Talk:Birmingham#Requested move 22 April 2025

I think the nature of the public services section needs to be looked into regarding cuts. Too much emphasis on cuts made almost a decade ago, is it the same today? Perhaps an update is needed. --148.252.141.75 (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

:Yes it is the same today. In fact, Birmingham Council is bankrupt and has needed to impose more cuts Cal3000000 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Birmingham/1}}

This is uncited, and seems dubious. It is difficult to compare local authorities from one country to another, but it is easy to find local authorities that are larger in terms of population served: for example Moscow, London, Paris and Rome all have some form of city government that is larger than Birmingham, some have elected councils too. It's not clear from the quote what criteria have been applied here. Zeimusu | Talk page 17:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

:deleted. birmingham city council, being a NUTS-3 area, is smaller than, for example, berlin, paris, and Torino (Turin). This statement is not true. someone might want to check if it is the second biggest in UK, though Cal3000000 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

{{closed rfc top|result=There is no need for four virtually identical RfCs. Please see WP:MULTI and discuss in one place only. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)}}

I noticed that a contributor has changed the lead section of the Liverpool article just recently. The Liverpool lead section now only includes Liverpool's local authority population and the population of the official city region. Having looked at the Birmingham Leeds and Edinburgh articles, I notice that their lead sections make reference to the wider metropolitan area.

To quote the Birmingham article lead section: "The wider metropolitan area has a population of 4.3 million, making it the largest outside of London." The citation is worldpopulationreview.com

To quote the Leeds article: "The city is part of the fourth-largest built-up area by population in the United Kingdom, West Yorkshire Built-up Area, with a 2011 census population of 1.7 million" The citation is ONS Census 2011. The WY Built-up Area is out of date and is not calculated any more. But I am wondering if this needs to be in the lead section as an editor has removed mention of Liverpool metropolitan area from its lead section.

To quote the Edinburgh lead section, "The wider metropolitan area has a population of 912,490." The citation is OECD.

I am sure there are many many examples on wiki where city articles make reference to a wider 'urban region' or metropolitan area.

Should we be aiming for consistency in these articles? I have also started an RfC on the Leeds, Liverpool and Edinburgh articles. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

{{requested move/dated|multiple=yes

|current1=Birmingham|new1=Birmingham, England|current2=Birmingham (disambiguation)|new2=Birmingham|}}

• :Birmingham → {{no redirect|Birmingham, England}}
• :Birmingham (disambiguation) → {{no redirect|Birmingham}}

– No clear primary topic betwwen Birmingham, England and Birmingham, Alabama. 2600:1700:6180:6290:D0BC:DBF9:4BAC:181B (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment, under WP:ENGLANDPLACE it would be Birmingham, West Midlands not Birmingham, England. DankJae 20:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose daily page views are 3578 for Birmingham, West Midlands, 1507 for Birmingham, Alabama. Numbers for the others at Birmingham (disambiguation) are negligible. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with over a 2:1 ratio. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :A 2:1 ratio is an incredibly weak ratio for a primary topic claim; even then, the correct pages aren't being compared; comparing incoming redirects to the current primary topic vs. the disambiguation page doesn't adequately illustrate a counterpoint. See my initial "support" comment. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a joke, right? Birmingham, Alabama (founded in 1871) was named after Birmingham in Warwickshire, England, one of the United Kingdom's major industrial cities that has existed for at least 1,000 years (probably established around 6th or 7th century). Rodney Baggins .talk. 21:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support per page view analysis. The relevant page view comparison here is the [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Birmingham%7CBirmingham,_Alabama page view comparison for "Birmingham" vs "Birmingham, Alabama"] (since {{No redirect|Birmingham, West Midlands}} and {{No redirect|Birmingham, England}} target Birmingham anyways, meaning any views for those will be added to the views for Birmingham currently). Going on page views alone, the claim for a primary topic needs to have a rather high ratio of page views for "primary topic/everything else", something like at least 10/1 everyday ... per the page view analysis, its ranging from 3/1 to 7/1, which is not high enough just when comparing the current primary topic solely to Birmingham, Alabama. (In other words, the ratio will just get lower while adding additional topics from the disambiguation page to the page view analysis.) Yeah ... it's time to put the disambiguation page at the base title, at least for now. Steel1943 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The original Birmingham is clearly the primary topic. The rationales from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birmingham/Archive_12#Requested_move_(2009) the last time this discussion took place] remain equally valid now. Fish+Karate 05:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the rationales which have been given before. I think the current setup of Birmingham AL, being given a special link in the disambig is a good compromise. G-13114 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose for exactly the same reasons as G-13114; the rationales in the previous move discussion are still valid. WaggersTALK 08:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• As per my previous statements surrounding Primary subjects, the should not exist. We have an inconsistent approach, which like here we are arguing the Primary subject. Birmingham in England should be Birmingham, England as there is only one place with that name in that country (if more than one I would agree with the county/district distinguisher), and the disambiguation page should just be Birmingham.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing hs changed, the rationales in the previous move discussion are still valid. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there was no primary topic then many people were arriving here would be navigating next to either the dab page or the Alabama city. [https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Birmingham Wikinav] data shows this is not the case, with only 1.78% of readers following the link to Birmingham, Alabama making it only the 8th most common destination; the disambiguation page is not in the top 20 destinations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)