Talk:City status in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Early discussion

I am not entirely convinced of this "awarded at the behest of the monarch status" stuff. As far as I was aware Plymouth was a city when I was a child (and was described as such during the Blitz i.e. about 50 years prior to this putative granting of status). Want to cite some sources to elucidate? My understanding was that it was conditional upon either size or as the site of an Anglican bishopric. user:sjc

thats what i thought - fonzy

According to the official website of the UK Lord Chancellor:

City status is a rare mark of distinction granted by the Sovereign and conferred by Letters Patent. It is granted by personal Command of the Queen, on the advice of Her Ministers.

According to The Royal Government official page:

City status and Lord Mayoralty are granted by personal command of The Queen, on advice from Ministers. Only local authorities may apply for these honours, which are sparingly bestowed as a mark of special distinction.

- Zoe

That's just English law of course, although there may well be analogous Scots law. And it only covers the award of city status to communities which don't possess it. However it is not meant to apply to communities which have been cities since "time immemorial". Some communities have been cities since before there was a Lord Chancellor or a monarchy and there is no law defining the conditions under which a community stops being a city... -- Derek Ross

In Scotland apparently anywhere that wishes to become a city can become so if the majority of its inhabitants agree. Hence why Perth and Dunfermline now style themselves cities. Moreover Dunfermline has a Royal Charter while Glasgow and Edinburgh can't find theirs.

Only one small problem with this. This is part of a piece of legislation which was brought in retroactively and has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Plymouth has been a city and was a city since the amalgamation of the 3 towns in 1914. It was an anglican bishopric and had a qualifying city size before this particular piece of legislation ergo it was a city prior to 1994: all that happened in 1994 was that the city status was regularised; most of the others in the list were cities anterior to the regal stuff.

Truro, btw, was a city at the point that it became the diocesan centre of west Cornwall in 1887; as far as I know it has not been granted city status by Royal Appointment: it would fail regularisation on a number of criteria in this day and age, notably population size.

Apparently Queen Victoria granted it city status in 1877 and laid the foundation stone of the cathedral. See http://truro.cornwall.net/history.html Mintguy

Nope. The foundation stones were laid by the Prince of Wales, not by Queen Victoria. The Bishopric of Truro bill 1876 gave the city de facto city status. user:sjc

Like I said, once a city, always a city. -- Derek Ross

The fact that someone forgot to do the official stuff until about 1994 is kind of neither here nor there: Plymouth was a city at the time of the amalgamation of the three towns since it was known jointly and severally at that time and thenceforth as the City of Plymouth. user:sjc

I've just read that Plymouth was granted city status in 1928, but have nothing to verify this. It also states that Plymouth has(or only had at the time) a catholic cathedral.

Again, it focuses on the merger of the 3 towns. That was why they merged in 1914, in order to acquire urban status as the City of Plymouth. I will dig out the records at DRO tomorrow. user:sjc

Later. Plymouth styled itself a City in 1914, and had a mayor at this date. user:sjc

If Milton Keynes or Plymouth or Perth for that matter 'styles' itself a city does that make it a city?Mintguy

Wouldn't it be better to say 'officially has 66 cites' rather than 'at least 66'? It currently reads as a bit dumb that we can't put an exact figure on it.

I really do hate this 'Town,Country' format. As has been pointed out numerous times, this is distinctly US only style. Mintguy

Yeah, but crucial from the point of disambiguation. More significant yet in many cases it has to be town, county, country as in e.g. Newport, Shropshire, England; Newport, Cambridgeshire, England, etc. user:sjc

Note that the disambiguation format for cities is currently (again) debated, and chances are that a different system will be used. Stay tuned... Jeronimo

Bristol became a county in 1373, but not a city. For that it had to wait until 1542, when it gained its cathedral (rival monastic centres had prevented this from happening before the Dissolution, IIRC) --rbrwr

Some one listed Salford as an university city, which is obviously incorrect, as the University of Salford was founded in 1896. But this begs the question, what are the qualifications for an "ancient university"? Do any other than Oxford and Cambridge make the cut? - Efghij

