Talk:Wolverhampton
|
|
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)
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)