Talk:List of ONS built-up areas in England by population/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Like-for-like

This list does not compare like with like, and many people get counted twice! Philip 22:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

October 2005

Whilst the idea behind this is laudible, this list is wonderfully stupid. It needs at a minimum to give definitions for its peculiar urban areas. The idea of using urban areas is to give a more 'intuitive' feel to the numbers, to stop silliness like Leicester being larger than Nottingham. (which it should be noted that this list fails to do).

I am particularly amused by the idea that Leicester is only slightly smaller than Manchester. if we were doing this by urban area, Manchester would include Trafford, Salford, etc.

Looking at the data it appears that this was collated by looking at the sub-units of the urban areas. The stated purpose of the here is to "divorce the populations of towns and cities from the Local Authority district(s) that they are contained within.". However, by using only the core local authority as the population, constrained _downwards_ perhaps, but never boosted by the addition of the extra-district suburbs, it gives a very very distorted picture of built up England.

The treatment of London is particularly odd, because here we are given the figure for the 'Greater London Urban Area' to compare with the figure of (part of) the 'City of Manchester'. This is not like for like.

Morwen - Talk 10:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you've firmly grabbed the wrong end of the stick (and it would help your case if you didn't use emotive words such as "stupid"). The numbers given are those dreamt up with by the Office for National Statistics, which came up with these precisely because the size of towns/cities CANNOT be judged from the local authorities who take their name. The list divorces local authorities, so to think in those terms is not relevant to this list. Generally, of course you will find that LA district populations are larger than those given for the "pure" city - mainly because they contain different towns as well as the one that they take their names from! And to suggest that this list is biased towards those cities where the LA districts have a wide boundary is simply untrue - that accusation can be levelled at any list of LA District sizes. Take for example, Leeds, where the LA "City of Leeds" is drawn massively widely - hence has a population nearly 300,000 greater than that of the city proper, which is presented here. Equally, to suggest that the LA area has been taken and then constrained only downwards is false. Take Reading for example - the LA boundaries are drawn so tightly that the LA figure is some 90,000 smaller than that of the "town". Some other large cities/towns where this sort of thing goes on are Wolverhampton, Leicester, Watford, Hull and Preston. And what of towns such as West Bromwich or Huddersfield, where there is no like-named LA district? If you want to know exactly where every boundary has been drawn, then I suggest you ask the ONS...

Therefore to give responses to your paragraphs in turn: firstly, the definations of the towns are those given by the Office of National Statistics. Secondly, there is no suggestion of "doing this by urban area", hence your Manchester example is irrelevant. Thirdly, as demonstrated above, the list has nothing to do with the local authority boundaries, hence your concerns are not necessary - if anything this gives a less distorted picture that the district lists. Fourthly, London is treated differently, that's true. Mostly because it functions as a single city in the way that no other area does in England - and it demonstrates its size difference over every other English city. It would quite clearly be foolish to list some of its boroughs, which are simply parts of Greater London, whilst others (like Croydon) can be seen as towns in their own right. However, it is very difficult to pick out which are which!

It may well be helpful to have a separate page listing the sizes of conurbations/sub conurbations, as you have attempted to do below. There is no need to doubt the accuracy of the list, unless you doubt the ONS!

There is no need to come up with "definitions of Birmingham and Manchester" as you suggest - the ONS has done that for us. To mire this list in "second city" arguments is pointless. Quite clearly, Birmingham has a larger population than Manchester, but Manchester is a more important commercial city (does Birmingham have a Stock Exchange? I don't think so). This list is simply about population sizes, not importance. And what's wrong with Leicester coming up as larger than Nottingham? I'm not from the East Midlands - I have no axe to grind on the issue.

And finally, if you suggested to the average person "on the street" in Smethwick that they were from Birmingham, you might well not get a polite response!

Steven J 18:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The ONS definitions are fine, for their intended purpose, but they were not intended for this type of ordered list. I'm not sure why you are disputing my claim - it is simply true that they've started with local government boundaries and whittled down. With Leicester, they've included Evington as part of the 'Leicester' unit but not parts of northern Oadby and Wigston where the border runs through streets at funny angles, cutting housing estates in half. This has no basis on the ground (both in terms of urban area and in terms of cultural identity) and can only be explained by looking at local government boundaries.

And equally, people in Kingston and Uxbridge are not fond of people claiming that they are in London. I guess there's probably more local identity there than in suburbs of Reading and Preston etc. Morwen - Talk 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me give you some examples, then of why your statement is false.

Bristol - LA 391525, city 420556; Leicester - LA 283913, city 330574; Stoke-on-Trent - LA 237991, city 259252; Wolverhampton - LA 238857, city 251462; Plymouth - LA 241488, city 243795. All of those are in the "top 15" of the list - so I really didn't have to look hard to disprove your statement.

London is an anachronism, agreed. However, it functions as a single city, and unless you're about to roll out the old "London is the City of London only" chestnut, then I don't see how it can fail to be at the top of the list.

I understand your point about the list not "feeling right". However, in my experience it seems that there's a kind of subconscious "PR factor" at work. For example, if you asked the average person in the street to name the largest 20 cities in England, I bet the likes of Wolverhampton, Stoke, Dudley and Reading wouldn't appear - but they are! Steven J 13:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's weird. The Leicester figure presented here is indeed bigger than the census figure for the Leicester UA. But, I'm not really sure where they found the extra 50,000 people - it doesn't define what extra-city parishes are included. I wonder if the counts of people are actually based on the same underlying numbers? The population of Oadby and Wigston is about 50,000, but they are accounted for under an independent header as part of the 'Leicester urban area' figure. So that gives an extra 50,000 people to account for in Scraptoft/Thurnby-Bushby/Glenfield/Braunstone Town/Glen Parva, which seems really quite high to me. Morwen - Talk 13:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question - but presumably there is one! Looking at a map of the Leicester area, could they be including places such as Enderby, Anstey and Leicester Forest East as well? Steven J 13:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

They could be, but then it would be very odd, especially with the exclusion of Beaumont Leys (inside the city boundary, never heard of it being considered not part of Leicester) from the figure. I've rummaged round NSO's website for details on their boundaries, and can't find anything specific. The more I look at these figures the less I trust them. Morwen - Talk 13:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Digitised boundaries for urban areas and settlements are available from the ONS. The boundaries are provided in both SHAPE and MID/MIF formats on a single CD, available, usually free of charge, from Census Customer Services. Try this linkfor more details. Statsfan 21:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've marked this document as being of disputed neutrality. The very concept that people on here think London should be treated according to some special rule which is in direct contradiction of the definition provided by the royal charter means this is not a neutral document. The fact London includes Westminster but Manchester does not include Salford, a "city" which shares the same city amenities, is ridiculous. EarlyBird 12:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your statement in placing a redirect that the nearest way of defining populations of towns and cities is by using the local authority boundaries is fundamentally flawed. Please instruct me on how the population of, say, Huddersfield or West Bromwich, both large towns, can be shown by using local authority district boundaries. The whole point of the ONS list is to separate the towns and cities from the LA boundaries. Metropolitan Boroughs are a case in point - most of them were formed in regard to "target populations", that of being at least 250,000 people within each. Some LAs have very widely drawn boundaries, some very tightly drawn boundaries. As for the treatment of London as being different from that of Manchester/Salford - please come up with a good idea of how to deal with it! As far as I understood it, the local government districts within Greater London go by the name of "London Boroughs" - hence they are part of London. Salford is not a "Manchester Borough".

If you don't like the numbers the ONS have come up with, then please argue it with them. Steven J 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with separating out the awkward cities, and putting them in a different table, but I'm just here to say that the people following this page might also be interested in looking at List_of_United_Kingdom_cities,_towns_and_districts_by_population. zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to change

the problems

Salford is indeed a borough of greater Manchester, as well as being a City in its own right. Parts of Manchester city centre are technically in Salford; World recognised Manchester attractions such as Manchester United Football Ground are actually in Trafford.

How is this any different to London being recognised as encapsulating more than just the City of London with its 7000 inhabitants?

What the ONS list shows

The referenced list from the ONS can be interpreted the way it has been in the formulation of this article, but I think it that what it is obviously showing is the popn's of seperate Urban areas which it clearly defines along with their constituents. The 'Greater manchester urban area' listed here with a population of 2.2 million is not the metropolitan county of greater manchester, but an urban area that the ONS has defined. This can be clearly seen by the exclusion of Wigan from this area, or the inclusion of Stockport. The list is titled as Urban areas - so if is not meant that you disregard the definitions and statistics of the urban areas they have included.

The fact is that the ONS have compiled this list to give an accurate and up to date listing of city areas divorced from the local authority areas, otherwise why would they have bothered to define seperate Urban areas and include them in the list?

The proposal

I propose that we do one of the following with this article, as it is clearly misrepresentative in both the comparisons of city populations, and also the claim that this is what the ONS are trying to show.

• Compare like with like - alter the population of the City of London to 7,000. Thus it can then be seen that the figures do not necessarily give an accurate picture of the size of the city. There is still a problem here though, in that this is not what these figures were intended for - remember the list is entitled 'urban areas', and the values used in the article(apart from for london) are values for the constituents of each urban area, as defined by the ONS

• Change the article to deal with Local Area authorities - Whilst still being largely unrepresentative of the city populations, at least this would deal in fact.

• Use the Urban area figures which the ONS has compiled, in the list that has been referenced [1] - If we are not using the figures this list was created for, we should not be using figures from it (especially not mixing and matching them).

I have posted for discussion before I go ahead and make the change. Please look at the ONS list again and consider what it is meant to show before ploughing ahead with any objections to what I have said. Mr ed 19:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely. It's all very well to say "but this is ONS data so it must be true", but we are taking it entirely out of context here. Morwen - Talk 08:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Counter proposal

I see where you're coming from (and thanks for doing it this way!). However, I'd disagree with your thoughts. The "Greater Manchester" Urban Area is the population of the conurbation of Greater Manchester, not the City of Manchester. Manchester is indeed an extremely odd place, in that its growth is constrained by the surrounding towns so that yes, Manchester United do play in the Borough of Trafford, that's a fact. There are many other items that are indeed billed as "Manchester" that are in other cities.

However, this proposal falls down when you consider the other major conurbations. Take the West Midlands conurbation, for example. The population of the West Midlands conurbation is quite definately not the same as the population of Birmingham - and should not be taken so, as Wolverhampton and the Black Country are very definately separate places.

As for London, all the consitiuent parts are "London Boroughs" - hence part of London. Salford (for example) is a "Metropolitan Borough" within a county that happens to be called "Greater Manchester" - would we be having this discussion if it had been given its original name of SELNEC?

Additionally, your proposal to shift everything back to the LA boundaries falls down once more on the fact that some LA boundaries are drawn extremely widely, and some very tightly - and there is no concept of a LA for places such as Huddersfield and West Bromwich, large places both. The ONS list has been written to counteract that very problem - and deals in facts. Surely you're not suggesting that the ONS have "made it up"?

Wikipedia defines a city as "an urban area" - which is precisely what the ONS list gives us. The arguments against seem to be that simply the numbers give you figures you're not expecting.

Therefore, this page should be left "as is", with its links to the LA districts intact. However, I believe that a new page of "List of English Conurbations by size" would be sensible -possibly by altering the page that already exists on UK conurbations? Steven J 08:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry Steven, but that is not what I am saying. Using the ONS statistics that have been used for this article, in the manner they have been used is clearly a POV. The ONS did not compile a table entitled 'key statistics for Urban areas' so that the Urban areas they have compiled can be ignored and the constituents of those urban areas used as some form of indicator. This is misinterpretation of the statistics. The list that has been used for this should not be used in this manner. Please look again at the ONS data to inspect what it actually shows, the explanatory notes are also on the site.

Also, the London issue is still a problem.

There is a page dealing with the populations of each local authority area - this is fine and should be left alone. If this page is to remain based upon those ONS statistics, then it should be used to show what indeed the ONS does show - ie the Urban areas.

Mr ed 14:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Total Inaccuracy of Page

It has been a few days since I first posted my proposal to change this article, and gave reasons for this. Now that I have come back to this page, and read everybody's comments afresh, and looked at the article again, I have become absoultely certain of the inaccuracy of this page and feel that it must be either deleted or changed to deal with the Urban areas as defined by the ONS.

(I will discuss these matters as they relate to Manchester, as this is the area I am most familiar with, however the reasons I am giving are equally valid for all entries in the list) Here are the detailed reasons:

Title of page

This page is entitled 'List of English cities by population'. There is a major problem with this.