Salford University did not get a charter until 1967 so was not founded as a university until that year. --Statsfan 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dublin are are all ancient universities. An ancient university is one founded in the 16th century or earlier accoridng to our Ancient university article. All of the above qualify as cities on other grounds of course. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Where does this 1 million inhabitabts figure come from? I thought London was the only city with over 1 million inhabitants (with Birmingham just under)? The cities newly granted the status certainly don't have 1 million inhabitants? Could it be 100,000 inhabitants, or a catchment area of 1 million? --Steinsky

---

Doesn't Portsmouth's royal charter implicitly recognize it as a city long before the twentieth century ?

---

That is a terrible picture, I vote for its removal. Mintguy (T) 18:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Seconded Edward 16:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Emboldening

Please don't use bold text to indicate the status of a city - it's not guaranteed to show in all browsers; and won't show, for example, for blind peopel using a text reader. Use an asterisk, or list the relevant cities separaelty. Andy Mabbett 20:42, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Btw, the end of the page appears to have gone missing. Morwen 20:43, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Scottish Cathedrals

What's the significance of the cathedrals given for the Scottish cities? The note in the table mentions cathedrals of the "established church", which in Scotland is the Church of Scotland. But the only "Aberdeen Cathedral" I know of is Anglican. St Machar's is the C of S cathedral in Aberdeen. Markalexander100 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It will mean the established church at the time of the granting of the charters, I suppose. Do you know which of these is the one that inherited the Roman Catholic cathedral building? 07:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

St Machar's is medieval, the Anglican Aberdeen Cathedral is 18th century. I came across one reference to St Machar's as "Aberdeen Cathedral", but "St Machar's" would certainly be less confusing if that's the one. Markalexander100 09:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland has no cathedrals at all as it has no bishops

More on Cathedrals

When trying to solve the Scottish cathedrals problem, I came across a useful article at [1] (slow loading). Essentially, it says that after 1888, cities were created without bishoprics and bishoprics were created without cities. It seems to me that the bishoprics are therefore irrelevant for cities created after 1888. Markalexander100 07:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I therefore propose to

1. add the more detailed info about the policy on granting city status contained in the article referenced;
2. clarify in the table why the cathedrals are mentioned at all (i.e. because pre-1888, that was the criterion for granting city status when an application had been made);
3. remove the references to cathedrals which are irrelevant to city status (all post-1888 ones). Markalexander100 05:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any objections? Better ideas? Markalexander100 06:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove references to all post-1888 cathedrals. In some cases they were certainly a factor in granting city status; most obviously St. David's. Since there's a space in the table anyway, I say we keep them. 65.92.24.2 21:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The St David's cathedral is indirectly relevant in that it was the reason why is was previously regarded as a city, but it wasn't the reason it was made a city (othewise that would have happened rather earlier). Also, I don't know what italicising the names of the cathedrals is meant to mean.

The cathedrals are only in the table because they were the reason why some cities were granted city status. Including them for other cities is misleading. Markalexander100 01:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they're so very misleading. The italicisation, obviously enough, is of cathedrals which were not the basis of their cities' creation as a city; I was merely playing around with the article to see whether the above anon's suggestion of keeping the references to them could work. Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 03:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As the article notes, there was/is a widespread misconception that a city is a town which has a cathedral. Listing cathedrals in the column next to the year city status was granted reinforces the city-cathedral link. That's fine pre-1888, but for after 1888 it reinforces the misconception. On italicisation- I know why those cathedrals are italicised because I read your edit summary, but Joe Public would be looking at the table for an awfully long time before he got it. ;) Markalexander100 04:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Obviously I've been spending far too much time editing article on British governance, local and national; I'm starting to assume that all readers /obviously/ know the content and its context. *sighs* :-)

