Talk:West Midlands (county)

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

Untitled[edit]

In an official local government Order it declares that, throughout the document, the term West Midlands "means the metropolitan county of West Midlands", implying that "metropolitan county" is descriptive and not part of the official name. Andy G

I read that as having the opposite meaning. Andy Mabbett 11:04, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Surely they'd have written "Metropolitan County of West Midlands" (i.e. with a leading capital) if that was the full name? Andy G 19:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Are the Euro constituency and the "Region" different areas? Andy G 01:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, no, but I haven't looked into the matter. Morwen 08:56, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Given that the region is "sometimes considered to spread as far as Cheshire, Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire" and that the constituency has explicitly defined borders, how can they be the same? Andy Mabbett 11:04, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I took that question as meaning are the constituency and the governmental region are the same, not the unofficial region. Morwen 11:07, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps we should "disambiguate" the region and the, er, region? Andy Mabbett 11:21, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes - when I posed the question I meant the official government Region (as in Regions of England), not the generalised region/area/zone. The "Region" is well-defined; the "region" is the one that sometimes includes Cheshire etc. I s'pose the use of a capital R is too subtle. Or maybe we should call the "region" the "West Midlands area". Andy G 19:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

the West Midland Bird Club uses West Midland Region (singular Midland) for the four counties of Staffs, Warks, Worcs and the WM county.
my favourite is the West Mercia police, who cover staffs, worcs, and herefordshire. Morwen 19:40, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
actually the West Mercia police cover Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire. Staffordshire has its own police force. David

Who considers Oxon and Glos to be part of the Midlands, anyway? Mercian imperialists, or the residents of such counties? Morwen 11:24, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

First define "Midlands" ;-)
TV regions? Railway regions? Post Office regions? I know of organisations which include Lincs or Cheshire in the Midlands. Andy Mabbett 11:30, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Obviously I'll have to go on a trip to Oxon and Glos to survey the people. ;) Btw, anyone else thing the Midlands page could do with a discussion of the tendency of southerners to deny the existence of the Midlands, and the annoyance this causes? or is that just me who has come across it? Morwen 11:41, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There used to be "South Midland" busses in Oxfordshire. Andy G 19:23, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

History[edit]

In the history section of this article, it states that certain districts were absorbed by the County Boroughs in 1966.

This isn't quite correct, as a large number of the districts were in fact split. For example, Wolverhampton did not absorb the entirety of Bilston MB, Wednesfield UD and Tettenhall UD, but a large proportion of each. Quite large parts of Tettenhall UD are now in South Staffordshire district, a reasonable-sized part of Wednesfield UD are now in South Staffordshire, and a smaller part is now in Walsall MBC, and parts of Bilston UD are now in Dudley MBC and in Walsall MBC. A small part of Willenhall UD isn't in Walsall MBC, but in Wolverhampton CC.

This section therefore should be rephrased. Steven J 14:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject: West Midlands proposal[edit]

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 18:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png[edit]

Image:EH icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical boundary changes[edit]

The list of 1966 boundary changes is somewhat enormous, and potentially very confusing. Does anyone have any ideas about improving it? The best idea I can come up with is to change to a table layout, and switch the data around so that it relates to the pre-1966 local authorities and what happened to them rather than the make-up of the post 1966 authorities. There's also little point in including Birmingham or Solihull in the list, as they were pretty much unchanged (bar tiny changes like The Hawthorns moving entirely into West Bromwich CB rather than being split between West Bromwich CB and Birmingham CB as before). Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this map highly informative, and if there is a way to include pre-1966 boundaries as well on that map (or maybe on a separate map), I would really appreciate it. Unfortunately, the original creator of the map seems to have gone on a wikibreak, but maybe someone else is up to the task? //Essin (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I was just informed of this discussion by Essin at my talk page. I'd be more than willing to help produce a map or table for this article. However, I'd need some kind of source material to work from. This map was drawn by using material in a book (cited on its description). That book doesn't have the pre-1966 districts I'm afraid though, so we need an alternative. If something could be found, then sure, I think I can help.
That all said, as one of, if not the most important industrial region in England, I'd be keen to see this article develop towards GA and FA, and it would be best practice from an editorial stance to at least keep a consistent structure of headings with that of Greater Manchester. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a map of the pre 1966 districts involved in the amalgamation I can scan. Lozleader (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to e-mail it to me? Or else post it somewhere public? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that as time permits :-) Lozleader (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the post! Lozleader (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'm looking forward to see the map! //Essin (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a geographic frame of reference[edit]

Could this unusual expression be explained? Does it mean a ceremonial county? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag[edit]

