Talk:Hurst Street

comment

I have done some minor edits on the grammar and so on, but to my eyes the article reads very much like something that'd be more at home on a 'What's On In Birmingham' website, or at Gay.com, or somewhere like that. The tone of voice also bothers me. I'm not completely confident I am sure how this should be constructively edited to bring it more into line with Wikipedia, and would appreciate opinions/input.

Thanks

(Ajs82)

It really doesn't look like it conforms to wikipedia standards, maybe it would fit nicer on wikitravel than on wikipedia. --80.229.143.117 23:19, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Hurst Street → Birmingham Gay Village – This article is crap to put it simply, i'd like to do it up to cover the entire gay village rather than just the one street and to do so i need to change the name. Keeping it as Hurst Street excludes most of the village and means the article will stay as a stub. Thanks Jenova20 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: If you want an article about the gay scene in Birmingham, why not write an article about that, and put a main article link in the Gay scene section here? What would be the point of taking this article, which is about a geographical location, changing the name and re-writing it as something else? Moonraker12 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree This is an article about a street, and there is more to this street than the gay scene. Sounds like the proposer wants to create a different article entirely, in which case, he/she should just do that and link to it from here as Moonraker says. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree If the proposer wants to add material to this entry and then suggest it be moved, then perhaps yes. Until then we shouldn't change the name of this entry in anticipation of what the proposer says s/he will do. Alternatively, the proposer could create an entry for Birmingham Gay Village and then suggest a merge of Hurst Street into it. At that point we'll be able to compare the 2 entries and make an intelligent decision based on content, coverage, and sources. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Point taken, cancelled. Moonraker, the point was that this article will get deleted when Birmingham Gay Village is up and running as it will duplicate content and this article is very badly written at the moment, to the point where it could easily be deleted, with no one stepping up to improve it.

Well, maybe; I think once we see the BGV article it’ll be easier to tell if this should merge into it. The notability of this article can be addressed then. You can always use the section here as the basis for your article if you like, and trim the section here to what is relevant to the street itself. Also, if you are withdrawing your proposal (which is laudable, BTW; there are editors who would have dug their heels in at this point!) you will need to delete the RM template from the top of the section here. Good luck with the other article! Moonraker12 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Bretonbanquet, if this article is about just the street then it isn't notable since it's famous only for gay pride, so again would be better served becoming Birmingham Gay Village since the parade passes through here but pride isn't confined here. Currently most of the content on the article is applicable to the gay village and NOT Hurst Street so i can't see the logic of keeping it as WP:Coatrack clearly applies.
  • Bmlaughlin, that's what i plan to do as of now so i'll cancel this requested move for now. Jenova20 09:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The street is clearly notable for having the Brimingham Apollo and the Royal Ballet on it, quite apart from anything else. Those are at least as notable as the Gay Village aspect, and as you say, pride isn't confined to this street. Coatrack does not apply, and that's only an essay anyway, having no sway at all. Do you mean to write a separate article and people can decide at a later date whether or not this article is notable? I think that's the best way to proceed. It makes no sense to effectively delete this article via the back door by changing the content and then changing the name. Moreover, I do not think this article is badly written. It needs further referencing, but it is not badly written. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The point i'm trying to make is that a Birmingham Gay Village article will duplicate content for this article in a big way, more than half of the article is about the gay aspect of the village and pride, not Hurst Street specifically.

Birmingham Apollo and Royal Ballet most likely have their own articles right?

...So if i work on a Birmingham Gay Village article this article ultimately can't exist since it will be a poor duplicate of other articles. Jenova20 00:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Create the other article and let's see what it's like, and what's in it - then we can worry about what to do with this one :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note also that Hurst Street is located in Chinese Quarter, Birmingham. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The present status of the street (whether alone or with its surrounding area) is a recent phenomenon. Much of the article is about its history. If I remember right Birmingham hippodrome (a theatre) is in the street. The Chinese quarter is nearby, but I suspect not in the street. My recollection of visiting the back-to-backs is that they were inhabited by ordinary working class families. Rather than creating a new "Gay village" article, I would suggest that the best solution will be to add a new section to the present article, dealing with that. I think the article might be better called Hurst Street, Birmingham, as I would guess there must be dozens of other streets of the same name. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  I can't support that since Birmingham Gay Village is easily more notable than Hurst Street. Thanks Jenova20 14:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't actually have any evidence for that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And in any case, the "gay village" and Hurst Street are not the same thing, so there's no reason why both shouldn't exist, if both are notable. It's not a question of one being more notable than the other therefore one should exist and one not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Only a small section of the village is on Hurst Street and the entire article talks about that and the Village, it's a WP:Coatrack.

When there is a Birmingham Gay Village article the Hurst Street article will not survive unless someone begins to update it or actually add to it about Hurst Street itself. Thanks Jenova20 15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of predicting the future, as you have more than once here, you might read the current entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that the current discussion has resulted in a better article. Jenova20 15:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll happily withdraw this requested move. The recent work done on the article is a MASSIVE improvement and i never expected this much attention. I withdraw the Requested Move and thank everyone who worked on the article Jenova20 09:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mission etc.

Perhaps this relates to the history of Hurst Street: Hurst Street Domestic Mission. And also a little sculpture/history. Lots more tidbits for anyone who wants to dig in Google Books. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

More info

Someone who is interested in expanding this entry might consider this event (Hurst Street Hustle). Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)