The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The resulting WikiProject was not created

Description[edit]

We have WikiProjects for a lot of English cities, but not Birmingham. There is a WikiProject for Manchester and even one for Birmingham's neighbour Coventry. There is a project covering the West Midlands, but as Britain's second largest city with a population of over one million residents and a lengthy and interesting history, there is certainly enough scope to develop a stand alone project for Birmingham covering a wide range of topics. The scope for this WikiProject would be similar to those relating to other cities, and certainly on a par with those relating to London and Mancheter. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Please specify whether or not you would join the project.

TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Metabaronic (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni ^(talk) 09:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
07bargem (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

It might (emphasis on "might") make more sense to merge Coventry and Birmingham into a unified West Midlands project. WP:GM covers the sprawling county of Greater Manchester, not just Manchester city itself. From experience at WP:LONDON, bigger is generally better when it comes to getting enough of a critical mass to keep a project active. (Plus, bringing in Wolverhampton and Sandwell also brings in Wolves and WBA, and thus immediately gives you a larger article base.) – iride scent 17:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name needs work. There is a famous and large American city by the name of Birmingham. There have been several disputes over the use of the name "Birmingham" as well. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of these are counterproductive arguments. There are already WikiProjects for Bradford, Brighton, Bristol and Sheffield. Manchester is covered by WikiProjects Greater Manchester AND Merseyside! Certainly in terms of size - Birmingham's population is more than double that of Manchester, and more than three times that of both Coventry and Birmingham, Alabama. In the context of the West Midlands yes, it should overlap with that WikiProject, but anyone aware of the area knows that there is an anti-Birmingham bias among other parts of the West Midlands and that any inclusion of them with Birmingham as a lead creates problems. The name of Birmingham's City Region ("Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country") shows this split quite dramatically because those in it were not happy to be seen as 'part of Birmingham'. The WikiProject West Midlands is right for the metropolitan area - especially as it covers the old county not the region. Anything 'Greater Birmingham' would struggle not to be required to merge with that.

I think the answer is to let WikiProject Birmingham stand and fall on its own merits. If not enough people sign-up, then maybe we can revisit the argument.Metabaronic (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think whether it is created or not, the name is very problematic, and if it is created, it should use a different name, perhaps WP:WikiProject Birmingham-UK 76.66.193.224 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The naming issue was discussed on the Birmingham talk page some months back. Birmingham in the UK is the older and larger of the two, and the project page could make it clear which Birmingham it was referring to. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"…anyone aware of the area knows that there is an anti-Birmingham bias among other parts of the West Midlands and that any inclusion of them with Birmingham as a lead creates problems" - well, I for one don't know that, and I've lived in Birmingham all my life. Besides, even if it's true, it;s irrelevant: there would be a problem if there was bias amongst Wikipedia editors. If so, there are methods for dealing with it. If that can't be demonstrated; then such a claim would fail to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this relate to WikiProject West Midlands, which already covers Birmingham articles? In what way is that project not adequate for the stated purpose? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there is some anti-Birmingham sentiment from the Black Country, and some of the overspill towns where Brummies were rehoused during the 60s and 70s, although this tends to be from the older generations, I think. I could tell you an interesting story based on this, but here is not the place. Anyway, I'm also confused as to what this has to do with a WikiProject Birmingham. My thoughts when suggesting the project were surprise that as Britain's second largest city there wasn't already a WikiProject Birmingham. Incidentally I started a WikiProject Edinburgh a few months ago as, at the time, it was the only capital of the home countries not to be represented. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as I raised anti-Birmingham sentiment, I don't feel that assuming good faith is in conflict with biased opinions (I know far too many people who are biased in good faith). The relevance of my remark is simple: strong opinion in the real world is likely to be reflected in its wikipedian microcosm. I'm simply saying that a standalone Birmingham wikiproject makes more sense to users than a "Birmingham and Coventry" project or a "Birmingham, Somewhere" wikiproject. I thought it might be better to raise these issues now so we can get on with it. Now, if Andy signs up we'll have enough members to create the thing!Metabaronic (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a fair enough argument when you put it like that. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.