James F. (talk) 05:27, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So please find a way of indicating it more clearly rather than removing useful information. 80.229.39.194 15:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's useful about it? The information has nothing to do with the city status of these cities. It would be just as "useful" to include their main tourist attractions, or the names of their biggest shopping centres: some people might be fascinated by those things, but they have nothing to do with the topic of this article. Markalexander100 00:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having a way to find out which cities don't have cathedrals is useful. This article no longer supplies that. 80.229.39.194 11:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Finding out which cities don't have Anglican cathedrals has nothing do do with the city status of those cities. This is an article about "City status in the UK", not "Cities in the UK". This isn't the place for interesting but irrelevant titbits. Markalexander100 01:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't revert while a discussion is ongoing. Changes accrete and become harder to unpick. Markalexander100 08:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it isn't the place for irrelevant titbits why don't you remove the section on 'cathedral towns'? You have yet to supply a single valid reason for deleting useful information. Morwen - Talk 21:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unofficial use of the term "city" seems to me quite relevant to an article on the use of that term. I still don't understand why you think that irrelevant information should be included. I don't think the proposition that articles should only include relevant information is very novel or controversial. Markalexander100 00:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding, but I think it is useful to have details of the cathedrals in cities which are cities by some reason other than the cathedral, and to explain why that is the case. Yes, technically, the presence of the cathedral is in many cases irrelevant to official city status, but many people still think "cathedral (or CofE cathedral) means city", and vice versa. It is useful to provide counterexamples each way. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Certainly not intruding- the more the better. ;) The body of the article does an admirable job of doing exactly what you say- explaining why some towns with cathedrals aren't cities, and why some cities don't have cathedrals, and why some cities have cathedrals which are irrelevant to their city status- but a table is not good at explaining things or providing counterexamples. A table is good at correlating relevant information. Including irrelevant information in the table confuses the issue and propagates the misconception you identify. Markalexander100 10:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the text does explain it, and there is a list of cathedral towns, but when you are confronted with a list of cities containing Anglican cathedrals, and some Anglican cathedrals are omitted, it is a natural question to ask why they are left out (and, yes, they are left out because the presence of the cathedral is not the reason for them being cities, but that does not stop the question arising).

As a compromise, we could add a list of Anglican cathedrals in cities which are cities for some reason other than the cathedral, but the natural place for this list is in the main table, with these cathedrals picked out (e.g. by italics or a footnote) or in a new "other cathedrals" column (this could also include RC cathedrals). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are two possibilities: either the reader has read the introduction at the top of the table (unlikely), in which case he knows why only some cathedrals are there; or he hasn't, in which case he will see the cathedral listed and assume (correctly) that the cathedral is there because that's why the city is a city, or vice versa. What I don't want the reader to do is to assume (incorrectly) that there is a connection between Birmingham having a cathedral and Birmingham being a city. That would be a natural conclusion if that information were in the table.

How about an asterisk on the post-city cathedrals directing readers to a note at tbe bottom of the table? I could live with that. Markalexander100 00:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, including the the 'not-city-status-bestowing' cathedrals with an asterisk and footnote sounds like a good idea (it may be worth putting these cathedrals in italics in any event, so it is clear that there is a distinction being drawn from the non-italicised cathedrals, and inviting the reader to check the footnote). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Putting them in italics? You mean, like I did?

*sighs* ;-)

James F. (talk) 19:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Italics I can take or leave; asterisks and footnote actually direct the reader to the right place. Markalexander100 03:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article candidacy (successful)

