are used. At least they're not bombing buses. (WT-en) Chris 1965 07:10, 23 August 2006 (EDT)

I've never heard of this, Is there a citation to support it? (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 16:05, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Citing sources isn't really done on Wikivoyage... well not in the way that it is on Wikipedia. Anyway, just because it hasn't been reported somewhere officially is a bad reason for removing what may be a valid and useful piece of info. The problem is if it is just intended to stir up racial tension. I am going to go ahead and remove the words "radical muslim youths" because that isn't a helpful bit of info, but the fact that it could happen is useful, and for that reason it should definitely stay there. Remember, one of the main points of Wikivoyage is that the traveller comes first... -- (WT-en) Tim 16:22, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Thank you, but I wasn't querying whether it was done by muslims; I was querying whether it is done at all. "could happen" != "does happen". (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 16:33, 26 November 2006 (EST)

I've been on broad street many times, and I've been no witness to this. This is silly.

There seems to be confusion between taxis ("black cabs", which can be hailed in the street, or used at taxi ranks) and private hire cars (which must be pre-booked). This distinction is national. Is there a standard way to differentiate? (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 16:04, 26 November 2006 (EST)

West Midlands Taxi use

This page really ought to be located at Birmingham. It is far more famous in the UK and outside of the USA than any other Birmingham. It's also the original Birmingham and most others are named after it. It is the second largest city in the United Kingdom and one of Europe's biggest cities. Birmingham Alabama should be located at Birmingham Alabama. This is very like the situation on Wikipedia when American Wikipedians insisted on titling the country 'Georgia' as 'George (Country)' because they felt that an American state was more deserving. Please remember that the Internet is an international network and not just used by Americans. (WT-en) Xania 13:23, 11 December 2006 (EST)

So, first, People on Wikivoyage en: come from all over the world -- Australia, England, Canada. We're all working on these guides together to help all English-speaking travellers -- from Americans to New Zealanders to Nigerians to Indians to Singaporese. We need to keep an international perspective, and dividing the community against itself based on arbitrary criteria (men vs. women, American vs. Commonwealth, young vs. old) is no way to reach our goals.

Second, please take a look at Project:article naming conventions. We have some pretty formalized naming rules, especially for places that have the same name. In particular, we almost always use disambiguators, except in the case where one place is "much more famous" than another. I think we've bopped around some ideas of how much more famous a place has to be in order to not be disambiguated; my rough number was 5-10 times "more famous". Now, measuring how famous something is is hard to do... but it's at least a number, even if it has no metric.

My feeling is that Birmingham meets the criteria, and we should probably move it. I think the next most famous Birmingham, the one in Alabama, is probably the default one people think of in the USA, but not by much, and outside the US I don't think it's even close. I also think that since Americans often use the naming convention "City, State", finding the AL city at Birmingham (Alabama) is not going to be too surprising for people.

So, unless there's major objections, let's move this article. --(WT-en) Evan 13:52, 11 December 2006 (EST)

I agree with Evan. There is also precedent, at Wikipedia. (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 15:23, 11 December 2006 (EST)

I would go with this. I think the tone of my previous message was a bit too anti-American but the point remains. Birmingham, UK is the main Birmingham and much more famous worldwide. The same applies for other cities like Manchester (I believe there are many Manchesters in the USA). I think the best thing would be to have a simple link to the 'Birmingham Alabama' article from the top of the 'Birmingham' (UK) page. (WT-en) Xania 06:32, 12 December 2006 (EST)

I'm removing the following listings as closed, if they open again we can stick the listings back in, but for now there's no point in cluttering the page with places you can't eat at! (WT-en) Maj 14:14, 10 January 2007 (EST)

• <do name="Aston Hall" address="Trinity Road, Aston" directions="Train to Aston or Witton or #7 bus" phone="+44 121 327 0062" email="[email protected]" url="http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/astonhall" hours="closed throughout 2007" price="Free entrance" lat="52.5066" long="1.8836" tags="jacobean,aston, aston_hall,washington_irving,conan_doyle,english_civil_war">Restored Jacobean mansion built between 1618 and 1635, containing period rooms and artwork. Cannon damage from the English Civil War still visible. The Hall was visited by Arthur Conan Doyle and Washington Irving, inspiring the latter's 'Bracebridge Hall'. Aston Hall by Candlelight is a popular Christmas event that takes place every two years (even numbers) where the whole grounds are lit by candles for 17th-century festivities (fee charged).</do>

• I've restored it - the exterior can still be viewed. It's a stately home, not a cafe! (WT-en) Andy Mabbett 16:33, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Why does this article repeat the old canard that Birmingham was a concrete jungle in the 1970s, but isn't any more? It has been repeated in so many places that it "must" be true. In fact, I rather liked Birmingham in the 70s - it had a good atmosphere. It's also good now of course, arguably better, but in a different way. (WT-en) Ashbranch 05:07, 28 February 2007 (EST)

As I'm an anon user, I thought it best to explain here why I changed "exclusively" to "mainly" near the start of this subsection. Previously the sentence said that:

"There is an extensive overland rail network serving most of Birmingham and the West Midlands area, operated exclusively by Central Trains."

