Talk:Science and invention in Birmingham

Archive 1

Tidy Up

Over time I hope to try and clean up tenses here, include new material and source some picture to make the article easier on the eye. Old Bess (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A few ideas. Start with a location section. No one in the States knows where Birmingham is - except in Alabama. Do it from the point of view of communications- canala- natural resources. Take text from History of Birmingham.

This might be better named like ( Timeline of Birmingham history--Timeline of science and invention in Birmingham, what we need is not just a list but back links that lead the reader to understanf what the unique factors in Bŕum made this the only place where it could have happened. Articles that are not timelines and lists need to be written in flowing prose- beats me why- from my background lists are far clearer. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Clem, sorry it has taken so long for me to reply. I will add an intro as you suggest as I have some more facts on this as well which is specific to invention in the city, I did suggest changing the title of this read 'Science and Innovation In Birmingham' some time ago but it was met with low response so I left it. I think it would be a major job to change the title now but maybe a task for the future. I'm starting to add images to create more depth, and trying also to change the tenses to present a more 'as it happens' feel to the article. The hardest part is making sure the patents and inventions are worthy and notable of inclusion, this can be done in part by visiting the articles linked to and doing a bit of digging, in some cases articles are having to be updated to reflect this article. Old Bess (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

An update, I am now adding images and attempting to clean up and condense the 20th century. Old Bess (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stand Alone Cooking Stove

"At some time around the late 18th or early 19th century a stand-alone cooking range or [[stove is invented by John Heard (joiner), capable of roasting, boiling, baking and of course heating a room. The products of combustion are carried off by means of a flue leading to the chimney, the inventor mentions it is particularly suitable for use on board ships. This is possibly the first of its kind, as earlier stoves such as the Franklin stove do not appear to have flues attached and require a hearth and chimney to function, also it is not until the turn of the 19th century that other stoves begin appearing to cook in as well as heat a room."

Regarding the above section, I read it in the book on inventions taken out from the Library but I'd like to do more research to see whether it really was anything that different from other stoves of the time, not sure where else to look. Will leave it in for now but not add the information to articles on stoves directly. Old Bess (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Science and invention in Birmingham

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Science and invention in Birmingham's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "odnb":

• From Evesham: Williams, Ann, "Godgifu (died 1067?)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography(Online edition) 2006, Oxford University Press, retrieved 10 January 2011
• From Harry Gem: Rowley, Andrew, "Gem, Thomas Henry (1819–1881)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, accessed 10 July 2007
• From Joseph Lucas: Joseph Lucas at Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From George Stephenson: Kirby, M. W. (1984). "Stephenson, George (1781–1848)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2 ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Reference Improvements

I have carried out considerable work to cite sources and include as many direct links to relevant articles where sources are already cited since the "Refimprove" request posted back in July 2009. This banner is now removed and continued work on this area will hopefully ensure the page and article remains reliable. Thanks Old Bess (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations must be in the article itself. It is not enough to link to pages that have the citations. The reader should not have to go to a linked page in the hopes of finding citations. KennethSides (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is mostly unreferenced and contains uncited quotes

The article fails reliable sources. Information in a Wiki article must have inline sources and all quotes must have citations. That is required by Wikipedia in every article, regardless of where the info comes from. If it comes from another Wiki articles, the citations must be carried over. For a reader of this article, there is no way to verify the information provided in it. Do not remove the tags until Wiki reliable sources and verify policies are complied with! (They have recently been removed with no improvement to the article.) KennethSides (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kenneth, I shall endevour to carry the citations over and make sure all quotes and material is based on reliable sources. I'll contact you once this is done and you can remove the banner when happy :) Old Bess (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Content

Since I last examined this article, it has been greatly expanded, acquiring long sections about the period up to the 18th century. The problem is that the result is to provide an article on History of trade and industry in Birmingham or Economic History of Birmingham, but very little of this is either concerned with "science" or "invention". I suspect that this article originated as a compilation from Prosser's book on Birmingham inventor, with much further addition. The sections that I am criticising contina good material, but I think they ought to be split off into another article, with one of the titles suggested. I would also suggest that listing people who were merely educated in Birmingham is probably not appropriate: they probably belong in a list of scientists from Birmingham, rather than here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Peter, I started the article using information on varoius books which I took out from Birmingham central library some years ago. The article was also expanded with existing related articles on wikipedia, since then I have continued to expand with information found on the web and other books. I would say I have contributed the vast majority to this article (even some of the images) and will be moving most of it to a new blog I hope to create in time.

I'm open to new ideas to help improve the work I have contributed here. The information pre 17th century could possibly work if it is archived onto a new page with link from this article? What I have tried to achieve is a time line of notable dates of science, industry and innovation in the ciy, to give an idea of how the town developed rapidly into the city today, innovation through industry. Additional inclusions such as the first game of tennis, etc feel at home in the article to highlight the great 'movers and shakers' in Birmingham's history. What about changing the name to Industry, Innovation and Science in Birmingham?. The scientists and inventors included are all either from the city or carried out their work there, I'm not sure splitting up the page into two seperate articles would maintain the flow. If anything I was considering condensing some of the content pre 17th century. What do you think? Old Bess (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

After a quick look over, what I'm suggesting is changing the article title to Industry, Innovation and Science in Birmingham, which ties everything in, then archiving the history up to the 12th Century into something like Early Crafts and Settlements in Birmingham, the 12th Century is where the town starts to have its own identity. Old Bess (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think that the article needs to be split.

• The article as it used to exist was largely about Birmingham inventions from the 18th century. There was nothing earlier, because none are known.
• For the 13th to 17th century, you have produced a good account of "History of trade and industry in Birmingham". This gives these sections a different scope, from innovation in the 18th century and later sections. This would need to be followed by sections dealing with in the 18th century trades (such as "toys" and guns), and 19th and 20th century successors such as jewellery and cars.
• I am not sure that the "early crafts" section is really about Birmingham at all, as much of it is about places that became part of the city only as it expanded in the 19th and 20th centuries. You have provided a valid synthesis, but the section should probably be called "Early crafts in the City of Birmingham".
• We probably also need to incorporate links into a higher level article History of Birmingham to which these articles would be more detailed "main" articles, and may need expansion - I have not looked at it.

I am afraid that I am far less active as a WP editor than I wa a year or two back: I have not been able to devote as much time as I used to. If you are happy with what I am suggesting, I will undertake the split, and leave you to work up the missing material. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the early crafts section: the text is now at User:Peterkingiron/sandbox. Some of the content might be merged to History of Birmingham, which covers the same topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter, sorry for the late reply. Yes I agree with your move of the Early Crafts section. The article now makes more immediate sense and is easier to read. It seems the 12th Century is where the town started the stronger trading routes which enabled some if the industries to thrive locally. I think most important now is to try and make sure all the sources are cited reliably. There are certain patents and inventions which I have played down in the article without knowing too much background, it would be nice to improve on such points. Thanks for your input on this. Much appreciated. Old Bess (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the 12th to 17th century sections to History of trade and industry in Birmingham. I have followed this up with some slightly editing, but that article now ends in mid air, needing sections on the subsequent centuries. Please feel free to write these. While I have placed "early crafts in a sandbox under my name, please feel free to edit this or mewrge content with [[Hisotry of Birmingham, which covers similar ground, but please put in references indicating where mateirla came from. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok great, this looks like the start of a very good article. I think there are elements of the 16th and 17th century section of the History of trade and industry in Birmingham which should still feature in the Science and invention in Birmingham (for instance 'Nye') but maybe these could be weaved into a slightly better intro (this would provide a couple of images too). I'll have a crack at this shortly Old Bess (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead. I am not quite sure about Nye being a scientist, rather than just a hack. If you do put him back, I would suggest that it is under a heading "before 1700", rather than in the lead. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can see much need for separate articles for History of trade and industry in Birmingham and Economic history of Birmingham - surely they are essentially synonymous? They are also both a bit patchy - one decent article would surely be better than two half-decent ones? JimmyGuano (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)