(Uncontested -- Jul 2) City status in the United Kingdom

Self nomination. This isn't just a list of cities, it contains background info about the peculiar definition of cities in the UK, the various statuses the cities have, etc. Morwen - Talk 21:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Good article, but a list is an almanac article while the prose in that article is encyclopedic (only one part of the article is a list!). I suggest renaming the article to City status in the United Kingdom so that readers know to expect to find an article on the topic instead of just a list (if and when the list on that page gets too long, then it can be spun off onto its own page). The lead section needs some expansion as well as the 'City councils' section. Also, the article on the whole also seems a bit short. So until then, I regretfully oppose. --mav 01:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I *strongly* agree with Mav's suggestion. →Raul654 06:03, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved it, started to expand bits. Not really suitable yet. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • How does it look now? Morwen - Talk 22:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. It's a really good article; my only comment would be that there's a very cursory mention to the title "Rt Hon", yet it doesn't say anything about whether or not these titleholders are members of the Privy Council and, if so, whether or not it is ex officio, by virtue of being the Lord Mayor of the relevant city (which I guess in some cases it is). I don't think fixing that is necessarily a prerequisite for FA status, though. — OwenBlacker 11:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. I think I will add a bit about the former cities of the UK too - ie the ones now in the Republic of Ireland. Morwen - Talk 13:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose In re "The Right Honourable"; I would like to ask that the sentence Six of these Lord Mayors and two of the Lord Provosts are styled "The Right Honourable" instead of "The Right Worshipful" - though they are not members of the Privy Council which this style usually indicates be rephrased, as it is now rather confusing. The new passage could indicate:

  That Lord Mayors generally use "The Right Worshipful,"

  That some Lord Mayors use "The Right Honourable" though not Privy Counsellors,

  That either style is applied to the office, not to the personal name (as in "The Right Honourable The Lord Mayor of X" rather than "The Right Honourable John Smith," etc.),

  That only Privy Counsellors use the form "The Right Honourable John Smith."

• Furthermore, the table needs to be, in my opinion, reformatted. The blank cells could be filled by non-breaking spaces; furthermore, "Right Hon. the Lord Mayor" should, IMHO, be replaced by "The Right Hon. The Lord Mayor," or, better still, "The Rt Hon. The Lord Mayor." In addition, perhaps the key could indicate that a hyphen indicates city status since time immemorial. Finally, it would be nice to have the now-Republic of Ireland's cities listed in the table, rather than at the end. -- Emsworth 15:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok - shall do those. With respect to the last suggestion, I think would be a bit political, not to mention confusing, to have the Irish cities treated in the same way as the cities in the remaining parts of the UK. Morwen - Talk 15:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, for the Irish cities, I was hoping for a table of the same format as the British cities: one column for "City," one for "Mayor," one for "Since," and one for "Cathedral" (we need not have a "Gov." column. -- Emsworth 16:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. Done. Morwen - Talk 17:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Objections withdrawn. -- Emsworth 20:16, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. Too many red links. The lists should be spun off, as they have very little to do with "city status of the UK". Article should be clarified to better discuss what "city status" means in an NPOV way. anthony (see warning)
  • I don't agree with splitting out the list. I think a list of entities with city status in the United Kingdom has a lot do with city status in the United Kingdom. Would any third parties like to comment? Morwen - Talk 12:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe it's just the title. How about cities in the United Kingdom? This would probably address the problem of explaining what "city status" means, also, by not using that term at all. anthony (see warning)
      • Have renamed and fixed redirs. Morwen - Talk 13:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • The red links alone aren't enough for me to object. Looks acceptable as of now. anthony (see warning) 13:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The Rochester thing: "lost this status as a result of an administrative error" — what the hey? This got me really intrigued; how can you de"city" a city through an administative error? It'd be great to flesh this paragraph out a little more, as it seems to be an interesting (and embarrassing) episode in the context. 2) Lead section needs to mention the historic relation to cathedrals, and the "informal" usage explaining, e.g., why London is / isn't a city. 3) Given the title of the article, should we consider adding a list of "unofficial" cities — settlements that might be classed as a "city" if they weren't in the UK? This would also help NPOV because "some have doubted the right of the Crown to define the word 'city' in the English language.". — Matt 17:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • All done. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've been musing on the name, a bit; I do think that the name was better as "City status in the United Kingdom, (or City designation, or Appointed cities or some such), because otherwise the article assumes too much that the "official" version of city is correct — it's quite odd to have an article called "Cities in the United Kingdom" where London isn't part of the main list.) — Matt 18:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I can't possibly satisfy all the name objections at once ;) Nobody gets upset about the government claiming the right to define cities, really. it just gets ignored. Perhaps a difference could be made between 'city' and 'City' - but that isn't in general use either. Does this count as uncontested again? Morwen - Talk 18:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I, too, think City status was a better title. Difficult to call, though :-) James F. (talk) 19:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • "City status" is a better title. The Lord Chancellor's site, for example, refers to the "City status" contests so the phrase cannot be dismissed as never being used, etc. [2]. -- Emsworth 00:33, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
          • If the name gets changed to either city status in the United Kingdom or city status (United Kingdom), then I'll change my (now) mild oppose to accept. The 'cities' name is not really correct (as noted above) and also does not conform to our pluralization naming convention. --mav 08:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support as is, name and all. Bmills 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Object. 1) The first photo is not great; pretty blurred, for one — could we do better? 2) In the table, the meaning of the "Gov." column heading is not very clear, and the numbering system for that column is used in the main UK table, but not the RoI table. 3) What's the history of this "Royal charter" thing? When were they first given out, and to whom? — Matt 16:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • 1) Shall we just move the image of York Minster up there? I think that may be the best option. 3) done. Morwen - Talk 18:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Makes more sense, and the the blurriness of the Lord Mayor pic doesn't seem to have such an impact there. — Matt 19:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. — Matt 19:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Support. -- mav 03:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cathedrals Revisited