This was, to put it charitably, completely wrong. Mainly by Central Trains, all right. But to name some of the exceptions: you can go from Birmingham to Coventry with Virgin Trains, from Birmingham to Solihull with Chiltern Railways, and from Birmingham to Wolverhampton with Arriva Trains Wales. Hence my edit. 86.136.255.1 20:27, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I added some stuff there, but it was based on memories from the 80s. Someone who knows the city now, please check it. (WT-en) Pashley 04:53, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Hi,

There are a number of districts within Birmingham (Bearwood, Selly Oak, Sparkbrook) that have got their own page on Wikivoyage, with their own things to do, but there is no 'see also' page that gives the reader an explicit link to these districts, or allows one to be able to expand on some of the stuff there eg the 'Selly Oak' article is desperately out of date. Birmingham's a big city, but one with lots of small areas that make it up, so it's only fair that these small areas - rather than the town centre alone - are recognised. How do people feel about this?

I agree with this. Birmingham from my experience is huge and the page feels cluttered with information which would benefit from being spread out. Also Manchester has districts despite being lass than half the size of Birmingham. Inferno986return (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK so I admit I am having a rather miserable week due to a multitude of reasons, bed-ridding flu including, and I have found this article as a great opportunity to use the remainder of my functioning consciousness to do something seemingly productive (and a tad personally beneficial, as it appears on my travel plans). Despite the fact that we are still a scant community spread over rarely overlapping fields of interest, I hoped that this being an English town and an article with history will actually energize people who notice my editing to join in and help make this article up-to-date, complete and actually really attractive.

And what happened? A number of formatting efforts, some of which pretty arbitrary IMHO. I start believing that the many iterations of Frank may indeed be different persons if we are so prone to focus on petty formatting issues rather than put more effort into article content and making our articles wholesome, complete, universally attractive and actually useful.

Given that I've just started a mini-edit-war, I am now hoping we can turn all the negative energy and friction created by divergent views as to where to put the climate table and such into a joint effort and discussion on how to further improve this article. I could really use this boost of communal spirit personally, and so could Wikivoyage. Anybody? No? Dust? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've noticed you've been working extensively on Birmingham for the last couple of days, just as you've earlier on done a brilliant work on Paris and a load of other European cities. Maybe we should restart the cotm project and nominate Birmingham to get the attention of other editors?

Personally I'm a bit busy with a couple of other projects, namely cleanup of articles in the Baltic States and Caribbean — areas that include some really messed up articles. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Yes you've been doing great work on this article, but I have restored the climate box you removed. It is sanctioned by the Climate Expedition and placed squarely in the Understand section by Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it, just as it has been done in loads of other articles. In most cases it is even accompanied there by a Climate subsection in prose. If you think climate boxes make articles "awful and unattractive" you might ought to start a conversation on one of those talk pages and try for a consensus to change the way it's done, but for now let's leave it in the standard place, per status quo — the individual article is not the place to fight over the broader policy. You also might consider that a longer lede section and/or more robust Understand section would push the climate box down the page a little so it seems less prominent and perhaps less offensive to you. I personally don't find that it "makes the article awful and unattractive" at all, but rather more informative and useful. Texugo (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to preempt a discussion about the climate box and direct our efforts towards making this a better article, alas to no avail.

Back on topic - I find the Birmingham banner the best possible one, because there is no horizontal view of Birmingham that would fit into the banner proportions and look attractive, so the facade fragment works better. That said, it says nothing about the city and does not make one want to visit it, so as many attractive pics of the city (in the more square formats available) are needed as far up as possible. Removing one and starting with a pretty abstract banner and then a sombre table for a city that arguably needs every effort possible to appear attractive to a tourist does not seem helpful.

I firmly believe there is nothing lost in moving the climate table elsewhere. We may also start a climate section for it, but why in the world wouldn't you write one instead of simply moving the table and sitting arms akimbo pointing at my wrongdoing. It is easy to do so, as basically all you do is write what is in the table in prose. In case you need a more local view, weather is a popular topic in the UK and it is easy to find more inspiration in the interwebz regarding the unique characteristics of Birmingham weather.

Why didn't I do it and wrote this lengthy paragraph? Because I don't care for the climate table, I might as well see it removed, there are better sources of weather data more relevant for the traveller than Wikivoyage and weather in the UK is not divergent enough for climate data one or two breadcrumb levels up to be irrelevant. I have other interests and I hoped for you, if you care for that, to do just as you suggested (i.e. write the paragraph, expand lead etc.)