Am I the only person who's never seen the recently added flag before? After a couple of quick searches online, I can't even see any indication that there actually is one. Matthew (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not the only one. I find it, erm, unlikely that any of the metropolitan county councils survived long enough and had enough time on their hands to start creating flags. Fingerpuppet (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply a banner of the arms of the former county council: the design of the shield turned into a flag. Any armigerous body is free to make and fly a flag like this. However, as the county council has been extinct for 13 years now (a year longer than it existed!) it is hardly a current emblem. Also, it should be noted that the arms (and therefore flag) were the property/symbol of the council, not the county and are so are obsolete. I think it can safely be removed from the infobox. If there is any evidence that such a flag was ever made and flown by the council it can go down in the Local Government section where the county council is discussed.Lozleader (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This invented flag keeps reappearing and I have taken it off again. The last time it appeared a justification was its appearance on another WP article: please see WP:COPYWITHIN. Howard Alexander (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not invented, a version of the flag appears on the crest of the West Midlands Police and the West Midlands Fire Service among other organisations. G-13114 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are emblems used on crests of organisations that operate within the metropolitan county. Neither means that the design is the "flag of the county". The design is a banner of the arms of the former county council. It's not a flag. --Inops (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So how come you can buy the said flag from various retailers such as herehere here or here? G-13114 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it, flag retailers are free to label any design as the flag of a particular area. A good percentage of these from flagpoleexpress.co.uk are novel designs. --Inops (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other Metropolitan Counties have their flags on their respective pages; all are in the same legal standing. In the view of consistency, the West Midlands one should remain - or all should be removed. Sammich28 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The flag passes the 'real world test' in that we have established that it is real and not made up as some have claimed; it is is used on the crests of several existing organisations, the former county council, and you can buy versions of the flag from various retailers. I can't therefore see any reason not to use it. G-13114 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, flag retailers are free to sell any design they want. They could sell a pink on yellow pokerdot design as the "flag of the West Midlands" if they wanted. The "flag" is really the charge of the arms of West Midlands County Council -- some councils use/used this charge as a banner. None of that indicates that it is the county's "flag", merely that some institution uses it in their heraldry. That's the situation with the flag of Worcestershire, flag of Gloucestershire, flag of County Durham. In none of those situations do we recognise the (former) council banner as the county's flag. --Inops (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So why is the said flag used on the crests of the West Midlands Police and the West Midlands Fire Service if its made up and doesn't exist? The flag retailers haven't made it up, what we have is something which is verifiably described in outside sources as the flag of the West Midlands, it therefore passes Wikipedia:Verify it isn't original research. G-13114 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC):[reply]
I never said its use in heraldry was "made up". The design is however wholly unofficial as a flag and shouldn't be included because of that. The arms of the former county council don't make it the flag of a county. For comparison, the Union Jack isn't in the Royal arms -- they have nothing to do with each other. Flag retailers don't meet the criteria of "[verifiable]...outside sources". --Inops (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a county like other counties[edit]

To state bluntly that the West Midlands is a county (without any qualification) and talk about it bordering other counties like Worcestershire, etc. implies it has the same status as those counties (administrative and historic). Rather it is a rump, used only for statistical purposes and some rump administrative functions. The description of the West Midlands as a county should be qualified early in the article, otherwise it is misleading for people who are trying to get to grips with UK political geography. Note that the city-region stuff is now well out of date. Urbanewarrior (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at WP:UKCOUNTIES, and in particular the bit about metropolitan counties. The West Midlands is a metropolitan county and continues to have a full legal existence, albeit without a county council. It is not a "rump", it is just as much a county as Worcestershire in statute, still has a lord lieutenant and a high sheriff. Historic or ancient counties have zero "status", and the lead clearly identifies that it was formed from parts of Staffs, Warks and Worcs in 1974. The fact that the boroughs act in most ways as unitary authorities is also clearly stated. Describing it as not being a county would in fact be "misleading for people who are trying to get to grips with UK political geography" and would make things *more* confusing.  :-) . Lozleader (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hagely[edit]

There is an editor who uses IP addresses to edit articles to state that Hagley is in the West Midlands. It is not it is in Worcestershire on the borders of the West Midlands. In this case the IP address used was 31.205.37.45.

The local sorting office for Hagley used to be in Stourbridge which was itself in Worcestershire. When the West Midlands metropolitan county was created, the Post office did not move its sorting offices, instead it changed its addressing method. The postal address was changed from "Hagley, nr Stourbridge, Worcestershire" to "Hagley, Stourbridge, West Midlands" because Stourbridge was now in the West Midlands metropolitan county -- no inference shoudl be drawn from that, Hagley and the other villages in Worcestershire (such as Clent) that were/are served by the Stourbridge sorting remain in Worcestershire.

If another editor reinstates Hagley in this article then please revert the edit, point them to this section and ask them to explain why it should be included here. -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose History of the West Midlands be merged into West Midlands (county) on several grounds: 1. the county article already has a dedicated history section (West Midlands (county)#History) and this could be 'fleshed out' with the topics discussed in History of the West Midlands, 2. there are several points duplicated between the two articles, and 3. History of the West Midlands has a confusing title which could refer to the region, while the article itself refers to the metropolitan county. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammich28 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 July 2015‎

This isn't at all sensible, give that the county was only formed in 1974, while the history article covers all periods. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. History of the West Midlands only covers the metropolitan county, not the region. I suggest you re-read the article thoroughly. Sammich28 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on West Midlands (county). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox collage[edit]

Hello! I've just made a BOLD edit to the infobox collage to reduce the number of images from eight to four. The previous layout had an image for each metropolitan borough, which was equitable but made for rather cramped images; I've reduced it to the four images of the largest settlements in the county: Birmingham, Coventry, Wolverhampton, and Solihull. While I acknowledge the old layout was more representative, I think think is a good compromise between fairness and image quality. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be seven images today: and what do they tell me about the county? That it has a lot of buildings. No open spaces. No particularly exciting individual buildings. Really the list of town/district names does the same job as that set of images. Nothing gives a newcomer to the article much impression of modern vitality, industrial heritage, open spaces, culture, etc. PamD 11:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the present collage is an improvement on some versions that went before, it leaves me rather Steve Austin. As you say, surely, these collages need to reflect something more than non-descript shopping parades, town hall and aerial shots. Then again, perhaps the general image of the West Midlands is bland and these images reflect a neutral POV? Anyway, here's links to possible replacement images. Just ideas. Birmingham bull [1], Sutton Park [2] Black Country Museum (to represent the Black Country as a whole, canals and history) [3] and Coventry Cathedral, symbol of history and recovery after WWII bombing [4]. Rupples (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Midlands_(county)&oldid=1194049582"