The whole point of including cathedrals in the table is to allow readers to asses the degree to which city status is linked with the posession of a cathedral. Therefore it's silly not to include the cathedrals in ancient Welsh, Irish, Scottish cities since the church was certainly established there in the middle ages!

Why not include two tables — one an alphabetical list of all cities with dates; another a chronological list of cities which mentions the presence or absense of a cathedral in each one AS OF the time it became a city? (Thus, for instance, Westminster Abbey's brief 16th-century spell as a cathedral is relevant.) Doops 05:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article at the moment is singularly lacking in any information as to the criteria used in Wales, Ireland and Scotland, presumably because none of us knows them. If one of us were to find them out, it would be simpler to just tell them rather than to leave clues for the reader to decipher. Markalexander100 05:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Coventry Cathedral

Why no link to Coventry Cathedral in the table? Am I missing something? Is Coventry not a cathedral city? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Coventry has had more than one cathedral: one from 1043-1539, and one since 1918. Since its city status dates from the 14th century, I suspect that the first cathedral was the reason for its status. On the other hand, any mention of "Coventry cathedral" in the table would give the impression that it was the second cathedral which was relevant, and that's not ideal either. Mark¹ 00:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Former/Unofficial Cities

There are several "cities" which either WERE cities at one time or whose inhabitants still claim that status.

Elgin - had a cathedral - website claims city status - football team is Elgin City Brechin - had a cathedral - website claims city status - football team is Brechin City Perth - had a cathedral - council website calls it a city - when I lived there, we all called it a city!

Fortrose, Dunkeld, Dunblane and St Andrews all had cathedrals but were never known as cities.

Rochester was officially a city up to 1998 and is trying to restore its former status.

I'll bet Americans find this issue strange. In the US city status seems to be given to three houses and a gas station.

81.156.102.220 21:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why the redirect?

Why does city charter redirect to city status in the United Kingdom? The UK is not the only country where cities have charters... Junes 10:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should not, it would be better as a redlink. - Taxman 19:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I broke the redirect and repointed it to town charter, which also inappropriately redirected to a UK-specific article, until I fixed it. (If we were going on the grounds of numbers alone, I would venture to say that the US has more cities and incorporated towns than the whole of the UK, and the vast majority of them have charters.) 18.26.0.18 02:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure that you can have a cathedral that isn't diocesan. www.danon.co.uk

interwiki

cy:Rhestr dinasoedd y Deyrnas Unedig lv:Apvienotās Karalistes pilsētu uzskaitījums pt:Lista de cidades no Reino Unido uk:Список міст Великобританії Were all expurgated out, I'm guessing as redundant remnants from past editions --Onoredwolf 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Large Towns

