Jump to content

Talk:City status in the United Kingdom/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Key statistics for urban areas

At present (in the section describing the wider rural area enclosed in 'City of' districts) the article says

At each census the government produces a report called "Key Statistics for Urban Areas",[1] which separates the population of the actual town or city from the population of the area controlled by the council bearing its name.

This is questionable. The KSUA gives the urban area and urban sub-area stats; it does not give the populations of the rural settlements in the district. The boundary of each urban sub-area remains fixed in all subsequent censuses from its initial delineation, but the number of sub-areas in the urban area does not. Thus if a city expands, the expansion areas are given new USA names. This does not mean that they are not part of the city: they are just not part of the city as it was when delineated for the first census. The notes to the spreadsheet explain all this. Now I know that some editors like to idolise an arbitrary moment in the past and pickle it in aspic. But cities are organic things that grow, shrink, rot etc. We should respect the ONS definition: to do otherwise is WP:OR. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what the author of that line was probably trying to say is that the statistics for urban areas & subdivisions, as listed here and here, are different to statistics for local authority areas that may have town or city status, as listed here, here and here. Many people are confused about these differences - just see the talk pages for those articles.--Pondle (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The assertion that "The boundary of each urban sub-area remains fixed in all subsequent censuses from its initial delineation, but the number of sub-areas in the urban area does not." is false. What is true is that the subdivision boundaries within each conurbation (or subdivision-subdivision boundaries) are generally (but not always) fixed, but the boundaries at the edges of urban areas moves with the urban area. If your assertion is true, then why do the areas of each Urban Area and Urban Subdivision (excepting those in the middle of a conurbation) change at every census? Where an urban area expands into a former rural area, then the "new" urban area is considered to be part of the relevant Urban Area/Urban Subdivision. As an example, Perton was not considered to be part of Wolverhampton in the 1981 census, but it was in the 1991. Key Statistics for Urban Areas only gives statistics for those settlements and conurbations with populations of over 1,500 residents. Statistics are seperately available for settlements with between 100 and 1,500 residents. Rural settlements within districts are irrelevant anyway with the statistics demonstrating the different definitions of urban settlement and local government districts.Fingerpuppet (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just quickly put together this table from the 1991 and 2001 census data for the West Midlands Urban Area to demonstrate beyond all doubt that Urban Areas and Urban Subdivisions are NOT fixed for all eternity, as claimed. As can be seen, some areas do indeed stay constant but the vast majority change, some by a small amount, others by larger amounts - exactly as would be expected. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Settlement 1991 Area (ha)

[2]

2001 Area (ha)

[3]

West Midlands Urban Area 60,229 59,972
Aldridge 537 549
Birmingham 22,334 22,296
Brownhills 470 509
Cheswick Green 48 48
Coleshill 449 381
Dudley 5,303 5,345
Hagley 208 209
Halesowen 1,531 1,528
Knowle 590 650
Oldbury/Smethwick 3,890 3,903
Pelsall 192 195
Rushall 122 119
Shelfield 131 131
Solihull 2,888 2,934
Stourbridge 1,455 1,472
Sutton Coldfield 4,236 4,343
Walsall 4,342 4,450
Water Orton 81 78
West Bromwich 4,514 3,739
Wolverhampton 6,776 6,807
In the face of that citation, I concede. I went from the particular (Milton Keynes urban area, where the ONS has added new US-As) to the general. A logic 101 fail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If it's specifically rural area data you're after, then there are reports from the Key Statistics for Urban Area that split local authorities into rural and urban data. Urban data, of couse, includes other towns within the local government district, so, for example, the urban figure for Stafford borough would not only include the town of Stafford itself, but also other towns such as Stone. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Key Statistics for Urban Areas 2001
  2. ^ "2001 census: Key Statistics for Urban Areas". ONS. Retrieved 2008-12-04.
  3. ^ "1991 Census: West Midlands Urban Area". ONS. Retrieved 2008-12-04.

British overseas territories

I know of one place in the remaining British overseas territories that has city status — Jamestown on Saint Helena — which was granted city status in a similar way to many UK cities (letters patent) by Queen Victoria in 1859. There may be other places in the UK's remaining overseas territories with city status... could they be given a mention somehow in this article? I know they're not in the UK, but they are British territory and are cities in the same way as the British cities are. David (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article use the name "Derry" or "Londonderry"?

