Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Are we sometimes a bit too conservative about settlement boundaries?

JMF, Crouch, Swale, Koncorde, PamD, A.D.Hope, Stortford, Esemgee, Rupples, Mertbiol, DragonofBatley: On the topic of how to write about districts and settlements of the same name, it has occurred to me that there are many instances where WP seems to take, IMO, a too conservative stance as to whether outlying towns and villages of a district should be considered part of the hononymous "main" settlement. For example, Morley is clearly contiguous with the area of the former County Borough of Leeds and is part of the West Yorkshire Urban Area, yet its article's lead states that Morley is the largest town in the Borough of Leeds after Leeds itself. Similarly, Rawcliffe's lead implies that it is some distance away from York, despite being in not only the UA district, but also the built-up-area [1], of York. I would apply the same to Newport Pagnell, where there is are reliable sources stating it as part of Milton Keynes [2] (See page 5, bottom of paragraph 3). While it's important to recognise that these towns and villages are socially and culturally distinct from "inner" Leeds, York, MK, etc, we also need to acknowledge the abundantly clear fact that, yes, cities/urban areas DO expand outside of their original boundaries. Any thoughts? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we seem sometimes to take an 1823 perspective rather than a 2023 one. But I think we also have to look at it another way: whilst the "physical geography" is exactly as you say, the "social geography" still makes a distinction that is very real to the people who live there, even if it is invisible from 50,000'. And the crazy BUASDs invented by the ONS just compound the issue. There is an ongoing discussion at talk:Bedford#Populations used in lead and infobox that is bogged down because these two competing perspectives can't be reconciled, because both are valid. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So shouldn't that same logic apply to, e.g., Bletchley and Stony Stratford (which are described as constituent towns within MK), as both are towns which are more or less distinct from MK in a social geographic sense (and the former is a separate BUASD from "Milton Keynes"), despite being part of the city for its entire existence. I agree, though, that in cases like these, it should be up to the interpretations of individuals to decide whether they consider X town/village to be part of Y urban area. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Anonymous MK2006: No, absolutely not. If MK has a defined boundary at all, then it is the 1967 New Towns Act designated area. This includes Bletchley, Fenny, Stony, Wolverton and the 15 villages and hamlets: they are constituent towns of (not in) MK. There is no "other" MK that they can be distinct from – not even age, since parts of both post-date 1967. The ONS has been wildly inconsistent in its definition of BUASDs (now BUAs) as regards physical geography [yes, Bletchley is indeed physically distinct due to being west of the A5 and south of A421, but then why aren't the areas east of the A5 and south of the A421 equally distinct?] Bletchley is not "socially distinct" from the rest of the city any more so than is any other neighbourhood in the city, indeed of any city]. "Greater Bedford" does not have that advantage: it faces the perennial challenge "but what is Bedford" because there are two answers. MK does not have that problem in the real world, but the ONS has created such a problem by using its name for BUASD that is only part of it. And no, it really should not be up to the interpretations of individuals as that would be a WP:OR violation. But when the nominally reliable source, the ONS, is so egregiously unreliable, what must we do? Consensus? Sigh. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

When I said that we should leave it to the interpretation of individuals, I meant that readers can decide whether they consider X town/village to be part of Y settlement, but not make any changes to WP articles in the absence of reliable sources (i.e. we should just state the facts, e.g. Newport Pagnell is part of the Milton Keynes urban area and the City of Milton Keynes UA, and whether readers consider NP to be in MK based on those facts is up to them). I disagree that the 1967 designated New Town boundary of MK should be used as the city's modern boundary, as that would mean that we would have to exclude Fairfields and Whitehouse from the definition of MK (let alone NP, WS and Wavendon), which is obviously nonsense, and ignores the very real fact that settlements do expand. We should certainly acknowledge the distinct social geographies of said towns and villages, but unfortunately we can't appease everyone and have to find a sensible "middle ground" (until more RSs are available). As for MK's original 4 constituent towns, it could be argued that since these were the most populous and largest pre-existing settlements incorporated into the "New City", their autonomous sense of identity is somewhat greater than the villages and hamlets incorporated (which were primarily built into urban neighbourhoods), but duh, of course they're integral parts of MK either way, despite some sources we would usually consider to be reliable referring to them as separate from MK (i.e. "near Milton Keynes or "Bletchley/Fenny/Wolverton/Stony, Bucks") [3][4] Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Morley was independent of the County Borough of Leeds until they were merged in 1974... not sure I follow what your point is with that. It seems appropriate to me to state that a place is the largest settlement in a district outside of the main conurbation. Rcsprinter123 (chat) 23:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, firstly, there is no authority governing over the former Leeds County Borough's area today which is distinct from the one governing the metro borough's other towns and villages (there is only Leeds City Council), so this argument does not stand in an administrative sense. However, what's more notable is that not only do Morley and "old" Leeds share the exact local same authority under the City of Leeds, they are contiguous and do form part of the same conurbation. We have to draw a line somewhere, otherwise we're pretending that these urban areas are the exact same size as they were in the 19th century. So, in my view, if a place is contiguous with the main settlement in the district (especially if they share a common BUA/BUASD), then we should avoid saying stuff like "X is the 2nd largest town in the district of Y, after Y itself", and leave it to people to make their minds up. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem is as I found with say the Worcester and Coventry articles is that despite slight boundary changes. They are not distinct enough to warrant separate articles. However, in the cases of Leeds, York and let's say Peterborough. They all contain distinct towns and villages. For example, Wetherby isn't part of the WYUA but is part of Leeds, same with Rothwell. They are separate from the conurbation even though the M1 acts as a boundary for the latter. Haxby, Dunnington and Nether Popple are part of the City of York but separate from the city by a slightly big greenbelt area and the same goes for Peterborough. Thorney, Eye Green, Wansford and Northborough are all separate from the city by a huge greenbelt. Boroughs like Salford, Bolton, Wigan and St Helens don't contain many if any real civil parishes but warrant their own borough articles despite most of Salford being separate until 1974 when Pendlebury and Swinton even Eccles weren't part of it until that point. So it's a complex but I would agree it isnt so much about being conservative but more defining notable towns and villages. Nobody would have thought of Ripon as part of Harrogate as it's one of the oldest cities in Yorkshire. Same with the identity of residents between Stockton on Tees in North Yorkshire and County Durham. Many would argue they are still Cleveland but not County Durham and North Yorkshire. Not that's personal opinions are facts of course but we wouldn't merge the towns and villages of Stockton into Stockton itself because of its complexity same with Redcar and Cleveland or Borough of Great Yarmouth for instance. DragonofBatley (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no greenbelt around Peterborough. You are confusing the Green belt (United Kingdom) with just plain old rural land. Eopsid (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, in all cases, whether the outlying towns and villages in the district are contiguous with the homonymous main settlement or not, I think our language should be neutral and not suggest that the towns/villages are or aren't part of the main settlement because the truth is, there are three ways of looking at it: the physical geography (e.g. a surveyor may view Morley as part of Leeds, but Otley distinct as the former is connected to pre-1974 Leeds unlike the latter), the political geography (e.g. a local councillor may view both Morley and Otley as part of Leeds due to them both being administered by Leeds City Council), and the social geography (residents of both Morley and Otley may assert their "independence" due to distinct history, etc). Since these are all valid views, for WP to say that "X town is the second largest town in the district of Y, after Y itself" is pushing the boundaries of WP:NPOV, when there is no consensus behind one concrete answer. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The alternative is to spell out the various definitions and perspectives but that can make for confusing text that doesn't really help the lay reader much, and becomes so long that it adds undue weight. Unless it's barn-door obvious (e.g. Camden was once a separate settlement but nobody would now suggest it isn't within London) we should probably steer clear if we can. WaggersTALK 13:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

So do I. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• We do need to be careful about commercial sources and sources that are giving a very generic description. If someone is advertising holiday cottages in Wetherby they are more likely to say near Leeds to make people think the area is more rural while if you have a shop they may say "in" Leeds to make people know where the shop is. Similarly someone may say they are from Penrith when they are actually from Langwathby if they are describing it to someone who doesn't know the area well. The BUA/BUASD definitions perhaps before the recent changes in definition may be the most useful way of determining if we describe something as being part of a larger settlement or not but other sources may help such as if they use "village" or "suburb" but this may depend on if people are viewing the places in a historical context or not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding settlement definitions with a whole series of articles created including Settlements in ceremonial counties of England by population using a poor definition of settlements that should probably be looked along with this. Eopsid (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom

A challenge for the serious geographers out there. We appear to need a Metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom article. There are 55 links to ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom, a pan-EU report in 2006 based (for UK entries) on the the 2001 census. There are multiple instances of WP:EGGs like [[ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom|Metropolitan area]], [[List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom|Metropolitan area]] and similar. (Note, List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom redirects to ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom). We keep getting well-meaning editors trying to "correct" the table in the ESPON article because they have been misdirected to it and fail to spot the hatnote that explains what it is.

Does anyone fancy taking on this challenge? It is way above my pay grade. Finding reliable sources should provide hours of fun. Mission impossible? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Europe has recent figures from citypopulation.de so it may not be the Labour of Hercules that I thought it might be? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Are we happy to use "Consolidated Urban Area" used by citypopulation as a "Metropolitan area"? Also wary of disclaimers like so: "The delimitation and composition of urban agglomerations is often defined or modified by »City Population« in order to increase comparability. This is a continuous, on-going process. The figures of such a statistic are all of varying accuracy. There are several reasons: varying relevance and accuracy of sources, difficulties of delimitation, errors in the projection and so on."

In contrast other sources such as OECD have clearly defined inclusion criteria and mechanisms outlined while their Stats contain annual population change figures for the last two decades with supporting documentation The OECD, in cooperation with the EU, has developed a harmonised definition of functional urban areas (FUAs). Being composed of a city and its commuting zone, FUAs encompass the economic and functional extent of cities based on daily people’s movements (OECD, 2012). The definition of FUA aims at providing a functional/economic definition of cities and their area of influence, by maximising international comparability and overcoming the limitation of using purely administrative approaches. At the same time, the concept of FUA, unlike other approaches, ensure a mimimum link to the government level of the city or metropolitan area. The Metropolitan database provides socio-economic and environmental indicators for around 1 300 OECD functional urban areas over 50,000 inhabitants in 37 OECD countries. Some indicators are only available for large FUAs (i.e. above 250 000 inhabitants). Most of the indicators presented in the database are modelled based on aggregation of data at smaller geographic scale (e.g. population by age). Other indicators are modelled using geo-spatial data sources (e.g. air quality) or by downscaling/adjusting indicators available at slightly different geographic scale thorugh the use of population grid (e.g. GDP). FUAs are defined in several steps. First, a population grid makes it possible to define ‘urban centres’ independently from administrative or statistical boundaries. An urban centre is a pure grid-based concept, a cluster of contiguous cells of high density and with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Subsequently, this dense, urban centre is adapted to the closest local units to define a city (or ‘core’). Next, commuting flows are used to identify which of the surrounding, less densely populated local units were part of the city’s labour market (commuting zone). Commuting zones are defined as all municipalities with at least 15% of their employed residents working in a certain city core. Municipalities surrounded by a single functional urban area are included and non-contiguous municipalities are dropped. See documents in the reference list for further details. Local units used as building blocks to define FUAs are different across countries. In the case of European countries they are Local Administrative Units (LAU) according to the terminology adopted by Eurostat. In most cases local units are municipalities. In the case of the United States, census tracts are used for the method, and the final boundaries of the city and the commuting zones are adapted to the county boundaries. and study. Koncorde (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that CityPopulation.de is a reliable source. i think its self-published. Eopsid (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That OECD source isn't very good either because its building these metropolitan areas up using local government districts which vary massively in size. I know US Metropolitan areas are defined the same way but its still stupid. It makes comparisons between metropolitan areas pretty meaningless because it all depends on how big the local government districts are. Eopsid (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look at the shapefiles and data for the OECD source, it has some weird anomalies like it includes Southend and Basildon as part of London's metropolitan area. Nothing wrong with that, kind of makes sense. But then areas closer to the centre of London like Slough are their own Functional urban area, and Windsor and Maidenhead, Runnymede and Surrey Heath aren't in any functional urban area. Eopsid (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

If we want another definition of Metropolitan areas we could use the Travel to work area. I think it might be best to go with the List of metropolitan areas in Europe approach and use multiple sources and definitions. They are all gonna be flawed in different ways. Eopsid (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Other anomalies in that OECD source, is the lack of Lancaster. It had a built-up area population of just under 100,000 in the 2011 census, which is well over the 50,000 minimum the source mentions and a much larger population than the smallest in that list (Corby with 60,000) Eopsid (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of our likes / dislikes: It's a reliable source and authoritative vs CityPopulation which is the purpose of comparison. Koncorde (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue with multiple sources is that there will be then multiple disputes over which is the "official" figure for infoboxes. Koncorde (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to get very involved in this, but rather than starting a new article would it not be easier to adapt List of urban areas in the United Kingdom to cover the various definitions? A.D.Hope (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Urban is distinct to Met by methodology - but Urban even in that article alone is already "wrong" as it's a Built Up Area which is different metric and purpose again (per BUA and BUASD). In the end there are FUA, MUA, Met, Urban, BUA, BUASD and so on - all with different means to define various things about a general region. Bad habit on wikipedia is they become possessions OF the largest component part and start getting pressed into articles in multiple different ways. Question for me would always be: what are the figures for, what are they used for by the source and so on. Koncorde (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde on this. I opened this discussion with "we appear to need" but the few articles I looked at before raising this, it was not glaringly obvious why we need them. But they do seem important to some people. If we are to have them, the fundamental problem is to find a reliable source: most sources that use such a term are careful to declare the purpose and context. Citypopulation.de can indulge in WP:OR to create some kind of consistent definition, but we can't. Maybe I was right about it being a Labour of Hercules. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to consolidate the various measures in an article called Measures of urban area in the United Kingdom (to be improved)? Presenting a given measure within the context of other measures may help prevent it being used in ways which are unsuitable. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope Yes, redirecting the various terms to one article where they are all definitively and well-sourcedly described (defined, and also note of who uses them, etc) would be the most helpful. PamD 20:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

VOB population 500 error

None of the links for population in a unit work, example, Silverdale parish where all the links at "Available datasets" display the 500 error when clicked, I have reported it. Everything else appears to work though. PamD do you get the same error? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for a couple of places I tried. I'm not sure I've ever used those links, so no idea how long since they worked. PamD 05:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: They were working until Thursday evening. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

New boundary maps for London

Just a note: I've made the parliamentary constituency maps for London based on the 2023 review, so when the GE eventually rolls around these can be updated. Unfortunately, I only noticed the parameters of the template after upload, so you must add {{sp}} after the file name in the template for it to work. Sorry(!), but hopefully these are helpful. – Isochrone (T) 20:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

2021 population figures

The ONS site contains a page with mid-year population estimates, with the most recent data being from June 2021 (in the "MYE2 – Persons" tab). It doesn't include Cumberland or Westmorland and Furness, but plausible figures for these can be calculated by adding numbers together if desired.

The figures in Template:English district population (as an example) are different, and I do not know how they have been derived. The link in Template:United Kingdom district population citation now points to a page of links, none of which contain total population figures for local authorities.

I am thinking of replacing the local authority population figures for parts of the UK with ones from that spreadsheet. Does this sound reasonable? Aoeuidhtns (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Aoeuidhtns (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

I've updated most of the templates listed on Template:United_Kingdom_district_population_citation/doc now.

I haven't changed Template:English_cerem_counties as the source I used doesn't contain statistics for English "ceremonial counties" as such, meaning that another source, or sources, would be needed to calculate them. If the list needs different sources, I think it needs a different citation.

I haven't changed Template:United_Kingdom_statistics_year as the documentation for that refers to some other templates I haven't looked at, and which need different sources. I'm reluctant to touch it anyway, as there are some options with YYYY in the name, and there's no indication of how these should compare to the ones without it.

I used the code history database to update the statistics to 2023 boundaries and GSS codes. I haven't included this in the reference, but the changes (to the Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset counties) should be described in the articles.

I've used the templates (other than density, which seems to be redundant) in the article for Cumberland, North Northamptonshire, Westmorland and Furness, West Northamptonshire and Yorkshire (Somerset doesn't have a suitable infobox). I haven't touched the list articles, though. There's no reliable way to map from GSS (or even name) to Wikipedia link, so they seem like a lot of extra work.

Problem with List of Wainwrights

This large list compiled from an external database by a now-inactive editor needs attention. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Lancashire and Cumbria#Problems with List of Wainwrights if you are interested. Thanks in advance for any help! PamD 21:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

"Greater Leicester"??

Move log 15:30 Chocolateediter talk contribs moved page Leicester urban area to Greater Leicester ‎(Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE)) (revert) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit

@Chocolateediter: Greater London and Greater Manchester have statutory status. So to attach the term "Greater" to anywhere else implies as legal significance. So what's next? Greater Penge? Greater Ely? I for one oppose this move. Does anyone else think it has merit? Surely we must wait for the ONS to declare their post-2021 nomenclature? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just revert it per WP:RMUM DankJae 16:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot find anything by that name per quick search so potential OR. Would oppose it too as it seems to be a generated term. DankJae 16:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just reverted it anyway based on perceived controversial move here due to opposition, @Chocolateediter if you wish you can set up an RM to justify the move.

@JMF, I forgot you can move on mobile. DankJae 16:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

They aren’t going to, they were going to use agglomeration and decided not to bother. For now I see the names are now open to go by whatever names fit best, the article was using a name used for the 2001 census anyway. One quick glance at the article and it is clear it is no Greater Manchester or Greater London, Greater insert city here is used a lot for conurbations. My reason is that it is a shorter title and that is valid enough to select as a preset reason for a move.

Why push WP RMUM before getting my point of view, I thought:

• No article exists at the new target title;
• There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
• It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

Give me the decency for me to explain before reverting my move it is rude to not hear both sides then set the revert and discussion. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I was working on the message above while you flew in so read it as if I saw JMF then the other messages. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Hoping it's a good reason. Have the 2021 conurbations been released yet? They are still urban areas regards of any new name used during this census period. The Equalizer (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Silly question – yes the subdivided polygons were released a while ago. I suggest leaving the article until when the information on conurbations are out in the wild. The Equalizer (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

edit conflict @DankJae: Thank you. I'm sure that CE did the initial move in good faith so wondered if the ONS had formally announced their new naming scheme. "Greater Abcde" would be unlikely but they have come up with some howlers in the past so nothing would surprise me. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I deem it good faith for @Chocolateediter but in the end it was a bold move and the edit reasoning did not really explain it other than "this is shorter". Ofc, if you start a RM and fully explain it we can fully understand the case and potentially support the move. But JMF clearly opposed it here, so it is a controversial move than needs a discussion before. Urban areas are undergoing large changes so fully understand the good faith, and the ONS is re-doing a lot of things making this situation messy. Regards DankJae 16:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Perceived controversial move is not a controversial move, Dank Jae, one look at my reasoning might have stop anything before it kicked off pre-empting it is seriously bad thing to do and can wind people up and stir an even more vicious argument,

(Note: app editing on conversations is annoying as you go out to look at new messages, come back and it says saved unsent messages and that locks you out so have to switch to website grrrr so it takes a while to get messages in talk through I should have sent a “hang on I’ll give me reason in a sec just wording it”) Chocolateediter (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter, In the end it is now controversial and I reverted it and JMF wanted it reverted in absence of a discussion prior, so it is now a controversial move. Please start a RM, your RM may very well pass, but at least it gained consensus. WP:BRD DankJae 16:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I barely got time to explain before it got to three users and a revert. They was a quick preset reason and I didn’t want to give more in a long single line. One sec I’ll read the new message and do another. (I can see they is one but I’ll end up locking it again for me) Chocolateediter (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ll do a RM (I’ll have to jog my memory on it), somebody will have to move it once a redirect exists it is outside my knowledge of moving. That’s why I don’t like people jumping to it.

You know what I can’t be bothered it’s too much hassle that might not have been if Dank Jae hadn’t reverted before I got to say owt. Just keep the 2001 longer name, I’m going back to chocolate editing. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter, may be best to explain at that article talk page rather than in an edit summary (and here). Moves are reverted all the time, including mine, so it is better to discuss them at that talk to find a consensus, you indeed could have a good argument, but that may need more than an edit summary to settle any concerns of JMF, I or any other editor, or even have editors supporting your move in such discussion. In the end, better to find a consensus among many than just one editor. Regards

(edit conflict), in light of the second comment, the redirect can be overridden if the RM supports it. To set one up, just substitute {{Requested move}} into a new section (no title needed) at the talk and fill in the parameters, thats it. Consensus takes time, if you wish to revisit the issue when you have time, please raise it. Sorry if this became a hassle, but reversions do happen to everyone, we can't agree on everything. DankJae 16:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This part (UK geo) of Wikipedia particularly has a lot more than others that’s why I have all but given up on it, my first in weeks on an article under the project scope so it’s obvious as to why I am annoyed and indifferent to bothering on setting up stuff. Just watch your need to revert quickly, all I’m asking. Back to Fry’s Chocolate. Chocolateediter (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Parish populations

• (Apologies if this has already been discussed)
• The 2011 census did not seem to be very serious about reporting accurate populations of parishes. Instead of publishing the population of some small parishes, it was quietly added to that of a nearby parish. This has led to some odd wording in Wikipedia. For example, the lead of Acaster Selby says "It is part of the joint civil parish with Appleton Roebuck (where the population is now included)" and its infobox just reports the 2001 population.
• The good news is that the 2021 census seems to be better. You can go to www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2021_pp, click on "PP02 Sex", click on "Query data", click on "Geography", click on "parishes 2022", select the appropriate district area from the drop-down list (for Acaster Selby, which is now in North Yorkshire, it is necessary to select "Selby" as the area), select the parishes that you are interested in, click on "Download Data", and then click on "View data in your web browser". This tells me that the population of Acaster Selby is 41 and that of Appleton Roebuck is 830.
• I expect there are many articles that can now be updated.

JonH (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to say that that nomis website has to be the most appallingly user-unfriendly, byzantine maze of a website I have ever come across! It must have been designed by a droid or something, because no human being could have come up with that. Well done for working out how to get any useful data from it, even if it is a ludicrously complicated, user-unfriendly process. G-13114 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The 2011 census data at NOMIS indeed did merge data for smaller parishes which yes is important for privacy reasons lead us to give wrong date for parishes here and lead me originally to believe many smaller parishes had been abolished, they hadn't even noted that data was for multiple parishes! I'd actually consider reverting back to the 2001 census if 2011 has multiple parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing North Yorkshire districts from settlement articles

Hello! Many of the articles on places in North Yorkshire have not been updated to reflect the abolition of the county's districts in April, so if anyone fancies browsing List of civil parishes in North Yorkshire and ticking a few off that would be fab. This typically means:

• Removing the mention of the former district in the lead.
• Removing the district field from the infobox.
• Updating any other mention of the district in the body.

If you can also update the North Yorkshire Council electoral division at the same time that would be helpful.

Cheers, A.D.Hope (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we use something like AWB to do this? Also as well as the new 2023 unitary district in infoboxes County Durham (district) should be linked for the unitary when County Durham is still often linked. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite possibly, I must admit I'm not too familiar with AWB A.D.Hope (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not just a case of removal, but retaining the old district information under the governance or history section for completeness of the history. Keith D (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm in a brief administrative history, but it's not a requirement. Many settlement articles don't mention every local government unit a place has belonged to. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they shouldn't, though. WaggersTALK 09:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm in it, as I say. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think it should continue to be mentioned but at least in the next few years not in the lead as what district these places were in may be relevant in the lead today but not in the next few years. I tend to change to something like "From 1974 to 2023 it was part of Harrogate district". Historical counties (and possibly parishes for rural areas) can be mentioned in the lead as they tend to be more stable and have more historical association but many places will have been in lots of districts over the years. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

(Lack of) discussion above

Is it reasonable to assume that there's no appetite for discussing the counties at the moment, given the above discussion has been up for nearly two weeks with no engagement? A.D.Hope (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've commented now :) But yes I think we are (or were) all a bit countied out. WaggersTALK 14:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

To be quite honest with you I'm 'countied out', but counties also cause more issues than they should and it would probably make life easier for us all if we could get to the root of the problem. I do fully understand the weariness, though! A.D.Hope (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi A.D.Hope. I chanced on this post and sighed. Even I don't want to get involved - been there and moved on and am much happier for it. Try this approach instead - Do not say what a county is or isn't, pontification only fuels the smouldering embers of resentment, such as: "In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries." Instead try the agree-to-disagree approach instead. WP says: "there is no clearly defined meaning of 'county', it means different things in different contexts to different people' but for use in WP county means (choose one, eg the 1997 act county) and every other use of the word should be more specific (eg, ceremonial county must have the word ceremonial attached). Historic counties are referred to in the past, ie, was not is, whether they still exist or not (ie don't take a position). This can be better expressed I'm sure but you get the point - you cannot define the undefinable, but you can agree to disagree and define something for the sake of practicality. The oft used example is Londonderry/Derry. An artificial compromise was reached that works because people know it is not taking a position on what the name should be (one for the county the other for the city). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

County guidelines – introduction proposal (England only)

Sorry, bit of a long one and I know the counties have been done to death. Despite that, our current guidelines are over 15 years old and really need looking at. My theory is that the sheer scale of the task puts people off, so I'd like to focus on a specific section and specifically in relation to England, which as many of us will be aware is uniquely... difficult. It may be helpful for me to list the types of English county, for those unfamiliar:

• Ceremonial counties (counties for the purposes of the lieutenancies), used to appoint lord-lieutenants and the basis for our articles.
• Shrieval counties, essentially identical to the above but used to appoint a high sheriff.
• Historic counties, broadly speaking, the counties as they stood just before 1974 or 1889 (depending on preference)
• Metropolitan counties, formerly used for local government.
• Non-metropolitan counties, still used for local government.

The passage in question is the following part of the introduction:

In the United Kingdom, the meaning of "county" can be confusing. There are several types of official administrative area that are described as counties due to historical modifications of the borders, and because the extent of the "administrative county boundaries" are often not exactly the same as the ceremonial and ancient county boundaries by of the same name; the counties of England and Wales have undergone vast geographic transformation in the last few centuries; the counties of Scotland were officially abolished but their territory (in some cases) exist with a ceremonial role; likewise the counties of Northern Ireland have no administrative role, but are used for geographic demarcation and lieutenancy.

In respect of England, Scotland and Wales, a fundamental part of this guide is to reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. Unless (using consensus) a good reason is made not to, the article should describe any administrative and ceremonial changes differences within one article, including any difference in the statistics between them. In England and Wales, where the historic county boundaries are different to modern boundaries the article should discuss these differences, and not be split into new "Historic county of Exampleshire" articles.

I've attempted to come up with an updated version. I've tried my best to keep it understandable, brief, and unambigious while allowing editors some leeway:

[Preamble explaining types of county]

In respect of England, the ceremonial counties are the primary topic of our articles. They have officially defined boundaries, are comparatively stable, and align reasonably well with the other types of county, which makes them suitable for this role. The ceremonial county should be used for statistics such as population, population density, and geographic area; the ceremonial borders should be used for discussion of the county geography, etc.

The article should also cover the other types of county as appropriate. For example, local government counties can be mentioned in the ‘Government’ section of an article, and the ‘History’ section might include the historic county and the former administrative county. The shrieval county is of minor importance and does not need to be explicitly mentioned. Any exceptions to this guideline should have a wide-ranging consensus at project level, not just local consensus. A typical exception is for historic counties which do not have a corresponding ceremonial county, such as Middlesex and Yorkshire.

On the English historic counties, we view them as exclusively historical and cultural entities and they should only be discussed in that context. For example, Birmingham should only be mentioned in Warwickshire in an historic context or where there is a contemporary cultural link, such as Warwickshire County Cricket Club, which is based in Edgbaston. Care should be taken over historic boundaries, which changed over the centuries.

The major change is shifting our stance from 'the historic counties no longer exist' to 'they exist, but only in a certain way'. I believe this reflects the current reality, where the historic counties have no official role but linger on (to a greater or lesser extent) as cultural units. My hope is that acknowleding the historic counties in this way while making it clear that the ceremonial counties are the basis for our articles will be an acceptable compromise and reduce the amount of wrangling over them.

As much feedback as possible would be welcome, the bigger the consensus the better (even if it's to rubbish all of the above). Cheers, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary

• Ceremonial counties are the basis for our county articles
• Other types of county should be covered within the main article
• Standalone articles for non-ceremonial counties should only be created if they cannot be incorporated into a ceremonial county article, subject to consensus
• Historic counties only exist in an historic and cultural context

Discussion

Please comment below

• I support this proposal as it stands - it seems well thought out and the reasoning is sound. I think there will always be clusters of people at the extreme edges of this - one group who think the last 50 years of history can and should be somehow undone and the historical counties are the only ones that matter, and another group who insist that only geographical entities with a current legal/administrative definition should have articles (e.g. refusing to recognise the difference between City of Colchester and Colchester to give a fairly recent example). The proposal offers a sensible and pragmatic approach, and I think it's good that it recognises that the historical counties still have some cultural resonance while being very much... well, historical. WaggersTALK 14:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Did read this earlier, thought it a good change, was distracted and omitted to comment. The proposed change to the wording sets out the position more clearly to me and so is an improvement on the current wording. As Waggers says, the proposal is "sensible and pragmatic". I congratulate A.D.Hope on coming up with thoughtful and well worded paragraphs to include in the guidance./ Rupples (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Comment struck while I reconsider the implications. Rupples (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I just want to add a comment about why I think ceremonial counties should remain as the basis for Wikipedia. As Waggers says, there are two extremes, but I guess that most readers, like myself, prefer something that fits with knowledge from life experience. Whoever it is that defines the ceremonial counties seems to do a good job of ignoring failed counties, such as Avon (county), and keeping counties that have been successful, such as Cumbria. The Lake District has been in Cumbria for more than half of the lifetime of most readers (unless they are 98 years old or more). They are a good choice, not because of ceremonies, but because they are a modern way of dividing England into parts (48 is a manageable number to remember). JonH (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It would mean that the area legally known as the County of North Yorkshire would again be covered in the article on North Yorkshire rather than in a separate article (North Yorkshire (district)), which is confusing because the unitary authority area covered by North Yorkshire Council is always referred to as a county and never (as far as I know) as a district. The same would apply to other unitary authority areas which share the name of (and form most of the area of) a ceremonial county. So Shropshire (district) would be merged into Shropshire, and Somerset (district) would not become a separate article.--Mhockey (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Didn't see this as one of the implications arising from the proposal. Impact on district articles with the same name as counties isn't mentioned. @A.D.Hope? Rupples (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  The guideline assumes that all types of county will be covered in one article 'as appropriate', so all we'd need to do is have a normal merger discussion about whether or not to merge the relevant unitary authority area articles into their parent ceremonial county articles.

  The guideline can't explicitly mention every potential issue, of course, but if I've worded it well it should make resolving them that bit easier. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  @A.D.Hope. Sorry, but following @Mhockey's comment it looks like I've totally missed at least one of the implications of this proposal, so I'd like to ask how you see the guideline normally being interpreted and applied. Is it:

  • a). For local government areas with the same name as a ceremonial county, it is preferable in order to avoid confusion, for them to be covered within the appropriate ceremonial county article? Or does the guideline go further and imply:
  • b). Shire counties and unitary authority areas are non-metropolitan counties and should usually be covered in the appropriate ceremonial county article rather than having a separate article. For example, does it mean potentially merging, say North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset into Somerset, and Borough of Bedford and Central Bedfordshire into Bedfordshire?
  • A further point. The proposed text states The ceremonial county should be used for statistics such as population . . ., but demographics are produced and disseminated for the shire counties and unitary authority areas, rather than the ceremonial counties.

  Rupples (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  My stance is closer to (b) than (a), as I intend the guideline to create a presumption that all county types will be covered in a single article unless we decide, by consensus, that there's a good reason for an exemption. The guideline doesn't explicitly say which articles should be standalone and which should be merged.

  On statistics, as I understand it the borders of the two-tier non-metropolitan (shire) counties and unitary authority areas align exactly with the ceremonial counties–Stockton-on-Tees is the sole exception–and our current practice is to simply add up the relevant figures for each ceremonial county; the population of Somerset, for example, is the sum of its shire county (as it was then) and two unitary areas. This guideline shouldn't change anything in that regard. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would strongly prefer (a). It would make for some very unwieldy articles if articles on ceremonial counties dealt with all unitary authority areas in the county, as in (b). There is enough material on UA areas which were formerly districts, and for the few UA areas which were new creations (neither former counties nor former districts), to justify separate articles.

The point about UA areas which were already non-metropolitan counties in the previous two-tier system is that they did not change when they became UA areas. All that happened was that their councils acquired new powers. They are still commonly referred to as "counties" (unlike the ex-district UA areas), as they were before. That did and does create a certain amount of confusion and ambiguity, but that confusion and ambiguity is best clarified and explained in a single article - as it was before they became UA areas. We need to avoid saying "Buckinghamshire is a local government area in Buckinghamshire".

There is a reason apart from history why some UA areas share the names of their ceremonial counties. It is because they form most of the area of their ceremonial counties. The other UA areas in their ceremonial counties are seen as large population centres which are separately administered.

WP already treats four of the eponymous UA areas within the article on their ceremonial counties: Buckinghamshire, East Riding of Yorkshire, Somerset and Wiltshire. We have separate articles for Dorset, County Durham, Shropshire and North Yorkshire.

This is not a new situation. It has existed since administrative counties were first distinguished from geographic counties in 1888. We have had no problem with separate articles for county boroughs but dealing with other administrative counties in the main county articles.--Mhockey (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Here I agree with Mhockey. The division of information into articles should not radically depend on which powers an authority happens to have this year. And it would be perverse if a district that "grows up" and is given its own unitary authority is then prevented from having its own article. But if a council area has the same name as a ceremonial county, then I think it should be covered in the article for that county. Consider a reader who wants to know what is the population of Wiltshire. The infobox the Wiltshire article clearly states the population of the entire county, and also the population of the area covered by Wiltshire council, and so the reader is forced to choose which one they want. If the information is split into two articles, they might just use the figure from the article that they see first.JonH (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I do wonder if yourself and @Mhockey are putting the horse before the cart a little here. The guideline doesn't (and can't) prevent new articles from being created, but it does encourage keeping everything in a single article as far as possible and for thought to be given to splits and new articles. In practice I doubt much will change, besides the likes of Shropshire (district) being merged with Shropshire. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Part objection. Comment. The explanatory notes in this proposal make no explicit mention of unitary authorities. Unitary authorities may be defined as 'counties' in the legislation but I wonder how many people in England see them this way. Why would we want to include unitary authority statistics in a ceremonial county article when no equivalent statistics are produced for the ceremonial county as a whole? Surely, it's off topic and contradictory to include such statistics. Therefore, I don't see how merging unitary authority areas into county articles benefits the encyclopedia. So, while the wording put forward, in italics, is of itself OK, I don't agree with part of the summary, specifically, standalone articles for non-ceremonial counties should only be created if they cannot be incorporated into a ceremonial county article, subject to consensus, if unitary authorities are defined as non-ceremonial counties. Rupples (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  The guideline isn't intended to rock the boat too much, but it may lead to a couple of mergers. What I imagine will happen is that the particularly sparse unitary authority area articles will be merged into their ceremonial county articles, but the more substantial ones will remain as they are. It's something to be decided on a case-by-case basis, but to give an example Shropshire (district) could very easily be merged with Shropshire.

  On statistics, have you read my comment above? We already compile statistics published for local authority areas in order to create stats for a whole ceremonial county. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  What I meant by stats was the more complex tables found in some articles. To take one at random, the employment sectors in Borough of Halton#Economy. Doubt there's one for Cheshire as a whole. Not that there's consistency across articles. I'll remove the objection; it's a concern, but perhaps not an overriding one and as you say such issues can be dealt with case-by-case. Rupples (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see what you mean. It would probably depend on how the discussion went – it might be possible to do a Cheshire-wide table, or keeping it separate might be best, or it might even be decided that the table doesn't need to be on Wikipedia at all. If the guideline encourages such discussions that's a good thing, I'd say! It might lead to some consistency, because as you note there isn't much at the moment.

  I don't take any objections personally, for the record, it's necessary to improve the guideline. Don't feel the need to amend them on my account :) A.D.Hope (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Shapinsay

I have nominated Shapinsay for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Malvern (or is it..?)

I've just started a discussion about the name of Malvern, Worcestershire, which some of you may be interested in. Ta, A.D.Hope (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Blackpool

There seems to be a bit of a scrap going on at this article, which could perhaps benefit from more eyes. PamD 23:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The Borough of Blackpool article should never have been splintered off the main Blackpool one Eopsid (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Blackpool specifically but having separate articles saves edit wars involving editors from villages or towns that are in the Borough but (adamantly) are not in the primary settlement. It just saves endless arguments about 1975 boundaries etc. (The scrap is over, btw.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep it's a widespread and longstanding convention that we distinguish between settlements and local authority areas. WaggersTALK 10:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the district is the issue here, the main issue seems to be the ceremonial county being deleted from the lead. But yes normally we do have separate articles for districts from settlements and personally I think that should be the rule for all settlements but per WP:UKDISTRICTS we do allow them to be combined is similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps UKDISTRICTS needs revisiting, to state a preference for two articles unless the widely accepted boundary of the settlement coincides exactly and uncontroversially with the Local Authority boundary. (re Blackpool, the county being deleted from the lead was a cock-up, not a conspiracy, and was trivially easy to correct. The reaction to the error was wildly over the top. But we have peace in our time again.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If there are only minor differences, then it is pointless duplication to have 2 separate articles. We should combine them into a single article with the main focus been on the district and not the ceremonial county, which to most readers is probably an insignificant point. Keith D (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If you try telling people from Lancashire that that fact is unimportant to describing their town, see what response you get... Rcsprinter123 (chatter) 21:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Come on, this is silly now! Are we trying to shrink Blackpool down to a small Lancashire seaside town?! Blackpool, just like every other urban area, has expanded and swallowed up surrounding settlements. They may have distinct social geographies, but let's not try to remove the fact that suburbs do exist. Why are we to state that Croydon (a town with a pretty strong identity) is in south London, yet Anchorsholme is a settlement "outside of Blackpool, but in its borough." We're in the 21st century, not Medieval England! I support a merge. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between the urban area and the wider district. They're different subjects so warrant different articles. But this isn't the place for that discussion anyway. WaggersTALK 09:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the 2021 census there's been very little difference between the boundaries of the local authority and the urban area as defined by the ONS. The 2011 census urban area was much larger, but it's been superseded. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In that case, maybe there is a case for merging, or for renaming/refocusing the settlement article as Blackpool Town Centre or something similar. But definitely a matter for the relevant talk pages, it's not a UK project level discussion. WaggersTALK 11:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Using reliable sources to define settlement boundaries

It seems to me that the UK is one of the only countries where WP struggles to define where a city's/urban area's boundary starts and ends. Using the city proper definition (i.e. the administrative boundaries which includes the town/city centre), local authority boundaries delineate where a settlement starts and ends (i.e. the boundary of Manchester is the City of Manchester metropolitan borough). However, the application of this to UK settlements is where all the headache starts on WP, as there are so many instances of a settlement's urban core and administrative boundaries being significantly different sizes, with the latter often covering a massive rural area, leading to a situation where Olney is part of the city proper of Milton Keynes, and reliable sources indicate as such [5], but stating that Olney is a town in Milton Keynes would be awkward due to the obvious fact that Olney is separated from the urban core of MK by countryside, despite being in the same official "city." However, I think we should consider the use of reliable sources when determining settlement boundaries because even if suburban and oultying towns/villages have different social and physical geographies from the core settlement, the status quo means that there are constant tussles over whether Blackpool and the Borough of Blackpool are conterminous, and it would align UK settlements with international ones by avoiding creating misperceptions that, e.g., there is a city called Milton Keynes and a separate city called the City of Milton Keynes. Even if it means having one article combining, e.g., MK and the City of MK, UA and Swindon and the Borough of Swindon, if reliable sources state that MK = CoMK and Swindon = BoS, then we can still have the outlying settlements state that "X is a town/village in the City/Borough of Y UA" (to avoid edit wars) and in the main settlement article state something on the lines of: Although the official boundaries of Swindon extend to rural and outlying settlements such as Highworth, the urban area most commonly referred to as Swindon is much smaller. We can look to Chinese cities as examples, such as Chongqing, for which there is only one article for a city which covers a significant rural area, as clarified: Chongqing is the only city in China with a permanent population of over 30 million, however this number includes a large rural population. Britannica also does this for UK settlements [6] (i.e. the MK article states that it is a town [now city!] and unitary authority). For reliable sources, maybe we should consider contacting organisations knowledgeable of the matter, such as local authorities? Any thoughts? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

For the UK, I very much doubt you'll find a definition that gives consistent answers across all situations and all urban areas. This OECD paper says "The definition of FUA aims at providing a functional/economic definition of cities and their area of influence, by maximising international comparability and overcoming the limitation of using purely administrative approaches." (Note that it mentions "the limitation of using purely administrative approaches".) Maybe in other countries – you mention China for example – the deinition of "city" is clear and consistent but that doesn't appear to be the case for the UK, and presumably some other countries too I imagine. - -Northernhenge (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

We also have the weirdness that occupied us for a month or more in the summer where in recent years city status has been conferred on the UA per se, not on behalf of the primary settlement.

Having separate articles for the UA 'territory' v the synonymous settlement brought to (mostly) an end to the perennial pantomime edit wars, of which Newport Pagnell was the star performer.

I can't see the risk of confusion you see is a real one. The first sentence of each article makes clear its relationship to the other.

As for boundaries, my strong opinion is that the only credible definition is the bricks and mortar one. Lines on a map are historical curiosities, with no significance other than what colour bins they use. So the ONS "built-up area" (as advised by the OS) is the only valid reference. Unfortunately, try telling that to the residents of e.g. Dunstable who like to pretend that they have nothing to do with Luton. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Northernhenge: Strangely enough, the OECD paper lists the City of Milton Keynes (the whole UA - population of 264k in 2015) as one of its "functional urban areas", even though most of the UA's land area is rural countryside, and it does the same for the Borough of Bedford, Borough of Swindon, etc. That said, this definitely applies more to urban areas in other countries where the official city boundary is much smaller than it should be, like Paris and most of its suburbs, or Miami and Miami Beach, which is the opposite of the situation of many UK cities.

This leads me onto JMF's point about edit wars on UK articles. We certainly shouldn't abandon the use of in the Borough/City of X UA for places such as Newport Pagnell and Olney which may have some ambiguity with regards to their relationship with the mother city, in this case MK (especially non-contiguous settlements like Olney). However, local authority boundaries affect more than just bins, including what public services residents use, school admissions, who manages local roads, infrastructure planning, local elections and statistics, as most government data collected for "cities" like MK is for their local authority areas - just search "what is the population of Milton Keynes" and see what comes up first [7]. So even Olney is associated with MK, much less so geographically but more so politically, whereas NP is associated with MK geographically and politically, although both maintain distinct social geographies. In theory, whilst having two articles shouldn't be confusing, for the average reader quickly searching for info may struggle to understand why there is an article for "Milton Keynes" and one for the "City of Milton Keynes" when the average bloke would likely consider those two terms interchangeably, as they would for "Los Angeles" and the "City of Los Angeles." Even if, theoretically, we had just one article, we only have to give subtle mentions to the non-built-up areas in the "local government" section (IMO, they deserve a mention in the main articles regardless), etc, like how the United Kingdom article really only mentions the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies in a couple of sections, as opposed to the integral parts of the UK. In any case, we certainly shouldn't have separate articles for places where the BUA and local authority area are all but conterminous, like Blackpool, whose BUA even extends outside the UA, yet has a Borough article [8]. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Counter example: Manchester and Greater Manchester. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

And of course London and Greater London.

But now that you mention Milton Keynes, its population is about two or three hundred Or to put it another way, about 6000.

And by the way, what is the population of Buckinghamshire? If course before you can answer that, you have to ask "which Buckinghamshire"?

English geography is complicated and does not slot into neat compartments. There is no single answer, it depends on the question. Context is everything. But for most usage in economic geography, details like outlying villages are rounding errors. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)