I have reverted changes made by 195.93.21.5, which changed some of the figures to be LA areas, not urban areas. All figures must be given from the same sources, or they are worthless. Several figures were left as Urban Area figures, whilst others were changed to the Local Authority bearing the name of the town. This is a difficult problem, as certain large Local Authorities (especially Metropolitan ones) tend to contain other towns of note (such as Dudley), whilst others (such as Kirklees) aren't named after any town in particular. If people prefer to talk about "large Local Authorities that are named after towns that do not hold city status", then that's fine, but the whole section will need a re-write. Steven J 19:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Doncaster isn't listed under the 'Large Towns' section, and Northampton is mentioned as being the 'largest town' due to a population of 189,000+. What confuses me is that the document linked to from the ONS (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_ua_ew_part1.pdf) shows the Doncaster Urban Area population as being 127,851, whilst the 2001 Census shows the Doncaster population to be 286,866. Where are the missing 160,000 people, and what's the difference between the two documents? doktorrob™ 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

127,851 is the population of the Urban Area of Doncaster. 286,866 is the population of the local authority called "Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council", which includes other towns as well as Doncaster, such as Thorne, Bawtry, Tickhill, Mexborough and Hatfield. The ONS document is discussed more fully on List of English cities by population.

The claim mentioned is that made by Northampton Borough Council as the most populous non-Metropolitan non-London Borough non-Unitary non-City Local Authority - which isn't the same thing as the largest town without city status... Steven J 23:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have expanded this section to the top 20 according to the National Statistics figures. In doing so, I made a couple of value judgements from the figures available, primarily on the basis of taking the lowest figure published for each smallest area. For example, where an individual town and a larger urban area with the same name are both listed, I've taken the smaller figure. In particular, I've excluded the Medway Towns and Thanet urban areas, on the grounds that individual settlements (Medway: Gillingham, Chatham, Rochester), (Thanet: Margate, Broadstairs, Ramsgate) are clearly defined, whereas I have included the Milton Keynes and Telford urban areas as the individual settlements, of which these are 'federal' towns, are no longer generally considered separate places. The inclusion of Oldbury and Smethwick was a difficult decision; unfortunately the census information doesn't list the two separately, but the two together is of sufficient size to warrant inclusion, and the whole of the Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell is a weird amalgamation anyway. DWaterson 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All the grantings of city status in England and Wales for a very long time has been to local authority areas, so I don't see the point of providing the population of statistical urban sub-areas which are not in a city or have a city in them. Maybe it would be better to have a list of largest authorities that sought city status at the recent competitions? Morwen - Talk 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Local Authorites are not towns. Towns have local identities separate to the administrative units under which they fall. If it wasn't for the publication of urban-area populations we wouldn't have any population figures for historcial towns such as Huddersfield and West Bromwich which were "eaten-up" in 1974 with the creation of Local Authorities called Kirklees and Sandwell. On the contrary the system of awarding city satus should change to allow large English towns within local authorities with "different" names, to be given city status in their own right. Very much like Inverness was given city status and not the Local Authority of the Highlands which controlled it. --Statsfan 13:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

We're not arguing about what reality should be, we are arguing about how to present it. Statements like "the system of awarding city satus should change" have no place here. Urban sub-area figures for units like Warley (which is what Oldbury/Smethwick is coming from - you'll note Rowley Regis is not given a separate figure in the census report) had no business on this page. However, I think a list of the largest things to seek city status would be more useful than the list presently on this page. We would of course link to List of English cities by population, but that section is getting overlong and only tangentially relevant to the article now. Morwen - Talk 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How about meeting this half way? I would suggest paring the list to the largest five towns according to the ONS Urban Area figures, then linking to List of English cities by population. Steven J 20:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds abolutely great to me. What do you feel about the idea of the a list of the largest districts to seek city status? I'll compile on that on my userspace. Morwen - Talk 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine - again, I'd suggest no more than five, making the point that these are Local Authorities (as the section talks about "large towns"), and a link to List of English districts by population. Is there a similar UK-wide list, that isn't the badly named List of United Kingdom cities, towns and districts by population? Steven J 20:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done that then. I've made it a bit more than five for both of them, so that they show the same 'range' of settlements - to Swindon/Southend. I think it would be interesting to find out some more about the internal politics behind deciding whether particular boroughs applied - especially as to why some didn't bother re-applying. 20:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Immemorial or Ancient Prescriptive Usage

The Government do not use the term "Time Immemorial" as this suggests some cities can not legally stop being cities. All cities can lose their city status and the phrase used by the government is "Ancient Prescriptive Usage". I suggest the introduction should therefore be altered. What do other contributors feel?