Should this article use the name "Derry" or "Londonderry" to refer to the city? GSTQ (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine to refer to it as Derry in most articles, but here it is more sensible to call it Londonderry, as this is its official name and this article is about the official statuses of cities... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.161.120 (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Use Londonderry here as the Royal charter in which it was granted city status used the official name of Londonderry. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It is known as Derry on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). The official name per the charter is already included in the article anyway. O Fenian (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought you were insistent on "official names" always being used? Or is that not a consistent position? Mooretwin (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I am the first IP, now at home. I have just looked at the manual of style and it seems to me that the so called consensus (see [1]) is no such thing. So I've removed that from manual of style until you can all come to an agreement. I don't want to get involved myself as I think it's a question for the Northern Irish to decide, not me. My sole interest is in this page. And because of it no longer being in the manual of style, I'm going to revert back. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it's since been reverted. Do people think this article has to follow the manual of style? And if so, do you think the manual of style is correct? Does your answer to one of those questions affect your answer to the other one? 86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, its should be called Londonderry on Wikipedia, since Northern Ireland is within the UK. In the meantime, it should be shown as such here. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help at the "other" discussion - I'll be sticking here now, I think going around in circles there would drive me nuts.
On the assumption that it will drive everyone else nuts too, let's assume that the current manual of style sticks with keeping it as Derry in general. How do people feel about calling it Londonderry in this article, given it's all about the official status of the city. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed.Afterlife10 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Mooretwin (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Unanimous so far - how long should I wait? I'm thinking a week, or longer if there's a serious disagreement. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, since no one has said anything for 24 hours, I'm just going to put it to Londonderry now and see what happens. 86.178.52.148 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, looks like someone already has. Well in that case I'll rewrite the paragraph someone was complaining about before and then we're all happy :) 86.178.52.148 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll simply wait for the guideline discussion to conclude, since there doesn't seem to be consensus here other than "I like Londonderry" by the usual suspects. O Fenian (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been advised that the results of that guideline don't matter for non-Irish articles. Are you now saying that they do again? 86.178.52.148 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
IMOS is only a guideline not a law, but in any sense it only applies to Ireland related articles so there is no issue here. work away IP.Afterlife10 (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, but then you bring up the suggestion that Northern Ireland is part of the UK, so IMOS shouldn't apply to it anyway as it's a British country. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As a unionist, I've really got to say I'm embarrassed by the attitudes being expressed here. I would prefer that the Wikipedia policy were different too myself, but it exists for a reason and that reason is to prevent the sort of edit wars that have been happening on this page recently. The argument that "it's a British country" is applicable wherever Derry appears mentioned, so that is hardly a justification for a specific exception here. The Manual of Style policy presently remains despite recent attempts to change it. The revision as it was until recently followed the Manual of Style, and also mentioned the charter under the name Londonderry. The only addition of substance is the statement that the city was destroyed in 1608, before being refounded, which is relevant. The remainder of the commentary is irrelevant to this article, and until the Manual of Style changes there is no reason to make a specific exception for this article. Arguments about official names belong on the Manual of Style discussion page, not here.GSTQ (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No one cares (or ought to. Actually a whole load of buggers here do but that amuses me as fortunately I find both sides pathetic) whether you're a unionist. I for one would like to get rid of all of Ireland and ideally split Cornwall, Wales, Scotland off from England (and I'm not ncessarily saying i'd want to stay in England either!) and I always call it Derry in the very few times I would ever talk about it but none of that is relevant.
It is supremely relevant that for the time being this article reflect the official nature of the city as this article is about official city status. There is also no obligation to follow Irish manual of style as this article isn't about Ireland. But I haven't reverted for time now as hopefully we can sort this in talk. Let's only discuss whether IMOS is applicable or not. Why should it be? Please convince me!
As a show of good faith I'm going to de-London a Derry you missed :) Egg Centric (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly as you say, this is a British article therefore IMOS doesn't apply and as this is about the official cities of the UK so official names should be used which thanks to the Royal Charter means that the city is officially named Londonderry and should be put in the list as such. The consensus in the discussion above shows that the consensus is for Londonderry in here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me - your revert didn't catch everything (in fact it only caught the Derry I'd had to catch as the original one didn't!) so have done the job. If that's reverted I'm going to refrain from further reversions as I will take that to mean that consensus is not, in fact, established. Egg Centric (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
