Talk:Wolverhampton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the West Midlands WikiProject. This is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the West Midlands. In so doing it works and collaborates with the two related projects UK Geography WikiProject and UK Subdivisions WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.

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)

Contents 1 Waste Management 2 Wolverhampton Express and Star 3 External links 4 Sport 5 Remit of this article 6 External links section 7 People 8 WikiProject: West Midlands proposal

[edit] Waste Management

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links

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...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links section

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)

[edit] People

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

[edit] 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)