--Statsfan 13:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about your interpretation there; the time immemorial article says that it just means that rights enjoyed for time immemorial cannot "be impeached merely by proving that they had not been enjoyed before" a certain time. It doesn't say that they can't be removed ever. However, I agree that this article ought to tell us about current government terminology. Do you have a reference for the use of one term over the other? — sjorford (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • You're correct Sjorford "Time Immemorial" does not suggest that cities can not legally stop being cities. I should have read to the end of the defintion. The term "Ancient Prescriptive Usage" is used by the Department for Constitutional Affairs on their page about city status when they reply to the question "How is the award bestowed?" by saying "Letters Patent, although a number of very old cities have city status by Ancient Prescriptive Usage. See DCA City Status--Statsfan 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1888 cutoff again

The recent addition and removal of "St Davids [sic] Cathedral" from the list has got me thinking.

"Note that the Cathedral column lists the diocesan cathedrals that were the grounds for the granting of city status, that is, cathedrals of the established Church of England, and the formerly established Church in Wales or Church of Ireland, in cities recognised prior to 1888."

What evidence is there that the two sides of this equation really are equivalent? While 1888 may have been the date at which they stopped routinely granting city status to anywhere with a CofE/CinW/CofI cathedral, I would be surprised if the presence of a cathedral has never influenced the granting of city status since then. For example, I doubt St David's would have ever received city status without its cathedral - the status appears to me to have been to honour it for being the UK's smallest cathedral settlement. -- Smjg 15:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree - and opposed its removal at the time (see above or in history). Even if its not in the same table, we need a link from this article to St David's Cathedral and the like. Morwen - Talk 13:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It is easy enough to attach an asterisk or something to say that it was there but wasn't required. Judging by the number of attempts to add it, clearly a lot of people care about it. (and the footnote has the advantage of emphasising that it is no longer a show stopper). --Concrete Cowboy 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How about changing "n/a" to "not applicable" because it looks like some people read it is "not available". --Concrete Cowboy 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I go along with this too - St David's Cathedral and Llandaff should surely be listed - the latter having been incorporated into the City of Cardiff as it expanded.If there's no further objection, I will add both in. There's an interesting debate going on around Brighton and Hove on whether as we now have city status, we should designate one of the larger, older churches as a cathedral. Personally, not sure: as someone raised Roman Catholic, is seems slanted towards the Anglican establishment; as an ertswhile Quaker by conviction, it seems an irrelevance... wee paddy 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, it's up to the Church. Raising Brighton to cathedral status would mean Chichester, a cathedral for over 1,000 years, being "downgraded", I can't see that ever happening. 86.142.83.111 20:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object to Llandaff Cathedral being added, as the the city status was granted to Cardiff before Llandaff was within the municipal boundaries, so it obviously has nothing to do with the granting of city status.

One can argue the case for St David's, but there needs to be consistency. Lozleader 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

St Andrews

Why is St Andrews on the list? It is not a city...

you're right. I took it out Lozleader 10:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

If any editors of this page are interested, City council is currently a very poor quality article which perhaps interested contributors might like to help improve. I've made a basic start at cleanup, but my knowledge of other countries' systems is limited. DWaterson 20:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cities in Ireland

Their is currently a discussion ongoing about the Cities in Ireland article. The current version is disputed as it contains point-of-view and original research. Comments welcome and requested at Talk:Cities in Ireland. Djegan 12:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