"since there doesn't seem to be consensus here other than "I like Londonderry" by the usual suspects." - that coming from the same old anti-Londonderry suspect. Mabuska (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've said previously, the argument that this is a "British" article applies wherever Londonderry/Derry is mentioned, so it is a spurious argument insofar as it attempts to give a reason for the exclusion of the Irish Manual of Style. The city is located on the island of Ireland. Part of the island of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, so "British" and "Ireland" are not mutually exclusive. I am repeating platitudes for those familiar with the geographical and political reality. It is deliberate blindness to this reality to allege that the Irish Manual of Style doesn't apply to this article because it is an article on a "British" subject. In any event, the Derry City Council is a British government institution, so to allege that "Londonderry" is the universal British nomenclature is false. I should not, as Egg Centric suggests, need to justify the application of the Irish Manual of Style to this article. That Manual of Style applies to Derry, because it is located in Ireland. A reference to a French city in an article about an English city (for example, because they are twinned cities) should follow any applicable Manual of Style relating to France. And this article is partly about an Irish subject anyway! Why should the Irish Manual of style not apply? There has been no argument advanced above specific to this article that could not be advanced on the talk page of the Manual of Style, which is where this discussion belongs.GSTQ (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It should use Londonderry, as this article concerns UK cities & the name of city itself is Londonderry. Last time I checked, the city-in-question was within the borders of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Whichever name is eventually agreed, the following should be removed: "The issue is still controversial, especially in Ulster but with elsewhere due to the very strong feelings by a small minority." Firstly, there is no issue of whether it is a city; secondly, the name issue has no place in this article; and finally, "strong feelings" and "small minority" are emotive terms that have no place here. Likewise, the link to the "naming dispute" article should be removed. I would also like to see a citation for the "destroyed in 1608" statement. Scolaire (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Would this suffice? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Does it say that the town of Derry was destroyed, i.e. that nothing remained of it? I can't see anything of that nature. The paragraph in this article as it currently stands suggests that the city of Londonderry was built from scratch in four years 1609-13 at a greenfield site where a town had once stood. If that is not accurate then it should either be re-written for clarity, with cited sources that provide clarity, or be left out. If it is accurate it should still be re-written for clarity, with better sources than that newspaper article. Scolaire (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This is all explained in History of Derry, particularly at "Plantation of Ulster". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
But it's not referenced there either! Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The name of the city-in-question is Londonderry, let's use that name. If/when the city changes it's name to Derry, then we'll do the same here (this goes for the city article aswell). GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you said that already. Nevertheless, in the City Status article, since the award of the 'city charter' was concurrent with the prefixing of the "London" and the wording of the charter uses the form 'Londonderry', it seems sensible to use the name in the charter in this context, while explaining the historical reasons for the name. I have revised the City Status article in that light. I hope that people will find it a fair middle way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As the original author of that, I strongly endorse John's edit, far better written. Bravo! Egg Centric (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the final sentence, beginning "The name is controversial..." is awkward, and should be removed. If you use that comment here, you might as well use it in any article referring to the city, which it is the whole point of the Manual of Style policy to avoid! The use of "Londonderry" as the name of the city, instead of "Derry", is in conflict with the Manual of Style, for no apparent reason than that the city charter was granted under the name Londonderry. This is not sufficient reason, this edit was sufficient to explain the situation with the charter whilst preserving the Manual of Style. Arguments such as "The name of the city-in-question is Londonderry" are irrelevant to whether this is the name which should be used in this article. There has still been no persuasive reason advanced why the Manual of Style should not apply here, as it does to the city article.GSTQ (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The argument is clear: (1) The manual of style does not apply and (2) even if it did, it can and should be ignored. The page is about official statuses of cities; it's therefore sensible for consistency to use the official status, which is that is it's Londonderry. Egg Centric (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The substance of the argument may be clear, but its basis is not, especially as regards your argument number (1).
(1) The Irish manual of style is applicable. Derry is in Ireland, therefore the article concerns an Irish subject whenever it mentions Derry.
(2) This article is about official status of cities. It is relevant to mention that the name given on the charter is Londonderry. This edit managed to do this. It does not follow that wherever the city is mentioned, it should use the name on the charter, as is being contended.GSTQ (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The IMoS is only a guideline not a law. The instance of using Londonderry here for the city is not unreasonable. Mabuska (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I will have to go with the current version but without the note on the controversy over the naming which is not relevant to this article. Derry is only incidental to the use in this article so the name used should be Londonderry, Derry should only be mentioned once. Keith D (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

...And even then, Derry should only be mentioned as a slang name that has found favour with some opposed to using Londonderry. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That is simply wrong, it is quite commonly used amongst unionists and was even more so before the troubles when it became a partisan issue. You're not going to tell me for instance the Apprentice Boys are nationalists are you? However in this instance the article is clearly talking about the charter and the official name is the appropriate one and I'd just leave out referencing the name dispute except perhaps in the see also section. Dmcq (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The original Apprentice Boys where technically anti-monarchists if you consider they shut the "gates of Derry" to the then rightful king. Mabuska (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Per what I said above, I have rewritten the paragraph for clarity and added citations. Given what we have learned, i.e. that the first charter was given to Derry as Derry, I think it's hard to justify the use of "Londonderry" in this article as a "special case". I am not going to change it, but I would support the change if somebody else made it. Scolaire (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But the current charter wasn't. So it isn't a special case. Egg Centric (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I have changed to Derry for you, except when it is first mentioned, and then explained that it will be referred to as Derry. I think that should satisfy everyone - the official status is clear (thanks to your rewrite) and there is now not a conflict with MOS (if that does apply, which I am dubious about). Egg Centric (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you read anything of this discussion? What a useless comment - you can do better! Egg Centric (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read some, not all admittedly, but it does drag on. One thing that is clear is that it is re-arguing what was supposedly decided years ago. Wikipedia is a compromise and will never satisfy anybody, but if we can at least be consistent across the project then we will cause less confusion to those who encounter different terms in different places. This article deals with cities in general: we should use the Wikipedia-agreed term for the city as a general case. If the city charter uses a different term, that can be dealt with in the article for the specific city. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Redrose64 and think the article reads much better now. I have deleted the "or by convention" circumlocution. What convention? It sounds like a high-school essay by someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about. I'm not suggesting that the editor doesn't know what he's talking about, but that is the effect of the wording. If someone must change the first occurrence, then do it. But don't use an awkward construction that interferes with the flow of the article.GSTQ (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant the article would use that name as convention. This clearer? I disagree that previous didn't flow well but when I wrote it I knew what I meant, which is quite possibly part of the difficulty I evidently had getting my meaning across. Egg Centric (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This still reads badly. It is unencyclopaedic. Either use one or the other, unless the context demands otherwise. There is no call to use the word "Londonderry" at the start if "Derry" is going to be used. And the same if "Londonderry" is going to be used there is no call to say "we'll refer to this as Derry from now on". The only historic city in present-day Northern Ireland with a historic city charter is "pick a name". That is all that is needed, and all that should be there in the sentence.GSTQ (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The paragraph should be about the status of the city only. Discussion of how it is or should be named should be confined to this talk page, and not intrude on the article in any way. Needless to say, I prefer the way it is worded now, with "Derry" linked to Derry, the following sentence beginning with "Derry", and the "official" name "Londonderry" stated in the appropriate place. Scolaire (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The City of Londonderry as we know it dates from the second charter granted by King Charles II i think. You see there will never be any scope to allow a convention that isn't law be bended just for one instance. Mabuska (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well if only one is to be used, then it has to be Londonderry as that is the official name and this article is about official status. It is fine to allow the article to be mostly Derry in my view but we can't ignore the official name, and as the official name it should be the one that is used first. Egg Centric (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If only one is to be used, then WP:DERRY is quite clear which should be chosen: "Use Derry for the city". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That's only if we accept that applies here, and no one has convinced me or others that it does - it's argued that it applies either because this article mentions Derry, or because Northern Ireland is part of both Ireland and the UK. But I still don't see that this article is an Irish one. In any case I am pretty dubious about that policy. The BBC policy seems more sensible. Egg Centric (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I refer you to the lead section of the page which bears WP:DERRY: "These guidelines cover the style of language and writing to be used in Ireland-related articles. This includes both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland." --Redrose64 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The predominant focus of this article is the UK, of which Northern Ireland is an incidental part Egg Centric (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It's hardly incidental to those who live there. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
And my flat isn't incidental to me, but were there a manual of style about flats one wouldn't apply it to the London article merely because my flat (and a few million others) happens to be part of it. It is incidental to London, even with the nice views! Egg Centric (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good heavens, it doesn't matter what the predominant focus of the article is. Insofar as this article refers to Derry, it is an Ireland-related article. Therefore, that small part of the article that refers to Derry follows the Irish Manual of Style. This article could be a list of cities in the world, and the Irish Manual of Style would still apply. It is not a question of superimposing some over-reaching irrelevant rule on an article related mainly to other things. The article is affected in only a small part by the Irish Manual of Style. But that part of the article that the Manual of Style affects, the Manual is very clearly applicable to.GSTQ (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading

"After its unsuccessful attempts to gain city status, the town of Reading, Berkshire, started using the phrase "City Centre" on its buses and car-park signs. Reading's immediate urban area has in excess of 230,000 inhabitants, making it one of the 20 largest settlements in the UK and larger than many sizeable cities including Southampton, Portsmouth and Derby. However, the population figures for the Reading Borough Council area by the Office of National Statistics was estimated as 142,800 in 2006."

This paragraph states reading should be a city because its urban population is larger than the city populations of Southampton and Portsmouth. Surely it should compare urban area to urban area where you'd find both the latter two cities are much larger than reading, making that point moot? GunnertheGooner (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter?

Does it make any difference at all when a town is made a city (apart from prestige perhaps)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.179 (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the article! -- Dr Greg  talk  14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Stratford City

Does anyone have any information about the Stratford City development, which seems to be using the designation "City" but without any formal city status? (ExLibre (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

Which Stratford? If this is the portion of east London where the Olympic Games are to be held in 2012, this falls within the London Borough of Newham and any application for city status would have to have been submitted by Newham, not Stratford; and if granted, would be in the name of Newham. On the other hand, if it were Stratford-upon-Avon, that is both a town and a district council, so could apply for city status if it wished - but I am not aware of any pending application. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This is Stratford in Newham, East London. There is a Wiki page for "Stratford City", which is part of the Olympic development, and the name is used as the address of the Westfield shopping centre. Can they simply append the word "City"? And if so, why not the other towns applying for city status? (ExLibre (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC))
Ah, Stratford City. Checking the references in that article, it seems that the most of those which actually refer to "Stratford City" (in some cases "Westfield Stratford City") are the developer's own website. I therefore believe that it's a term dreamed up for marketing purposes by the developer, and has no legal standing. After all, there is a shoe retailer called "Shoe City", and again, that's merely advertising hype. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, it may be "dreamed up for marketing purposes" - to me it is an echo of White City in West London (where there is also a branch of Westfield!). I don't think "Shoe City" is a useful comparison, since that is not an area, but if places/areas are allowed to call themselves XXXXX City for marketing purposes, should the City status entry not distinguish between terms like City of Reading, which require legal acknowledgment, and areas like White City and Stratford City which are seemingly allowed to adopt the name? And if the latter is the case, presumably Reading could rename itself Reading City "for marketing purposes" regardless of its actual status? (ExLibre (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

This needs fixing

Resolved

"At present, Rochester and Elgin are the only former cities in the United Kingdom: despite the lack of formal status the first three places are commonly referred to as "cities", at least by their inhabitants."

First three? Only two are named at all. 86.186.54.115 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Perth was in there until earlier today!Lozleader (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Both Perth, Scotland and St Asaph were in there until earlier today. It's now been fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Local Government Districts section, specifically Wolverhampton.

I quote from the current version of the article:

"Since local government reorganisation in 1974 city status has been awarded to a number of local government districts which are not themselves towns. Each includes a number of towns and villages outside the urban area from which the district takes its name. These districts include..."

In this list, includes Wolverhampton. I removed it on the following grounds, which set it apart from the others on the list.

  • "which are not themselves towns". In the case of Wolverhampton, (almost uniquely outside London) the local government boundaries were not altered in 1974, and so the date is irrelevant. In addition, it clearly is (or was) a town in itself - unlike Brighton & Hove or (historically) Stoke-on-Trent.
  • "includes a number of towns and villages outside the urban area". No, it doesn't. Unlike the others on the list (bar Salford), the district is covered within a single urban area - no part of it is "outside the urban area". Indeed, whilst appreciating the fact the data can be controversial with some editors, unlike all the others, the ONS Urban Subdivision extends beyond the local government boundary rather than being just a part of it. On top of that, Bilston, Wednesfield and Willenhall (and beyond) were all part of the lands granted to Lady Wulfruna for her original monastery back in 985 - so have been associated with Wolverhampton for over 1,000 years! The entirety of Coseley and Sedgley were part of the Wolverhampton Parliamentary Borough from the 1832 Reform Act, so that ticks those for historical sources.

All of this firmly puts the historical boundaries beyond the modern local government district, which means that it fits far better in the second list than the first. Of course, the fact that the city council renamed the district as "City of Wolverhampton" doesn't help - and neither does the "old chestnut" of what exactly is meant by the difference in the Charter between "the town of" and "the borough of" - which incidentally is in the wording of the city charter - it isn't mentioned in the text so doesn't need to be sourced! Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Applications for 2012

The "six month application period opened on 1 December 2010", well, six months is 1 June, i.e. three days time. Despite this, some BBC news pages are already announcing applications, some stating that the "deadline for applications is Friday", presume 27 May 2011. Towns mentioned in these articles include:

Some articles mention other competitors; the Bournemouth article gives the longest list - "Luton, Milton Keynes, Middlesbrough, Medway, Reading, Bolton, Swindon, Chelmsford, Stockport, Perth, Gateshead, Ballymena, Guildford, Southend-on-sea, Ipswich, Wrexham, Croydon and St Austell". Of these, it seems that Swindon is not applying. Where can we find a definitive list? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also Goole 27 May 2011. Keith D (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC

Comment

How on earth can Tower Hamlets try to call itself a city? This is madness. Egg Centric 14:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pet project of Boris. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Really?? David (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on City status in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City status in the United Kingdom. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Smallest cities list - needs update

Would be great if we could get List of smallest cities in the United Kingdom updated with 2011 (or more recent even) populations. Argovian (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. The Equalizer (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City status in the United Kingdom. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City status in the United Kingdom. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Local government reform Northern Ireland: implications?

I notice that the article says that, in the case of Lisburn, the status extends to the entire local-government district. So what will happen when Lisburn City Council ceases to exist upon local government reform in 2011 and merges with Castlereagh Borough Council? Will the whole of "Lisburn and Castlereagh" become a city? Mooretwin (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I see Lisburn City Council are worried about losing their status, partly because part of the existing city is due to become part of Belfast. [2] [3] It all seems a bit vague: the proposals are to put the word "city" in the names of five councils:[4]The Commissioner indicated that, as regards the names of the new councils, he was recommending that the city status of five towns in Northern Ireland should be recognised along with existing council names where the new configuration comprised 2 existing councils. The proposed name is "Lisburn City and Castlereagh District Council" which suggests that only Lisburn will be a city. I suspect that it will be a fudge and the exact boundaries of the cities (other than Belfast, perhaps) will not be defined.Lozleader (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi - on this business of City status being extinguished through mergers. The problem is the new local government districts (don't use the word "Council" it just leads to further confusion)try to extedn the status and it is this which is regarded as improper eg Rochester and Medway. The mechanism to safeguard the original area's City status within a new amalgamated District is for the relevant District to appoint 'Charter Trustees' its the Letters Patent and/or Charter of City Status that they are holding in Trust. Tony S 89.168.61.209 (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: but that only applies in England. As far as the Northern Ireland reforms are concerned they seem to have been put on the long finger in any case.Lozleader (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Any further clarity on this as the creation of the new districts approaches in 2015. Mooretwin (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently still a talking point "Draft Local Government (Transitional, Incidental, Consequential and Supplemental Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 Charters and Status Consultation Documents" (PDF). {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 149 (help) with observations to be made by 12 December 2014 (This Friday or two days after I'm typing this). According to the proposed regulations:

Charters

22. The Regulations propose to continue the three charters to which city status is linked, without the new councils in possession of those charters having to take any action. Regulation 3(1) makes provision for the preservation of these charters. This course of action is proposed in relation to the existing charters of Belfast, Derry/Londonderry and Lisburn. This would follow the approach taken in the last round of local government reorganisation in the early 1970’s, when the charters of Belfast and Derry/Londonderry, Northern Ireland’s only two cities at that time, were automatically continued in legislation. As the city status of Newry and Armagh is not linked to a charter, the Regulations do not need to make provision in relation to them.

Lozleader (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
So what does this mean? That "Lisburn and Castlereagh" becomes a city? Mooretwin (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the way I read the proposed legislation, yes. But we shall have to wait and see if any changes are made I suppose. Lozleader (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
This news article and FOI request imply it has been extended to the wider district. The Equalizer (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated points in same sentence

'Considering that Bath and Wells are one diocese, the remaining three others are in Wales'. Both of these are true, but I can't see any connection between them. Also you don't need 'remaining' and 'others'. Perhaps: Note that Bath and Wells are one diocese. The remaining three are in Wales. Mdrb55 (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Guilty! The senseless act of circumlocution - please, make the changes. Anything else you see, tweak away! The Equalizer (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

City of Southend

On 18 Oct 2021, it was announced by Prime Minister Boris Johnson that the Queen had agreed Southend in Essex would be granted city status in honour of Murdered MP Sir David Amess, who had been a long-time committed campaigner for his area to gain the status. Amess had raised the issue almost weekly in the 38 years he served as a backbench MP before he was killed on 15 Oct 2021. The PM's spokesman said that given the “exceptional circumstance” a recommendation had been made for Southend to become a city, which was immediately granted, although the formal certification will follow later. Southend was one of several towns competing for city status as part of the Queen’s platinum jubilee celebrations in 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.90.100 (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As the intro to List of cities in the United Kingdom says

The Prime Minister announced in October 2021 that he had advised the Queen to declare Southend-on-Sea as the United Kingdom's seventieth city, in honour of Sir David Amess, the MP for Southend West who was killed earlier that month. Amess had long campaigned for Southend to gain city status. The Queen has approved the request but formal certification will follow later.[1]

so the key word is "will": as explained in this article, the key document is the Letters Patent and it hasn't happened yet. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Elgot, Jessica (18 October 2021). "Southend to become city in honour of Sir David Amess". The Guardian.

Map

Is it possible to create a map with pins on each city in the UK? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen the List of cities in the United Kingdom article. --The Equalizer (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Why would you want to use it? This article is about the process, the list article is about existing cities; there is already too much duplication. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a list in the City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom#List_of_officially_designated_cities section. A visual aid would be better. Apparently it has maps already if you click on it, but those (a map of the actual city) seem less useful than seeing an overview. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Did you look at my link? There is a British Isles map with pins there. This City Status article is already a sprawling document and is in part why the list and overall map were separated out. --The Equalizer (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe add a direct link within the List of officially designated cities section to the Map section? There are only two mapping technologies on Wiki that support pins, with the first type as in the list article the map picture has to be quite large to allow visibility of the placenames, the other method doesn't support placenames on pins and together with an index would be as large as the first method and be potentially harder to use. --The Equalizer (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
That list in this article should be deleted as a wp:fork of the list article and replaced with a link to that article. Does anyone object if I do exactly that? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. That fork advice page Wikipedia:Content_forking#List_formats allows for a table spinoff of a list. It would be crazy to not have a small accessible list within the core article as now. The table in the list article also summarises other content which is non-existent or hard to find within the prose of the core article. There are bigger battles out there to fight than this John. The Equalizer (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Bangor

Bangor is apparently a city because of ancient prescriptive right, but is also being awarded city status for the Platinum Jubilee. Why? Did it already have city status, in which case why is it being awarded it? Or did it lose city status at some point? Could this be clarified? 185.104.136.54 (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a different Bangor. The one is Wales is the 'ancient' one, the one in Northern Ireland is a new one. Lozleader (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3&oldid=1166223696"