1. A city in the UK exists under the definition of a City by virtue of its City status, as granted by the monarch to the Local Authority area. City status in the United Kingdom. The local authority of the City of Manchester is one such City.
2. The meaning of the word city is defined by wikipedia here City, where it is stated that a city is an urban area, which is defined here- Urbanized area. Urban areas depend upon population density, not local authority boundaries or social identifications. Furthermore, Manchester, Birmingham and others are listed in Largest urban areas of the European Union, with the corresponding and correct population figures for these Urban areas

• The numbers provided in this article are not the population figures for either a City or a city. This can be confirmed for point one by looking at [List of English districts by population] and here - [2]. It will be confirmed for point 2 by explanation below.

Therefore, the use of this title with these figues is unfactual.

Use of the Word City as a 'type' in the actual table

As discussed in the last point, this use of the word City is unfactual.

Explanation of article

The explanation starts with 'list of the largest cities and towns of England ordered by population'. Again, the use of the word City with these figures is invalid, as discussed above

Interpretation of Data

The interpretation that has been used to construct a table from these data[3] is, unfortunately, inaccurate, although I can understand the confusion. Following are my reasons for stating this

The ONS have provided detailed notes to accompany the data they have provided. These notes can be found in the table itself - click on the 'notes' tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet. Here, once again, is the table [4]

Following from this, the assertion in the article, '(these data) attempt to divorce the populations of towns and cities from the Local Authority district(s) that they are contained within', is untrue in the sense that the Urban areas the ONS have defined are not contained within the LA's, they tend to contain the LA's in the larger agglomerations.

Extracted from the notes page, The traditional concept of a town or city would be a free-standing built-up area with a sufficient number and variety of shops and services, including perhaps a market, to make it recognisably urban in character. Also, The current position in Britain is more complex. Free-standing towns have grown and coalesced into continuously built-up areas, and subsidiary centres have developed as suburbs and satellite towns., and, Whilst some historic towns have stagnated and lost urban functions...

Following the above, comes this, An obvious way to define a town or city is in terms of an administrative boundary., and , This was possible.... up to 1971. Thus the notes acknowledge the need for data based upon criteria other than Local Authority boundaries.

Now, the notes then go on to say The new approach was based on the extent of urban development indicated on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps, and go on to stipulate exactly what constitutes an urban area, as regarding the maps.

The key phrase comes further down the page, in the section 'Urban sub-divisions', where it says, Major urban agglomerations are sub-divided to provide results about localities within them, and, Previously separate urban areas... are also recognised by sub-divisions where possible, and finally, Sub-divisions often follow the boundaries of local authorities...

Concluding remarks to the notes

Thus, it is clarified that the data provided by the ONS are meant to show the statistics for the Urban areas which it has defined; it provides the sub-divisions purely to provide results about localities', which make up these Urban areas. It further explains that a sub-division is created based upon

• An area that was previously seperate, but now exists within the ONS's defined urban area
• Often defined by using local authority boundaries, which, and this is key, it has been stipulated both by the ONS in the notes and by people in this discussion, do not necessarily bear relation to the Urban areas that lie within/ consume them.

The ONS has therefore compiled this list in order to define the Urban areas, in their entirety, that exist in England. The sub-divisions have been provided for other reasons and can not be used as figures for the corresponding urban area. These sub-divisions are clearly recogniseable in the table, due to

1. Their indentation from the Urban areas
2. The Urban areas the ONS have defined that are similar in name to a sub-division they have provided are listed as 'such and such urban area ' in the table!

Rounding off

I am sure I have shown conclusively that this page is therefore unfactual, innacurate and misrepresentative. However, I can see where the confusion has come from, as the ONS has not made their data perfectly obvious to understand.

Specifically, for instance

• There is a sub-division in the table named Manchester. My explanation of this would be that there is nothing else to call this subdivision of the greater manchester urban area that they have defined.

Please feel free to look again at the data, [5], you can see the entry for the Urban area of manchester at number 232 in the list, Manchester on the other hand, is clearly a subdivision of this situated at 264. If you look at the rest of the data, apart from the major Urban agglomerations, you can see most entries are not indented and correspond to the Urban areas the ONS has defined. This is because this is a list of Urban areas. The entry for Manchester at 264 is indented, it is a sub-division and not one of the urban areas they are listing.

This is true equally with regard to the other cities in the list.

London again

My final problem with the article is as stated before, London should not be treated differently. In this case the actual number for the London Urban area has been used as defined by the ONS ( a correct use of the data ), however for all the other large cities their sub-division has been used - which is not a correct use of the data.

And so...

This page needs to be deleted, or converted into an accurate representation of the much-contested data that the ONS has provided, ie a 'List of urban areas in England by population, as defined by the Office for National Statistics'.

I would be happy to put the effort in to do the latter myself, as it is my favoured option.

This page cannot remain unchanged due to the reasons I have stated. In its current condition it is mere propoganda.

In conclusion

I will change this page tomorrow, unless there is a valid objection to doing so, in which case, this page should be deleted.Mr ed 20:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Who decides which argument is Valid?

This article is factually correct. Who decides whether any argument for not changing it, is valid or not? It is clear that the urban areas were broken down into urban sub-divisions to allow the identification of individual towns or cities. The ONS states "Results for urban areas meet a widespread interest in information about towns and cities, and for comparisons between urban populations and with those living outside towns. The Key Statistics series includes results from all topics covered by the Census, and is designed for quick reference and comparison, but also to provide information for studies in greater depth." Most urban areas in the report are not comparable to towns but their urban sub-divisions are. On the contrary I have not been convinced by any counter argument. The whole credibilty of Wikipedia is being questioned here if individuals are allowed to modify information derived from an official government source because it contradicts their own definition of a town or city.--Statsfan 11:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is factually correct in your opinion. ODPM (now a part of the Department for Communities and Local Government) compiled a report called "State of the English Cities", which stated (Volume One, 2.3.5):

"The point of departure for our definition was the official set of Urban Areas definitions based on 2001 built-up areas. Hence we identify major cities in terms of their physical extent and not in terms of local authority areas or administrative boundaries."

Per the PUA definition in the same report (Volume 2, Appendix 2) Manchester has a population of 2,240,230.

Note, they specifically state that they regard these areas as cities, and this is the department which is responsible for Government policy related to towns and cities. I'd say that's a about as good as a source gets for the purposes of this article. EarlyBird 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is incorrect

I have not offered an argument or a point of view here, I have offered proof that this article is factually incorrect.

In particular please refer to the fact that the sub-divisions that have been used in the list are not cities, either by the city definition of Wikipedia, or by the definition of City status in the UK.

I am not going to repeat my whole case, it is above for all to see. To be quite frank Statsfan, and at the risk of being perceived to be assuming something other than good faith from you, I do not believe that you have read my above post thoroughly.

I particularly take offence at your last statement. It is you who is modifying information derived from a government source because it contradicts your own definition.Mr ed 16:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Breach of Policy

This article constitutes a breach of Wikipedia policy, in that it uses incorrect definitions, for example the use of the word city, and presents data in a contradictory way to how it was intended, according to a personal Point of ViewMr ed 16:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

1. These figures cannot be called figures relating to a 'city' in either sense of the word. The ONS does not try to call its sub-divisions cities!
2. It is misleading to order apples and oranges into a list. Some of the ONS Urban areas have been used, eg London, and many of the smaller cities/towns UA's have been used, wheras the other large cities have had a sub-division used.
3. The sub-divisions are quite clearly explained by the ONS in the notes as being 'localites' within the UA's they have defined. They are there as they represent 'historical' towns, and 'places that have merged together'. Nowhere does the ONS call these sub-divisions UA's in their own right. They are provided to be representative of the localities they correspond to, not an UA.
4. The data is explained by the ONS as being an attempt to define Urban Area's - not to define the sub-divisions. The sub-divisions are there for the larger Urban areas, to show that all those historically seperate areas have become one urban area. The notes state quite clearly that 'the sub-divisions usually follow LA boundaries' - and it is also a stated objective within the same notes to represent Urban areas regardless of LA boundaries. They would be contradicting themselves if you believe that the sub-divisions represent Urban areas they have defined.

• Above is a summary of the main points from my detailed discussion of yesterday. It is a fact that this article is innacurate for the reasons I have described, and it needs to be changed. I have patiently and at much effort tried to show people where the confusion lies before I make the change. It does not help if one does not follow my discussion before swiftly dismissing it.

I have not yet read a response that addresses the detailed problems that I have raised; unless one can go through my arguments, point by point, and explain where they think I have got it wrong I can do no further to explain why I am certain that this article is innacurate. All I can do if somebody restates their own personal beleifs is restate my own detailed discussion.

I am genuinely sorry if it upsets some that this article is innacurate and misleading, but this is simply the truth.Mr ed 17:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to above thoughts

Sorry, Mr Ed, but I genuinely believe that you are incorrect.

Let's look at your claims one at a time, as you have requested:

1. "These figures cannot be called figures relating to a 'city' in either sense of the word. The ONS does not try to call its sub-divisions cities!"

Wikipedia has a page related to the definition of a city, oddly enough. It says "There is no one standard international definition of a city: the term may be used either for a town possessing city status; for an urban locality exceeding an arbitrary population size; for a town dominating other towns with particular regional economic or administrative significance. Although city can refer to an agglomeration including suburban and satellite areas, the term is not appropriate for a conurbation (cluster) of distinct urban places, nor for a wider metropolitan area including more than one city, each acting as a focus for parts of the area."

Therefore, the ONS list falls quite happily within this definition. The ONS list gives "Urban localities", and the list extracted gives the largest of these.

1. "It is misleading to order apples and oranges into a list. Some of the ONS Urban areas have been used, eg London, and many of the smaller cities/towns UA's have been used, wheras the other large cities have had a sub-division used."

You are also failing to understand the difference between a conurbation, and a city, and the fact that some cities are part of a conurbation, and some are stand-alone. You are complaining about the use of distinct urban places within a conurbation, despite the fact that this is the definition of a city according to Wikipedia. Unless you are about to claim that, say, Wolverhampton is a part of Birmingham (which is untrue, but they are both parts of the conurbation called "West Midlands"), your preferred definition is demonstrably false.

Only ONE of the conurbation areas has been used, that being London for the reasons stated in the article. Unless you plan on changing many articles, such as the England article, which states that "London is the largest city in England", then you really shouldn't have a problem. London works differently to all the other conurbations - for example, there is a single Mayor. London is simply too large in relation to the rest of the country to be governed completely at a single level. The article explains the problem with London, and also points out the population of the City of London. The UK article is also incorrect, if you insist on sticking to your preferred definition as the seat of government within the UK is not in London, but within the City of Westminster.

1. "The sub-divisions are quite clearly explained by the ONS in the notes as being 'localites' within the UA's they have defined. They are there as they represent 'historical' towns, and 'places that have merged together'. Nowhere does the ONS call these sub-divisions UA's in their own right. They are provided to be representative of the localities they correspond to, not an UA."

"Usually" is a very odd definition. Again, we'll use the West Midlands as an example. Last time I looked, there was no local authority called "West Bromwich", or "Aldridge-Brownhills", or "Sutton Coldfield". And how, if local authority boundaries have been used in the manner that you claim, can the population of Wolverhampton, the urban area (or "city") be larger than that of the local authority with the same name? This can be explained very simply by looking at a map and noting the fact that the urban area goes quite happily outside the local authority boundaries, and include areas that are functionally part of the city, even if they are not part of the local authority area.

1. "The data is explained by the ONS as being an attempt to define Urban Area's - not to define the sub-divisions. The sub-divisions are there for the larger Urban areas, to show that all those historically seperate areas have become one urban area. The notes state quite clearly that 'the sub-divisions usually follow LA boundaries' - and it is also a stated objective within the same notes to represent Urban areas regardless of LA boundaries. They would be contradicting themselves if you believe that the sub-divisions represent Urban areas they have defined."

Err, no. Again I say to you the word "conurbation"... Nowhere in the ONS list is the word city used, simply because the list contains towns and villages in addition to cities, and therefore the word cannot be used in the manner that you wish.

I hope this is sufficient assistance to show you that your belief is incorrect - and I believe that you are motivated from a civic pride based in your home city of Manchester, and the fact that it is (quite correctly) shown lower than you would like.

Manchester is a great city, an important trading centre and indeed I lived there myself for several years. However, the city is surrounded by other cities and towns and so the population size will always seem small, simply because it is "hemmed in". Steven J 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Conurbation

From our article on conurbation: "A conurbation is an urban area comprising a number of cities or towns which, through population growth and expansion, have physically merged to form one continuous built up area." (my emphasis). This list is clearly not one of conurbations, as the whole idea is to give the populations of individual towns or cities, regardless of whether they have physically merged to form one continuous built up area. While whether this is a useful concept has been discussed elsewhere, it is important to emphasise the intent, and as such I have reinserted the text I added in an attempt to explain this. Warofdreams 13:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your defintion "A conurbation is an urban area comprising a number of cities or towns which, through population growth and expansion, have physically merged to form one continuous built up area" is the same for the defintion of Urban Areas in the government census report. The list is a breakdown of the urban area or counurbation into urban sub-divisions. Manchester is listed as one of the urban sub-divisions of Greater Manchester. The controversy is whether the conurbation can be called just Manchester or should be called Greater Manchester as defined by the ONS in the report.

From your defintion of "A conurbation is an urban area comprising a number of cities or towns the question arises as to why the conurbation which includes Manchester should itself be called Manchester. --Statsfan 14:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If I understand your first statement, then we agree that this is not a list of conurbations. Your second point has some merit - the conurbation in which Birmingham is the most important city is known as West Midlands. But it is entirely possible for two differing levels of government to share a name. The region in which Birmingham is found is also known as West Midlands. As noted in the discussion above, London can refer to the City of London, to Greater London, or to an amorphous area roughly corresponding to Inner London (generally when used by some residents of Outer London). No one of these is the "correct" definition, and it seems sensible to me to use the figures given in the report, just so long as the article has an introduction which clearly explains what the areas represent, where they come from, and the arbitrary decisions which have to be made in drawing up the list. Warofdreams talk 22:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Another example is the use of Greater Manchester to describe the Greater Manchester Urban Area which excludes Wigan, and the Greater Manchester Ceremonial County which includes Wigan. Similar to the West Midlands Urban Area that excludes Coventry and the West Midlands Ceremonial County that includes Coventry. The query I have is to what extent the population in the country actually use the phrase "Manchester counurbation" instead of just Greater Manchester.--Statsfan 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS INCORRECT

Steven and Statsfan, please read my detailed posta again as otherwise I will just be repeating myself.

YOU ARE BOTH WRONG in your interpretation of these statistics.

Steven, thankyou for attempting to argue with some of my points in a constructive way, although I will state the fact that you have answered comparitively few points, and the answers you give are at best deiliberatley ignorant of my meaning, which is obvious when you take my whole argument in context. I have explained myself clearly above, PLEASE READ THIS before you continue defending that which you so ardently believe. I can see why you think you are right, but unfortunatley you are not.Mr ed 17:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

For example Steven, how is this :

Err, no. Again I say to you the word "conurbation"... Nowhere in the ONS list is the word city used, simply because the list contains towns and villages in addition to cities, and therefore the word cannot be used in the manner that you wish.

In any way a response to this...

"The data is explained by the ONS as being an attempt to define Urban Area's - not to define the sub-divisions. The sub-divisions are there for the larger Urban areas, to show that all those historically seperate areas have become one urban area. The notes state quite clearly that 'the sub-divisions usually follow LA boundaries' - and it is also a stated objective within the same notes to represent Urban areas regardless of LA boundaries. They would be contradicting themselves if you believe that the sub-divisions represent Urban areas they have defined." Mr ed 17:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ans as for this:

"Usually" is a very odd definition. Again, we'll use the West Midlands as an example. Last time I looked, there was no local authority called "West Bromwich", or "Aldridge-Brownhills", or "Sutton Coldfield". And how, if local authority boundaries have been used in the manner that you claim, can the population of Wolverhampton, the urban area (or "city") be larger than that of the local authority with the same name? This can be explained very simply by looking at a map and noting the fact that the urban area goes quite happily outside the local authority boundaries, and include areas that are functionally part of the city, even if they are not part of the local authority area.

1. Usually is the word used by the ONS in their notes. (As explained abouve in 'Regarding total inncauracy of page)
2. The fact that there is no local authority for some sub-divisions should show you what I am saying. (As explained above...)
3. I have not 'claim'(ed) that the LA boundaries have been used in the manner described, it is written in the ONS notes(As ex ^..)
4. The fact that some local ONS sub-divisions are larger than corresponding LA's supports my argument(as ex above..)
5. Your last sentence is most intrigueing. It only 'supports' your assumption that it is my 'claim' that the the ONS have used LA boundaries, which, as I stated, in incorrect as it says this quite clearly in the ONS notes. Also, this last sentence does nothing to answer the point you were responding to. In fact, the whole paragraph does nothing to this effect.

• I am not going to constantly repeat myself. I have made myself clear, please read 'Regarding total innacuracy of page', which is my main discussion. The points you 'answered' were only the highlights. My main discussion includes referencing to every fact I have stated, and logically draws my conclusion from them. You only have to read it, and take it in.

I do not believe, Steven, that you have read this due to some of the statements in your response, such as 'there is a page on Wikipedia which defines city'. if you had read my main discussion, you would know that I actually referenced this page. I am not going to continue a discussion with someone who is just unloading their own opinions, rather than reading, considering and answering my points in a constructive way - there is no point, I will just go ahead and change the article if you cannot do this.

P.s. You seem to be misreading my focus on the word 'city'. I am NOT advocating that the list should be changed to the actual UA's that the ONS have defined and described as 'cities', this would be incorrect - I agree, as these are conurbations. I have never stated otherwise - interesting that the main gist of your response is to argue against something that I have neither stated or even agree with myself.

My focus on your use of the word city is that you have used it incorrectly. Not that I want to use it to describe conurbations, and hence be MORE wrong!130.88.205.79 18:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please inform me of which parts of your argument I have failed to respond to. Pointers will do, I don't need the whole thing! I am unimpressed that you think I am "someone who is just unloading their own opinions, rather than reading, considering and answering my points in a constructive way - there is no point, I will just go ahead and change the article if you cannot do this." You are coming across as precisely that sort of person. You are refusing to see anyone else's arguments. You accuse me of not having read your points. In fact, I gave the matter quite some thought before responding, as you can see by my original reply where I confused your use of "UA" as meaning "Unitary Authority" rather than the "Urban Area" that you did mean.

No matter, I will try again.

You have a problem with London. This problem does indeed exist - however, London is recognised as being the largest city in England and is administered like other large cities such as New York, administered by constituent Boroughs with a single Mayor running city-wide items. This problem is explained in the article, the population of the City of London is given, and so no confusion can be made. London is stated as being the largest city in England, and the seat of goverment of the UK, which is true. In your view, these are inaccurate items as there is no large city called "London", and the seat of government is in the City of Westminster. Better get editing!

You wish to change the article to deal with Local Area authorities, despite the fact that you agree that they are largely unrepresentative of the city populations. Wikipedia already has a perfectly good, extremely useful page at List of English districts by population. Why do you want to change something to something else that you already agree is inaccurate for the purpose?

You agree that a city is not the same as a conurbation - great! However, you appear to be unwilling to recognise the fact that conurbations are made up of individual towns and cities. There is no "mixing and matching" of figures that has occurred, other than in the case of London as explained above. Conurbations are listed as well as the component towns and cities in the list, and are identified with the words "Urban Area" after the name. Therefore "Greater Manchester Urban Area" refers to the conurbation called "Greater Manchester", and the "Manchester" component within refers to the city of "Manchester". This is consistent with Wikipedia's City page which states: "Although city can refer to an agglomeration including suburban and satellite areas, the term is not appropriate for a conurbation (cluster) of distinct urban places, nor for a wider metropolitan area including more than one city, each acting as a focus for parts of the area." Therefore, the use of the word "city" to describe the component parts of a conurbation is accurate according to the City article. Whilst not all of the largest settlements in England hold City Status, the use of the word "city" is in accordance with the City article: "A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status." Presumably you would not have a problem with a list of cities in Europe that included items such as Bochum, Dortmund, Dusseldorf or Monchengladbach - all of whom are cities (or "urban areas") within conurbations.

You appear to have a problem with the fact that towns are also included in the list. To me, it seems somewhat churlish to miss places such as Reading because they do not hold city status. The term "city" as pointed out above can mean "an urban area"

You appear to have a problem with the fact that the ONS state that "Sub-divisions often follow the boundaries of local authorities". This is not necessarily an issue - however if it were the kind of problem that you are assuming, then many of the towns or cities that have the same name as a local authority would have the same population. This is clearly not the case. Steven J 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole premise of this article is factually incorrect. Based on the populations listed, there are two cities in the image linked to below. To the left is Manchester city centre. To the right is apparently an entirely different city.

http://www.citynoise.org/upload/6773.jpg

EarlyBird 00:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you are trying to claim that Salford is just a part of Manchester - which is quite blatantly false. It is part of the same conurbation, but then as conurbations are collections of cities and towns, that is not an issue. You appear to be confusing the two - the logical upshot of which is that you are also claiming that, for example, Bradford is nothing but a part of Leeds.

You are also claiming that an article based upon and using official UK Government figures is factually incorrect. Fingerpuppet 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To claim that a local authority boundary constitutes the demarcation point of a city is blatently ridiculous as, just to use Manchester as an example, the city centre actually crosses that boundary! I would like to see, however, a statement in the census that refers to city population rather than local authority population. ONS do not refer to it as a city population figure for one reason; it isn't!

This is not a list of local authority populations, but of Urban Sub-Areas. ONS do not refer to them as city populations simply because the data includes all built-up areas such as towns and villages. Fingerpuppet 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, ODPM (now a part of the Department for Communities and Local Government) compiled a report called "State of the English Cities" stated (Volume One, 2.3.5):

"The point of departure for our definition was the official set of Urban Areas definitions based on 2001 built-up areas. Hence we identify major cities in terms of their physical extent and not in terms of local authority areas or administrative boundaries."

Per the PUA definition in the same report (Volume 2, Appendix 2) Manchester has a population of 2,240,230. EarlyBird 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this several times before. There are various measures which can be used, and this article uses one of them. Another one is the population of local authority areas. If you have an alternative measure of what constitutes a city for which we can get accurate figures without engaging in original research, then it may be of interest. If not, this isn't going to get us anywhere. Warofdreams talk 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As I just pointed out, with full citation of sources, the Department for Communities and Local Government (i.e. the department with responsibility for city-related policy) defines a city as the urban area, statistics for which are available from the ONS. I'd say this is the most reliable source for the information and they even specifically state that they regard these as cities. Again per 2.3.5 of volume 1, the cut-off point for these cities is a population of 125,000. Can you get any more reliable a source than that? EarlyBird 17:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And those urban areas are conurbations by definition. Fingerpuppet 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that their figures come from amalgamating local authority areas? If so, then, yes, it is of interest, but no, it's not in my view "more reliable" than the census from which their figures appear to be compiled. Are these figures used anywhere else? If so, there is definitely a case for an article using their list. It's still not uncontroversial, as (for instance) Rotherham appears to be classed as part of Sheffield - something most residents of Rotherham would strongly argue against. Warofdreams talk 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of compiling certain statistics they use the local authorities that make the best approximation to the city as ONS currently do not compile many of their statistics for urban areas. Their population statistics, however, are based on the UN/Eurostat model for defining an urban area, as in fact are ONS ones too. To date I know that these figures are used by the Deputy Prime Minister's office (not the same as ODPM), Department for Communities and Local Government and also by the Treasury (including civil service departments like HM Revenue & Customs). EarlyBird 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's not cities, but groups of local authorities that in themselves can contain many settlements. Either way, it's irrelevant here. As User:Warofdreams says, then feel free to compile an article based on other citeria. To claim that this list is inaccurate is false. Fingerpuppet 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fingerpuppet, I think you need to read the "State of the English Cities" report I linked you to. It specifically states that they consider these areas to be cities. They actually use the word city to describe them. Note also that this department is actually responsible for cities too! EarlyBird 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Where does the ONS define its "urban sub-unit" to be equal to "city"/"town"? Morwen - Talk 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Morwen, Where has any government organisation ever clearly defined what is equal to a city or town? In the case of urban sub-divisions they call them "well-defined localities". --Statsfan 14:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume that is rhetorical for "they haven't"? Please speak plainly, I am a bear of simple brane. Morwen - Talk 16:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on, Morwen! What on earth else is an urban area called, say, "Ellesmere Port" other than the town or city of that name? It is only a sub-unit because it is part of a conurbation, and the figures are designed to show both towns or cities within conurbations, and those without. Ellesmere Port is a town, listed in List of towns in England.

According to Conurbation - "A conurbation is an urban area comprising a number of cities or towns which, through population growth and expansion, have physically merged to form one continuous built up area." Therefore, the subsections of a conurbation are once again described as "cities or towns". Steven J 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Ed and Mowen here. The sudivisions are not cities. Sometimes they corespond to cities and named after them for example the city of Manchester far outreaches it's LA boundry. It's absurd to say it is the 7th largest city in the country. Other cities are divided into former towns as well as the main city (See Talk:England). You say that London is a unique case however their is no institution which covers Greater London which is refered to as a city but it is counted as a county instead. The same situation occurs in manchester. The only difference being more power given to the London authority which is down to government policy.

The main problem with the statistics is that they have been compiled by computer and people who know nothing of the localities. The list is created from an 'aggregation of Output Areas'. An Output Area is a group of around 125 households. If this is below a certain desity threshold then it is considered rural. It doesn't take into account other land uses. So if a city contains a large retail or industrial area this can annex parts of it.

Unfortently the government has made a list like this impossible to make objectively. They always contain huge anomalies. Thanks to constant boundry changes and the god awful concept of the Metropoliton Borough the concept of a true english city is purely cultural.--josh 17:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it absurd that Manchester is the 7th largest city in England? Simply because enough people think that perhaps it should be bigger? As I've mentioned several times already, in population terms Manchester will always seem small, simply because it is "hemmed in" by other large towns in the conurbation. Just because Manchester has a relatively small population doesn't mean that it can't have a good claim to the "second city" status that appears to be hotly contested, based upon its huge commercial and cultural importance. Manchester CC is sixth largest Local Authority area, and Manchester is the sixth largest city based upon its Urban Area (excluding London). Both of these are for the reason I've explained above.

I may well not be completely happy with some of the separations, for example, I think Shelfield is a suburb of Walsall, but when I look on the relevant OS sheet, there is indeed a gap between the two - therefore Shelfield is not a section of the urban area of Walsall at all, therefore is not part of the town of Walsall, but a village in its own right - however, it is within the "West Midlands Urban Area", which is another name for "West Midlands Conurbation".

Quite blatantly through your own arguments you are saying that the list looks at households. That's not terrifically surprising for a list based on populations...

This list has absolutely nothing to do with Metropolitan Boroughs (though I quite agree that they are awful things!), so bringing in the question of MBCs doesn't help - especially in a list that sets out to divorce the populations of towns and cities from the LAs that they are contained within.

I quote from the GLA's website [6]. " What is the Greater London Authority (GLA)? The GLA is a unique form of strategic citywide government for London. It is made up of a directly elected Mayor - the Mayor of London - and a separately elected Assembly - the London Assembly."

Therefore your point about the lack of institutions that cover Greater London referring to it as a city is demonstrably false. There is no equivalent for Manchester, nor for any other conurbation - not even in the days of Metropolitan County Councils (which referred to Metropolitan Counties, not cities anyway). Steven J 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Urban Sub-Divisions are Towns and Cities

Let’s study some of the notes that accompany the 2001 Census report "Key Statistics for Urban Areas" in more detail with examples. The ONS notes say:-

An obvious way to define a town or city is in terms of an administrative boundary. This was possible in censuses in Britain up to and including 1971. In England and Wales, until reorganisation of local government in 1974, the division between boroughs, urban districts and rural districts provided an approximate urban/rural split.

Hold on if these stats are nothing to do with towns and cities why do the notes talk about an obvious way to define them?

Let’s move on and ask why it was not possible after the 1971 census to define a town or city in terms of an administrative boundary? Because in 1974 the new Metropolitan Councils were created by grouping together towns and villages so that they contained a target population of about 250,000. This meant local councils were no longer a good indicator of the population of well established, historic towns.

The examples I will give are Leeds and West Bromwich.

In 1971 Leeds Council had a population of 496,009 but after the local government reorganisation of 1974 the 1981 population was recorded as 724,300 after it was merged with the towns of Wetherby, Morly, Otley and Pudsey. So the Leeds Local Authority population was no longer a good indicator of the population of Leeds alone, but the original 1971 local authority was, and is therefore used to define the Leeds urban sub-division that listed in the 2001 report.

In 1971 West Bromwich Council had a population of 166,593 but after the 1974 local government reorganisation it was merged with Warley Council (containing the towns of Oldbury and Smethwick) and together were called Sandwell Metropolitan Council. Even today it is a proud town with a Premiership Football Team and fiercely opposed to being called part of Birmingham and very much considers itself as part of the Black Country. If we suggest only local authority populations are the only true populations of towns and cities then West Bromwich technically no longer exits.

This is why at the 1981 census the government produced the first report “Key Statistics for Urban Areas and sub-divisions of Urban Areas”. They stated “These areas were defined as a result of a SOEC (Statistical Office of the European Community) requirement for the identification of urban agglomerations of 100,000 + population and also because of a widespread interest in producing statistics for towns and cities which could not be identified by the areal units which are included in the standard Census geography.”

Producing statistics for towns and cities? Yet more evidence the report is describing the populations of individual towns and cities defined as urban sub-divisions.

Appendix 2 of the preliminary results of the 1981 census actually lists urban sub-divisions into different town categories and uses words such as large non-metropolitan cities and smaller cities.

The question that arises is how does the government identify urban sub-divisions within the Urban Areas. They say in the notes:-

Major urban agglomerations are sub-divided to provide results about localities within them, and to enable broad comparisons to be made with previously published census results. Some smaller agglomerations are also sub-divided where there are well defined localities. Previously separate urban areas, where urban land has since merged, are also recognised by sub-divisions where possible.

The key phrase is “sub-divided where there are well defined localities” where localities can reasonably be considered to refer to places recognisable as towns. The notes also say:-

Sub-divisions often follow the boundaries of local authorities existing before re-organisation in 1974, or the boundaries of current authorities within agglomerations.

As mentioned earlier, up to the 1971 census you could define a town by it’s local authority boundary but after the 1974 local government re-organisation this was no longer possible as urban and rural councils were merged into single authorities. So it was therefore considered more accurate by the government to define some towns by the “boundary of local authorities existing before re-organisation“ in 1974. This includes West Bromwich and Leeds which are identified in this way in the report because, the former no longer exists as a local authority, and the latter includes more towns within the local authority then it originally had.

Also identified in the report is the Oldbury/Smethwick sub-division, which together with the West Bromwich sub-division now formed the new Sandwell Council. This illustrates the note “Sub-divisions often follow…the boundaries of current authorities within agglomerations” because the sub-divisions of West Bromwich and Oldbury/Smethwick follow the boundary of the current Sandwell Council in the agglomeration known as the West Midlands urban area.

Finally the ONS in their reasons for producing the report say "Results for urban areas meet a widespread interest in information about towns and cities, and for comparisons between urban populations and with those living outside towns. The Key Statistics series includes results from all topics covered by the Census, and is designed for quick reference and comparison, but also to provide information for studies in greater depth."

If their report was nothing to do with towns and cities why do they say it “meets a widespread interest in information about towns and cities?”

You may not agree with the population figures given for your town or city but the report is the most accurate that exists where the "real" urban population of a town or city can be compared with other towns and cities without being confused by todays local authority boundaries which, after 1974, were no longer a true indicator of a town's population especially for towns in metropolitan boroughs. --Statsfan 19:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You've missed out a vital sentance. Previously separate urban areas, where urban land has since merged, are also recognised by sub-divisions where possible. This means you can't differenciate between actual seperate urban areas and formally seperate urban areas. No matter what the PR says these statistics are a mess. --josh 20:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

List of English Conurbations by population

Does anyone else thik that a page on the above would be useful? This would help with some of the debate above, showing the size of Greater Manchester compared to West Midlands for example. Or would it be better to alter List of conurbations in the United Kingdom so that it shows population sizes instead? Steven J 14:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Article

Where did the data for this list come from? For example, the 1991 Census gave the population of Chester as being 115,971 (114,292 in households), making it large enough to appear at around 48 in the list. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Ho Ho Ho!)} 11:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the population of the Chester local government district, not the urban area of Chester. If you read the article it should give its source - and if you read the above you will read our arguments about it. Morwen - Talk 16:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Another anomaly

Ok, the list this is based on gives the population of the Milton Keynes urban area as 184,506. It subdivides this as follows

• Bletchley - 47,176 - fair enough
• Browns Wood - 4,225
• Central Milton Keynes - 31,442 - !!!
• Newport Pangell - 14,739
• North Milton Keynes - 13,489 - !!!
• Walnut Tree - 12,526
• Wolverton/Stoney Stratford - 60,359

However, the population figure given here on the table is 184,506, which is the combined total. I think we need to know which of these entries have been aggregated like this. This seems to be bordering on Wikipedia:Original research. Morwen - Talk 16:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Same goes for Telford. Morwen - Talk 16:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And indeed, it is probably true for all New Towns. Milton Keynes and Telford are both New Towns, but are based around the villages and towns that were in existence prior to the creation of the New Town. For example, Telford was based upon the towns of Wellington, Oakengates and Dawley, plus several villages in the area. Telford is, however, recognised as the "Town" and the towns within are subservient to Telford. For example, you will find "Town Centre" signposts pointing towards Telford Town Centre within Wellington, the largest of the original towns. The New Towns do function as a traditional town, with the old towns functioning as suburbs, but with slightly more independence than is usual. Personally, I think they should stay as the New Towns, but if someone else feels strongly the other way, then feel free! Steven J 22:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Warrington, then? This would be big enough to fit on the table if we treated it the same as other New Towns. Morwen - Talk 11:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Warrington (the New Town) works a little differently from the other "proper" New Towns - the New Town areas such as Birchwood are pretty much stand-alone and "tacked on" to the urban area rather than the Milton Keynes / Telford method where the New Town totally overwhelmed the extant towns and villages, and took up the space between. Steven J 12:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And Cambridge population given is the population of the Cambridge/Milton urban sub-area, but with the population of the parish of Milton removed. This may not be a valid thing to do, as do we know that the Cambridge/Milton urban sub-area contains the entire parish of Milton? Morwen - Talk 17:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've looked back over the list, and I can't see where the 113,442 figure for Cambridge alone came from. The list should be changed to Cambridge & Milton at 117,717. Steven J 22:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

But "Cambridge and Milton" isn't a town... Morwen - Talk 10:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should either use just sub-units or use sub-units within the authority area. Currently the Sheffield 'city' doesn't include a couple of suburbs of Sheffield. I don't think agregating sub-units is original research as long as you can prove that a sub-unit is within the authority boundry but it needs to be done for every one. josh 17:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we work on such a list at User:Morwen/newcitylist or someplace, and see how it turns out. Morwen - Talk 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This will result in yet more "judgement calls". For example, I notice on your list that Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield are to be treated as one. I would suggest that this is inaccurate, as whilst both fall under the local authority called "Birmingham City Council", Sutton Coldfield is quite definately a separate town, and indeed was its own Royal Borough until 1974, where it was subsumed into Birmingham simply because it could not achieve the Metropolitan Borough target population of 250,000. It doesn't matter where Local Authority boundaries are to a great extent - the whole point is to divorce the list from Local Authorities, for all the reasons mentioned previously.

I fear that should we go down that route, then it will simply turn into a bunfight over what people "think" is a separate town, and which people "think" are joined. Imagine the editing fights over the population of Manchester, for example! Steven J 22:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is probably doomed, yes.

What about Watford and Woking, then? Morwen - Talk 10:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a difficult call. I'd be inclined to add a comment somewhere about Watford (as at present), but I think that Woking/Byfleet falls into the Oldbury/Smethwick category where neither town in its own right has a population greater than 100,000. Compare this with Cambridge/Milton where Cambridge in its own right would fall above the mark. Steven J 12:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Woking/Byfleet is especially significant. The only reason for the ONS treating Byfleet differently appears to be that it is civil parish - and that civil parish recently tried to abolish itself! Fundamentally, as these anomalies have demonstrated, the "urban sub-areas" don't correspond exactly 1:1 with towns. Warrington is a judgement call on your behalf, and you have decent arguments for it, but you are still excercising judgement. Morwen - Talk 14:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Adapt and improve. How about we ignore sub-units that are listed as rural, urban or town districts and only go with amalgemating sub-units invented by the ONS. Watford and Woking would be divoced from Greater London. Cambridge would include the entire urban area as the other sub-units were never seperate. josh 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably being thick here, but could you give me an example so I can confirm my understanding of what you mean? Thanks! Steven J 12:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)