Talk:Sutton Coldfield/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]
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. [1] I therefore wrote, "Sutton Coldfield is considered a town".[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia and by rule, all uncited information is liable to be removed if not sourced.

This is not censorship at all. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^{wot|I did} 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I thought that was a fair compromise!

Sutton Coldfield is a (town/settlement) - true
within the City of Birmingham metropolitan area, - true
in the West Midlands of England. - true
It is governed locally by the Birmingham City Council. - true
Sutton (as it is often called) - I assume so, as this was already in the article!
is located about 13 km (8 miles) from central Birmingham, in the northeast of the city, - on reflection (and measuring), maybe it is maybe nearer 11 ½ km/7miles.

Having a little play with Autoroute (though I could try it with e.g. Google Maps for a usable reference link) --- Centre of Birmingham to Centre of Sutton (geographical centrepoints of both inner ring roads) is 6.5 miles in a straight line; from Holy Trinity to St Philips Cathedral (main churches that would have been built near historical centres of both towns and had the larger towns grow round them), headed south (or north on foot), by road is 7.4 miles on the main route via gravelly hill, erdington and yenton - 7.9 miles headed north, if you stick to the prescribed one-way systems. Less than five miles in a straight line if you measure the north end of central Birmingham to the southern distrits of Sutton, nearly ten if you go by road from New Street to the border with Shenstone. Splitting the difference and calling it 7 miles sounds about right to me, unless there's a set Wiki metric for performing these distance calculations. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and has a population of about 105,452. - story checks out.

So, pray tell Pigsonthewing, distances aside, where is the inaccuracy or inadequacy? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph has been rewritten several times, as there are clearly some strong POVs on this matter. Previous version include this, this, this, and this. Pick and choose your favourite! Personally I favour:

Sutton Coldfield is a town within the City of Birmingham metropolitan borough, in the West Midlands of England. 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.

- which is the same as the current version but just with the words "metropolitan borough" to clarify to meaning of "City of Birmingham". Also, if you read up to the "Birmingham or not" section of this talk page, you'll see that many of the same issues have been debated before. Essentially, there are three main ingredients to be blended here, the first two of which I think are uncontroversial: 1) Sutton is distinctively a town in its own right, as recognised by the ONS and as a matter of fact and degree; and 2) It is within the City of Birmingham metropolitan borough. The third question is therefore whether, because it is within the City of Birmingham MBC, that makes it a part of Birmimngham per se, or whether it makes it a separate settlement that is located within a larger metropolitan borough. Personally, I think it's a silly an immaterial debate, but it clearly bothers some. However, I have no objections in principle to either the current version of the wording, or to User:Lewisskinner's suggestion - however, I'd suggest that saying "it is in the City of Birmingham... it is governed by Birmingham City Council" is somewhat redundant and repetitious. Cheers, DWaterson 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can i suggest we say at the least the its part of the West Midlands conurbation? UKbandit 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existing wording is the result of compromise. A wish to keep it is not a refusal to compromise, but a wish to honour that compromise; the suggested changes are an attempt to move away from that compromise, towards a more partisan position. Andy Mabbett 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said you refused to compromise here, but to humour you, a WP:3RR on your part is not compromise! I was making suggestions for further compromise,but I am willing to lave out the "It is governed locally by the Birmingham City Council" point per DWaterson - I suppose the facts of local government may be dealt with on the metropolitan area/metropolitan borough page. What exactly do you object to in my above lead Pigsonthewing? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 09:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wording Andy reverted was probably best, in my opinion. This is because it is an undisputed fact that Sutton Coldfield is in the metropolitan area, but it is disputed if Sutton Coldfield is in the city. It's best to stick to undisputed facts here. - Erebus555 17:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this was better. Why did Pigsonthewing say it was reverted "per talk"? I cannot see anywhere here favouring his version. I have reverted, please say if this was not the best option. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existing wording is the result of compromise. Given that you replied to that comment, albeit with an oblique reference to a comment elsewhere, I assumed you'd read it. Silly of me. Andy Mabbett 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have linked to a comment to which you have simply reiterated. The compromise (or consensus) does not suit me, so a new consensus should be reached. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to parse your comment, in English. Andy Mabbett 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to think, I thought you could read!! Why are you linking to a previous edit in which you have said "The existing wording is the result of compromise"? Why not link to evidence of that compromise? Why be deliberately obstructive to prove a point? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just coming back to this... sorry

I'm not quite sure why the metropolitan area is being used as a geographic frame of reference still here (it certainly isn't used in any other article, or by any other encyclopedia or gazetteer). Surely "Sutton Coldfield is a town within the metropolitan borough of the City of Birmingham..." would've satisfied this naming dispute? It is used quite well in a comparable situation; Swinton, Greater Manchester, where the town has an identity beyond the seperate city of Salford. Jhamez84 01:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

needing further info or updates

the education section needs a re-write the Parade need more detail need to include more info on the planned improvements to the parade and bus station need to include complainsta about housing developers UKbandit 16:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The education section is fine. It includes the right amount of information and is cited as well as accurate. I don't think there is much more that can be done to the Parade section other than maybe a bit of history, though whether that is notable, I am unsure. There are no planning improvements to the parade, and I don't know of any bus station in Sutton Coldfield. The complaints about housing developers are new to me. Have you any source?

What I think this article really needs is a history section and a media section. An etymology section would be useful as well. These edits I will be doing in the future. - Erebus555 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the education section only includes partil info on some things. why list one or two primary schools if theres nothing notable about them? we may as well list all schools in Sutton.

source for bus station and parade redev is the sutton observer newspaper i get every week. traffic routing, need for long term traffic plan pedestrianisation of lower parade City loft development finally given go ahead somerville road development Reddicap Heath Road . another

the sutton observer is the local rag and might be a good external link as well? UKbandit 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. It would be useful as a source for local issues. Thanks - Erebus555 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section

I have added a history section using two book sources which have been identified in the references section. I was going to go into more detail in the 19th and 20th century sections but I felt that it would be a little overpowering on the article. The article has effectively been doubled in size now the history section has been added. Give it about 200 more bytes and it will 30kb in size! - Erebus555 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Spotted one thing though - in the Post-Roman period section, "...passed into the possession of the Crown, resulting in Sutton Chase becoming a royal forest" then in the 11th-14th centuries section, "As Sutton Forest was no longer in the possession of the Crown, it was renamed Sutton Chase." Was it named Sutton Chase twice? Or is there an error here? Cheers, DWaterson 22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes. Prior to it being passed into the possession of the Crown, it was named Sutton Chase. - Erebus555 10:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub article for the history section?

I'm thinking that maybe the history section is a bit long for this article and it would be better suited to its own article. What's your opinion on this? - Erebus555 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe; it is long in comparison to the rest of the article, though perhaps not *that* long overall. If you want to go ahead and split it off, obviously a stub history section would be useful below the main article link. DWaterson (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Sutton Coldfield

Sutton Coldfield's Royal status has been reaffirmed today, so I'm wondering if we should move this article to Royal Sutton Coldfield. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same story picked up by BBC News. This is Paul (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Coldfield is to obtain a new Town Council to gain some independence away from Birmingham and Birmingham City Council^[1]. The name and function of the council is still yet to be decided. However there is a strong rumourthat the council may take the name Royal Sutton Coldfield Town Council.

Good Hope Hospital is currently undertaking a review to rename the hospital as Royal Sutton Coldfield Hospital.^[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhx uk (talk • contribs) 11:40, 22 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

References

Apparently, in response to an advocacy campaign by a local newspaper, some government minister raised the subject in the House of Commons and it was generally agreed that, in the absence of a local governing body corresponding to a historic royal designation, there is "there is no statutory ban to the continuance of historic titles for other purposes", and the minister said that "there is nothing to prevent the people of Sutton Coldfield making use of their Royal title despite its lack of technical legal effect". That is a long distance from saying that "Royal Sutton Coldfield" is (currently) a more official or more common name for the place than simply "Sutton Coldfield". In fact, it seems to me that this indicates exactly the opposite – i.e., that the common and legal name for the place is simply "Sutton Coldfield", and that the use of any other name has a "lack of technical legal effect". The fact that a few local institutions might decide to put "Royal" in their names doesn't change that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Coldfield → Royal Sutton Coldfield – The town was given Royal status by Henry VIII in 1528, allowing it to use a Royal prefix in its name. This was widely believed to have been rescinded in 1886, but after the matter was raised in Parliament by Andrew Mitchell, MP, the government confirmed on 12 June 2014 that Sutton Coldfield's Royal status had never been withdrawn. The proposal is therefore to move this article to give Sutton Coldfield the Royal prefix, along the same naming conventions as Royal Leamington Spa and Royal Wootton Bassett. This is Paul (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. The addition is rarely used (in timetables, by people taking about the place, in addresses, etc). (I live in England.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I live in England as well and don't think I've ever referred to Leamington Spa as Royal Leamington Spa, but it's still the town's official title. This is Paul (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Perhaps Royal Sutton Coldfield is the official name, but if it's hardly ever referred to as such (even by Britons, as the statements by Anthony and Paul suggest), then the title doesn't jive very well with Wikipedia's common name policy: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." ╠╣uw [talk] 16:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until such time as the town is commonly referred to as "Royal Sutton Coldfield" in official sources (such as Birmingham City Council) and in reliable sources such as national newspapers and BBC news. BabelStone (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nobody calls it Royal Sutton Coldfield in normal speech, whatever its official name may be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (Despite myself being "Involved" it makes no difference since the outcome's going to be the same.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Coldfield → The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield – I'm doing this on behalf of Gcutler92 who's taken it upon himself to twice move the article to "The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield" without consensus, I personally Oppose per the above discussion. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as the above discussion, all of the evidence is that the town is currently called Sutton Coldfield. Its "Royal" status is certainly well sourced and worth mentioning in the text, but as there doesn't seem to be any reliable indication that the town has been renamed, neither should the article be. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Obviously Gcutler92 is being disruptive as the above discussion closed only in the last few days. So either block them or protect this page from being moved. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sutton Coldfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222084534/http://www.htsc.org.uk:80/history.html to http://www.htsc.org.uk/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pensioners?

"to house the pensioners"--which pensioners? "to house pensioners" makes more sense. 86.132.223.140 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sutton Coldfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Sutton Coldfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sutton Coldfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070915095000/http://www.themall.co.uk:80/my-mall/sutton-coldfield/index.aspx to http://www.themall.co.uk/my-mall/sutton-coldfield/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear text

I cannot make sense of the parenthetical remark in:

On 1 March 2015, Sutton Coldfield formally became incorporated as a new parish council (which would be upgraded to a town council later). This gave the town more powers from Birmingham City Council.

(particularly the word "would": does this mean "will" "may be" or "was"? And when is "later"?) and so have removed it. "more powers from Birmingham City Council" is also clumsily worded. What should this say? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sutton Coldfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing page name/mentions to Royal Sutton Coldfield

Hi all, someone in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect has asked if it would be appropriate to add Royal to the page name and other mentions in the article. I imagine this would involve a page move. A number of references were provided (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-27818680 being one of them). They argue that this meets Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names.

I'm only asking on behalf of the user, and have no opinion in the matter - I'd appreciate any input from the community -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 13:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My view would be that it would fail the use commonly recognisable name test you mention - somewhat empirically I know no-one who uses that name, and google shows up 33k hits for Royal Sutton Coldfield vs. about 6 million for the non-royal version. The royalness is mentioned in the lead. Harris (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-33591076

[2] ttp://www.tamworthherald.co.uk/Royal-change-Good-Hope-Hospital-gets-backing/story-26728236-detail/story.html

[1]

[2]