Jump to content

Talk:Wolverhampton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

This is ludicrous. Andy G 20:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely. However, it is no more ludicrous than splitting Walsall or Dudley. Morwen 20:26, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)


There are some good reasons to split district articles from their town. They include (a) if the district is much larger than the town, and covers a lot of countryside (b) if the district includes town which have a strong identity. That the borough/district is a city is not a good reason, because city status is a mere honorific and doesn't change facts on the ground. If we split Dudley and Walsall we have to split Birmingham, Coventry, and Wolverhampton. Note I am opposed to all splits of articles about metropolitan boroughs. Morwen 20:32, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see this one's been reunified. It seems (seemed) a bit more ludicrous than spliiting Walsall (town) form Walsal (Borough) because there was nothing to indicate that Wolverhampton (city) contained more than Wolverhampton (town). I guess you were just making a point, and it doesn't.

I think the articles should be split on the basis of how much we've got to say about the two definitions. If we've only got a few lines about one it can live with the other.

I was indeed making a point, though it seems to have been missed. If we look at Birmingham, say, the city includes Sutton Coldfield but the 'town' does not! This, however, does not mean to say we should split the article. I know that someone from Bradford said that Bradford shouldn't be split, even though Bradford is a far far clearer case for splitting than Dudley. Morwen 20:53, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Waste Management

Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in the city. Snowman 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wolverhampton Express and Star

It doesn#t say in the text whether it is the largest provincial daily in the UK. Maybe that should be added. (My nick is taken from a similar town in France, by the way ) Sarcelles 11:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont see why the links to the city's football team, university and grammar school were removed. What makes those links less valid than the Express and Star, hospitals and the Linux User Group? --Zaphod Beeblebrox 09:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki on Wolverhampton is 100x better than it was a year ago...

Sport

Wolverhampton Wanderers have never been in the current UEFA Champions League competition. Wolves have only been in the English F.A. Premiership for one season (2002/03) since the Champions League began, and in that season they were relegated back to the lower-division Coca-Cola Championship.

The current Champions League competition only started in the 1992/93 season, the premier European club tournament before the Champions League was the European Champions Club Cup in which Wolves did compete in.

80.42.81.184 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the UEFA Champions' League was a simple rebrand of the previous competition - which was created due to the European success of Wolverhampton Wanderers, and the reaction of the British press to the results.
To quote from European_Cup_and_Champions_League_History: "Before we declare that Wolverhampton are invincible, let them go to Moscow and Budapest. And there are other internationally renowned clubs: A.C. Milan and Real Madrid to name but two. A club world championship, or at least a European one - larger, more meaningful and more prestigious than the Mitropa Cup and more original than a competition for national teams - should be launched." - Gabriel Hanot Steven J 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Remit of this article

This is a thought of mine that's been prompted by the recent addition and removal of Perton and Bilbrook from the article.

What exactly is the remit of the article? After all, there are several definitions of what Wolverhampton is.

  • The Local Authority area administered by Wolverhampton City Council.
  • The Wolverhampton Urban Sub-Area as defined by the ONS (or the "city proper", perhaps?) This include the LA area, plus the areas within South Staffordshire district that are physically attached (within 50m) to the urban area. These would include Lower Penn, Perton, Coven Heath, Westcroft and Essington.
  • The above, plus areas that are within a few hundred metres of the Urban Area - such as Wombourne, Codsall, Bilbrook, Coven, Featherstone. Most of these areas were recommended for inclusion in the Borough by the Redcliffe-Maud Report.

The usual case in other cities and towns that spread outside the local authority boundaries (such as Reading) is the second above. Personally, I would see the three items as being in decreasing order of importance, and detail required within the article. Nevertheless, all three should be mentioned.