I, for one, am anal about listings and their sections. So I gladly took it upon myself to find out more data, coords etc. for most of the listings we have and fill them in, plus find extra ones, alphabetize some and move towards my ideal for that section of the article. I hope I am not going against somebody else's vision for the article - and I hope somebody besides me has a vision for the article that reaches beyond deciding where the climate table should go in. Let us all focus on what we care about and actually go the effort, rather than resize images, move tables and say "that's the policy". Let's contribute. Please. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am not here to "decide where the climate table goes"; that has already been decided. If you take issue with where the climate table goes, it is your responsibility to go to the respective policy page and raise a consensus for something else, not to try to make others feel prudish for putting things in their agreed-upon established place. Incidentally, I do not share your visual revulsion to the table or your apparent fear that its presence will make people think Birmingham must be a horrid destination. As someone unfamiliar with the place, I would rather like to see weather info, and would expect to find it in the usual place. Texugo (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I might have missed the point where we decided that what Expeditions decide on becomes policy. I am a member of the Banner Expedition and I believe we might have agreed on stuff, but it needed to go through a general discussion at the Pub to gain community consensus status.

More importantly, however, I failed to notice the notion that an article has to have a climate table and that it has to go in the Understand section. "Where you can stick it" suggests Understand can have a climate subsection, but we don't have any and you don't feel like creating it. I couldn't find an appropriate reference in the Climate Expedition as well. Could it be that you are reading more into what is written there than it actually is? PrinceGloria (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it exists because we want the traveller to be able to intuitively know which section to look in for what type of info. Weather info always goes in understand, period. It doesn't even fit thematically with where you had it in Stay safe, and no one familiar with how our other articles are set up would think to look there for it. Texugo (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe we did agree sometime ago that the "Learn" section was unnecessary in our articles and it actually makes little sense for travellers to provide information on local universities, schools etc. I cannot find that discussion or its conclusion though. I am tempted, however, to remove the "Learn" section from this article on the grounds of that consensus.

I also believe we could do without what I find to be an outdated list of all eateries in the Selly Oak student/academic suburban district of Birmingham, which may encompass somebody's breadth of knowledge and experience from time spent there, but is of little use to most tourists.

Your takes? PrinceGloria (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Only the language school should be listed in the Learn section, assuming it has short courses a traveller might take without actually moving there. The attraction aspects of the University of Birmingham should be covered in See. The rest of the stuff in Learn should simply be removed. For the eat listings, if you're local, perhaps you know best. Texugo (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am not a local, and I guess nobody knows best. I just find Selly Oak of little interest to most tourists, but may be wrong, this is why I ask. Would you be so kind and help move the listings and info from the learn section to the others? If we are left with the language school only and decide to keep it, why not move it to "Cope"?

BTW, what is our policy on the "Work" sections? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, I won't mind doing it when I have a little time, sure, but learning opportunities always belong in the Learn section, not somewhere else (again, see WV:Where you can stick it). You also might find some guidance at WV:Article templates/Sections. The work section should similarly focus on work opportunities that a traveller might find on a temporary basis, i.e. without actually taking up permanent/semi-permanent residence there. Like Learn, it is an optional section to be omitted when there is nothing of particular value to say. In this case, if it is not common for travellers to do that here and the employment services are not a specific recommendation for travellers, we could probably stand to lose them. Texugo (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Aston University, Aston, +44 121 204 3000, [1]. Formerly the Birmingham College of Advanced Technology, became a university in 1966. Offers undergraduate and postgraduate courses in many subjects, but specialises in business and engineering. Aston Business School is widely regarded as an extremely prestigious MBA business school.
• Birmingham City University (Formerly: University of Central England (UCE)), main campus at Perry Barr (train to Perry Barr or #28A bus), +44 121 331 5000, [2]. Formed from several colleges in the 1970s and adopted the University title in 1992. Offers undergraduate and postgraduate courses, specialising mainly in arts (BIAD at Gosta Green, Aston) and vocational subjects.

• Birmingham Conservatoire part of Birmingham City University. This high class institution specialises in refined music performance based degrees ranging from undergraduate to Advanced Postgraduate Diplomas and PhDs, and recently scored 3rd in student course satisfaction surveys across the UK's 9 music colleges as of September 2009. An ever growing number of well known names are stemming from the Conservatoire, such names have included Di Xiao, Christopher Orton and Rhydian Roberts.

In the Hebrew Wikivoyage we are currently using this banner instead of the one which is currently used here. Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The current one is better. It's striking and original, versus just another skyline pic that could be from almost anywhere. Texugo (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, indeed, plus the new banner is super-hazy. I don't think this is a close contest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Birmingham is actually a hard sell as a tourist destination (at least it is in England) so adding a boring city shot is not the way to promote it. The existing banner is certainly more interesting and compelling. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am not all that proud of all of my banners, but in general I spent a fair amount of time doing banners and I guess my latter creations improved as I learned more about composition, quality issues etc. and started spending more time researching pics. So my heart sank when I saw some of the banners I am most proud of and took the most time for me to make constested in bulk. I am so happy that at least this one is still favoured over a generic skyline shot, something I so hardly tried to avoid. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the above - the original is definitely more striking and recognisably 'Brum'. --Nick ^talk 19:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the old one. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Bulring" is the proprietary name for a modern shopping mall that occupies part of the historic area known as "The Bull Ring". Please do not conflate the two. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Very easy mistake to make, as can be seen.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply