Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:23, 23 May 2007

West Midlands Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It's very interesting to see how this article has grown. 86.137.28.130 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham or not

I don't understand the revert of the edit of mine to clear up the wording: my edit said that (a) it was a town, and (b) that it was in the city of Birmingham. This was actually a stronger identification of Sutton Coldfield as part of Birmingham, than the previous edit, which only said it was part of the metropolitan borough of Birmingham (the "and" is important). However, I think it's fair to call it a town: Sutton has been annexed much later than other parts of Birmingham and retains in many ways a separate character: it is a separate post town, and for example the parliamentary constituency is still called Sutton Coldfield (UK Parliament constituency) and not Birmingham Sutton or some such - on the latter point we may be able to pull out some documentation regarding that identity, even.

Because of this distinctiveness i think describing it as a suburb or district is problematic, and I don't think saying it is "a" is a solution to this. Morwen - Talk 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. We do not claim, for example, that Pontefract or Castleford are parts of Wakefield - merely that they are within the City of Wakefield metropolitan district. Likewise, we do not claim that Leamington Spa is a part of Warwick, even though those two towns are virtually conjoined in terms of urban sprawl, as with Sutton and Birmingham. So the suggestion that Sutton Coldfield cannot be described accurately as a "town" within the City of Birmingham seems erroneous. By that same token, we would have to describe Hove as an area of Brighton and vice versa - even more so, given that the City's official name includes both "towns". And don't tell the residents of Stoke on Trent that the "six towns" are actually mere geographical place names... DWaterson 23:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 17:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)I live in Erdington, near Sutton Coldfield. I agree that Sutton has a different, (Snobbish) character and is unlike the rest of my city, (Birmingham). Erdington is also a separate Parliamentary Constituency but it does have Birmingham in its name.
Barbara Shack 13:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Calling Sutton a "town" is considered unacceptable though that way of describing Sutton appeard here in an earlier version of this page. I therefore wrote, "Sutton Coldfield is considered a town".

That's ridiculous. It is not "considered" to be anything, it quite demonstrably is a town. It is no more "considered" to be a town than an elephant is "considered" to be an animal. Given that "town" is a term that carries no official or legal status in the UK (unlike "city") and therefore the whole dispute is meaningless anyway, and that you have demonstrated a personal negative POV on the issue ("Snobbish" above), I would really ask that you please refrain from making such unhelpful edits. Thanks. DWaterson 18:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

May 2007 edits

On the repeated censorship, of my contributions to what is a free use encyclopedia article on Sutton Coldfield:

Such pragmatic censorship is not part of the Misplaced Pages constitution, denoting how articles should be free to edit, comprising an objective summary of many subjective opinions and facts. To classify changes to the Sutton Coldfield document as "vandalism", despite the main body of the text being relatively unaltered is not in keeping with the free-use constution. The changes I made were done with the support of a plethora of other online groups which, as Sutton-born citizens, support the notion of said royal town as an independent town within the Birmingham metropolitan area; Not in rejecting Birmingham connections, merely in distancing what is presently imposed as socio-political absorbtion.

More consideration should me made in the article to the fact that the town has a strong history of independence, one which continues today; the current council upholds the town's feeling of distinctiveness by the annual refurbishment of the royal town signs, positioned along the borders with Birmingham, Walsall and Staffordshire. Each town sign also has a brass placard denoting the tracing the dating of the signs back to 1838 and recognising the existence of the said signs on the same spots since the declaration of the royal town status in the 1500s.

Such attempts to refuse this information, by repeated censrship, along with the connected images is neither egalitarian or respective of multiple opinions. If such information could be recognised, this would provide a more wholesome article, the kind in keeping with exact doctrine of the "West Midlands WikiProject, to improve "Misplaced Pages's coverage" and the "sense of community" of/in each article. Tj_146, 11:35, 22/ 05/ 2007

It is your removal of cited, indisputable and factual information (such as the location of the mayoral chain) which is censorship, and vandalism. Desist. Andy Mabbett 10:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits added information which was from a point of view. Whilst Sutton Coldfield may have the feeling of being an independent town (and I understand this being a resident of the town), it most certainly is not one. It is governed by Birmingham City Council as it is within the borders of Birmingham. This is factual and correct information which, in helping others who research on this topic, can be cited. Plus, the information you added was not cited (meaning, links to other sources were not given to support the information) - this is a major requirement of Misplaced Pages and by rule, all uncited information is liable to be removed if not sourced.

This is not censorship at all. Misplaced Pages needs to keep all articles at a neutral point of view otherwise conflicts between statements in articles will make the whole Wikimedia project useless.

As for the West Midlands Wikiproject, the coverage section means that us participants in it aim to focus our efforts (not completely) on articles under the scope and focus of the wikiproject. The sense of community is not aimed at the articles and those who live within it's subject, but to those who participate in the project so that they can develop a web of communication amongst eachother. - Erebus555 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Or to put the whole debate in a nutshell, Sutton is a separate town to Birmingham, it is a separate Urban sub-area to Birmingham. However - it is governed by Birmingham City Council, so is quite definately part of Birmingham at the same time. It's not an uncommon problem with towns within local authorities named after the largest settlement within - for example Stourbridge is not a part of Dudley (the town), even though it is part of the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley.

I see no problem whatsoever with the current wording that Sutton is a town within the City of Birmingham. Fingerpuppet 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sutton is a separate town to Birmingham,". No, Sutton is a town within Birmingham; as indicated in your latter comment. Andy Mabbett 13:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Towns are not the same as the local government district that they are contained within. To continue my previous example, is Stourbridge a town within Dudley, just because it is within the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley? Is West Bromwich not a town in its own right, even though it has no local authority named after it? Is Wetherby just a part of Leeds (rather than the City of Leeds local authority)? Or Ilkley part of Bradford (rather than the City of Bradford local authority)?

According to the ONS, Sutton is a separate settlement to Birmingham.

The City of Birmingham is the name of the local government district, therefore there is no problem with saying that Sutton is within the boundaries of that body. Suggesting, however, that it is merely a part of Birmingham is false. Fingerpuppet 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct here Pigsonthewing, but I feel the wording implies that Sutton is a suburb, when it does very definately have a different character (as Wetherby, Ilkley, Chapeltown and Stourbridge). Another problem here is that the link, City of Birmingham, links to the settlement of Birmingham, and not the metropolitan area (area governed by Birmingham City Council. As a compromise, may I suggest the following:

Sutton Coldfield is a (town/settlement) within the City of Birmingham metropolitan area, in the West Midlands of England. It is governed locally by the Birmingham City Council. Sutton (as it is often called) is located about 13 km (8 miles) from central Birmingham, in the northeast of the city, and has a population of about 105,452.

Aside from this, I think the second paragraph explains the situation fairly well. L.J.Skinner 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but the current wording is both accurate and adequate. Yours is neither. Andy Mabbett 15:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed West Midlands articles
• Unknown-importance West Midlands articles
• WikiProject West Midlands