What do other contributors think? Steven J 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated, as you demonstrate. Wolverhampton is one of the places which only has one article about it; Dudley, for instance, has two: one (Dudley) on the town, the other (Metropolitan Borough of Dudley) on the local government district. In that instance, it's because the local government district is much larger than just the town. As for Perton and Bilbrook: the reason I took Perton out here was really as an excuse to get rid of the rather dodgy-looking additions to the "famous people" section. But to be honest, it would be easier if we just included places within the local government district (thereby excluding Perton and Bilbrook), although we don't necessarily need to be 100% rigid about this if it goes against common sense. For instance, I recently included information about Aintree Racecourse and the Grand National into the "Sport" section of the Liverpool article, even though the racecourse itself is actually just across the border in Sefton. --RFBailey 18:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that the "External links" section of this article has grown too large. I don't think that some of the entries should be there at all, especially as some duplicate entries in the text, while others seem to be turning the list into a community services directory. Rather than just removing a chunk of them, I thought I'd seek consultation first. What do people think? --RFBailey 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Prune away brotha!
(above unsigned comment left by 217.46.254.238, 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC))
I've removed several of the others that 217.46.254.238 left behind: they were a mixture of commercial or promotional sites, social networking, or linked to from elsewhere (e.g. the University has an external link on the University of Wolverhampton article, so doesn't need another one here). --RFBailey 16:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks a lot tidier.Darrenhusted 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

People

Following the Tessa Sanderson link shows that she was not born in Wolverhampton!

WikiProject: West Midlands proposal

I have proposed the creation of WikiProject: West Midlands at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#West Midlands. If you are interested in participating in the project, if created, please add your name to the list. Thank you. - Erebus555 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

More nicknames for Wolverhampton

People also call it the City of Wolvo. And some people know Wolverhampton by it's Red Light Districs. Bleedanddie07 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people do call it Wolvo, although we'd need to find a reliable source documenting that to include it. As for the red light districts, the same could be said of a lot of places. I don't think we need to mention that in the article--it's not exactly Amsterdam, is it? --RFBailey (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lonely Planet comment

Whilst the Lonely Planet comment that has appeared recently on the article is sourced, looking a little deeper into the article "5th worst" appears to be exclusively written due to a single forum entry that contains a joke that I've seen written about a large number of places with badly sourced "local accents" within it.

Therefore its source is trivial, and it should be removed. Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sikh

Wolverhampton is home to a large proportion of the Sikh community, who settled there during the period (1940–1970) from the Indian state of Punjab. Today, the Sikh community in Wolverhampton is roughly 8% of the city's population.

Why is this sentence located in the 19th century section? --Dionysos1988 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New Image Proposal

I have created a collage of images of Wolverhampton and would like it to be considered as the new image for the wiki as I feel it gives a broader visual exposure of the city. Here is the link: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/3572/wolvesss.jpg

I have all copyright information ready also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeversoclever (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please find something to replace the infobox image. The neighborhood in the foreground overly dominates. Jd2718 (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

Does anyone disagree that this [1] would be a better image for the infobox?  Badgernet  ₪  14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wolvopedia: proposed project in Wolverhampton

Wolverhampton folk might be interested in Wolvopedia - please express support (you'll need to sign up, it's free) if inclined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Did anything come of this Andy? I was unable to attend the MakeTheShift event, and haven't noticed further updates to the website? Æthelred (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wolverhampton place name

I have replaced information deleted by 137.28.54.57 on 15 April 2012 under the title 'corrections' and added new references. He / she had removed referenced information describing the city as being named after Lady Wulfrun, replacing it with a poorly cited 'factual' sentence about the city being named after King Wulfhere. I've retained the information relating to the possible abbey founded here in 659. The user made similar edits to History of Manchester & History of Chester. Thought I'd mention here as it will possibly be seen as a large edit. Æthelred (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Following a partial edit to the date of the estimated population figure I have repaired the link and inserted the latest published figure and date from the official Wolverhampton City Council site. Unregistered User 82.17.56.225 had changed the date from 2004 to 2008 but left the population as previously stated, and the citation access date as 2007. The original link was dead anyway so drawing attention to this anomaly was useful. Keomike (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Census 2011 1st Release - Key Stats for Wolverhampton Table Summary is also available on the same site [2] so maybe it is time for a rewrite. However the key population figure of 249,500 has already been included in the infobox under the heading 2009 est.? Keomike (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates

A number of places and features in Wolverhampton are in Category:West Midlands articles missing geocoordinate data. If you can provide coordinates, please do so. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Andy, is there a tutorial anywhere for how to find out and reference geocoordinate data Davetaylor1972 (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Wolverhampton proper/the wider city?

Just wondering, after looking at other articles on cities and boroughs, why there doesn't seem to be any separate articles on The City of Wolverhampton, and the locality of Wolverhampton itself? Most boroughs/cities which contain additional towns outside of their namesakes have separate articles for the boroughs and localities themselves, such as City of Salford and Salford, Greater Manchester, for example. Seeing as the City of Wolverhampton (formerly a Metropolitan Borough itself) contains the towns of Bilston and Willenhall, along with other localities arguably distinct from Wolverhampton proper such as Wednesfield and Tettenhall, should this not also be the case here? LivingInMediocrity (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The status of Wolverhampton's "other towns" is debateable, hence why they're all included here and there is not a separate article for the Metropolitan Borough. Up until the 2011 Census, the Wolverhampton Urban Sub-division contained the entire Metropolitan Borough, plus areas outside such as Perton, Lower Penn, Underhill and so on. With the 2011 Census, Wednesfield and Bilston have their own Built Up Area Subdivisions, whilst Wolverhampton's area outside the local authority boundaries has grown to include places such as Perton Ridge. Unlike the Salford example above, Bilston, Willenhall (which is now mostly in the Metropolitan Borough of Walsall) and Wednesfield are all historically part of Wolverhampton - they (along with other places now well outside the Metropolitan Borough) were parts of the lands granted to Lady Wulfruna and named specifically in the charter used for the city's foundation. They were part of the Parish of Wolverhampton up until the mid-19th century, when the Chapels of Ease in each location became full parish churches, just in time for the three places to have their own Urban Districts (which were based on parishes) and not be part of the original County Borough of Wolverhampton, but all were/are parts of the various Wolverhampton Parliamentary Boroughs up until the mid-20th century (in the case of Willenhall) or today (in the case of the others). The towns mentioned are all functionally part of the city - being well within the Travel to Work Area (which expands further out, including places such as Darlaston and Sedgley), as well as the Wolverhampton Larger Urban Zone and ESPON 1.1.1 Functional Urban Area. This dichotomy of "together or separate" is a constant thread since the mid-19th century, which is why the population figures of Wolverhampton vary so much. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
In short, it is better to have a single article explaining these subtleties, rather than a hodge-podged mess of separate articles, which may become inconsistent with each other at a later stage. --RFBailey (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case, then how come it is not applied to other places with similar circumstances, for example, Dudley? Its article refers to each separate area, for example, Netherton, Kingswinford, Brierley Hill etc. as distinct 'towns', despite historically being a part of its parliamentary borough and all being part of the lands belonging to the Lords of Dudley. All these places were also, until the 2011 census, part of Dudley's Urban Sub-Division, like Bilston and Wednesfield to Wolverhampton, yet they aren't considered part of the town? It just seems confusing that the rules seem to be different for each town/city/etc. LivingInMediocrity (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, that's not the question you asked - the Dudley equivalent of the question you asked is the difference between Dudley and the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, which are clearly very different. Wednesfield, Willenhall and Bilston are towns - they hold their own market charters for example, but they are quite definitely "sub-towns" of Wolverhampton. Kingswinford and Brierley Hill weren't part of the post-Reform Act Parliamentary Borough of Dudley (although Netherton was), weren't part of Dudley Parish (as far as I can tell historically) and weren't even in the same county as Dudley! Fingerpuppet (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but like with the Dudley Borough, the City of Wolverhampton contains places which are arguably distinct from the historic town of Wolvehrampton, yet somehow are just considered as districts of the city within their respective articles, rather than distinct settlements. It's just confusing as there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies across Wikipedia for these places! As for Kingswinford and Brierley Hill, they were largely undeveloped rural areas, and I'm not aware of them being in any Parliamentary Borough following the Reform Act until quite some time later. They certainly didn't hold market charters at any rate, and it is well known that the borough of Dudley, by fluke of nature, was a detached part of Worcestershire within Staffordshire. Even its castle (which is literally on the outskirts of the town centre) was considered Staffordshire! I don't believe the historic boundaries can therefore accurately determine whether or not localities are or aren't sub-towns of a particular place, when the whole West Midlands conurbation crossed multiple county boundaries. Development didn't follow arbitrary political boundaries.--LivingInMediocrity (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nick name for Wolverhampton

Wolverhampton people called Wulfrunian`s and not Wolftown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.140.211 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wolverhampton. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wolverhampton. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Wolverhampton. 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 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Wolverhampton. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Wolverhampton. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wolverhampton/Archive_1&oldid=1175729303"