City status and local government re-organisation

I wonder about this statement:
It should be noted that all cities have to be re-issued with letters patent reconfirming city status following local government re-organisation where the original city has been abolished.
Inverness seems to have city status (letters patent) but no coat of arms, because it has neither defined boundaries nor representative body.
The city has no status as a local government area and, obviously, can not be affected by re-organisation, except by being given a local government role.
Laurel Bush 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Hmmm. I guess where it is a local authority that has the status then the statement is true. Inverness and Stirling are special cases. It would be useful to see what the text of the Letters Patent to see who what or where the city status was actually granted to, and if that entity can be abolished. The area of the former burgh? There is a provost for both cities, but he/she is only the chair of the area committee.

Lozleader 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sort of imagine, myself, that all 'lapsed' cities have the status of Inverness, or that Inverness is a proto-city rather than a fully fledged city. Not sure about Stirling. Wick has the coat of arms of a royal burgh because it has a community council representing an area with defined boundaries. Something similar might be true of Stirling as a city. Laurel Bush 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Not at all. Inverness is a perfectly reasonable city - as "city" can be defined as "urban area", rather than local government area. Inverness simply has the same status as say, Bath or Hereford - neither of which has a local authority area of the same name. Steven J 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably closer to the status of Rochester from 1974 - 1982, which obtained letters patent declaring it was still a city even though it had no separate local government existence (unparished area in the Borough of Medway) or charter trustees. Lozleader 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"City" does often mean "urban area", but local government cities can also include sizeable rural areas, and boundaries can divide contiguous urban areas. And the focus of this article seems to be on cities which are in some sense defined by letters patent, not 'cities' with more informal definitions.
Difficult to know just what Inverness is. I believe figures usually quoted for the population include urban 'fragments' which are quite remote from the urban area which includes the former royal burgh. The convener of the Inverness area committee of Highland Council uses the title "provost", but the committee area (likely to be abolished next year) includes a large rural area round Loch Ness, and is much larger than the area for which city population figures are quoted. Dont know who actually holds the letters patent.
Who held Rochester's letters patent 1974 to 1982? Who applied for them? Laurel Bush 09:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

And I wonder about this:
City status is conferred by letters patent … City status brings no benefits other than the right to be called a city
I believe that actually, at least in Scotland, every local government council has the right to change the name of the area it represents, and there is no prohibition on simply including the word "city" in the area name. This would not be enough, however, to qualify for a coat of arms, for which letters patent are a minimum requirement. The significance of letters patent is not in terms of right to the city title. It is in terms of acquiring a coat of arms. And to qualify for a for a coat of arms it is necessary to have, in addition to letters patent, defined boundaries and representative body.
Does seems to me, at least as regards Scotland, the "City status in the United Kingdom" article is somewhat inaccurate and misleading. Laurel Bush 09:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

I think you may be confusing Letters Patent issued for different purposes (and by different people)

Letters Patent granting arms by Lord Lyon or the College of Arms are totally unrelated to Letters Patent granting city status which are granted by HM on royal prerogative. Any local authority can apply and be granted arms from the humble parish or community to a city or metropolitan borough.

All the cities with "official" status have LP conferring it. Not all of them have arms (Stirling and Inverness don't: I'm not sure if they can apply for them as they aren't a body corporate).

As far as Rochester's letters patent, they were applied for by the former corporation before its abolition in 1974. They were granted on 18 March 1974. Here's the text:

ELIZABETH THE SECOND BY THE GRACE OF GOD/ OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN/ IRELAND AND OF OUR OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES QUEEN/ HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDER OF THE FAITH/

To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas since time immemorial the City of/ Rochester has been a City And Whereas the City of Rochester as at present constituted will cease to/ exist on the 1st April 1974 by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 And Whereas We are mindful of/ the long history and proud heritage of the said City and for this reason and for divers other good causes/ and considerations Us thereunto moving desire to perpetuate the ancient name of the said City Now Therefore Know Ye/ that We of Our especial grace and favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that henceforth/ from the 1st April 1974 the area of the City Of Rochester as at present constituted shall be called and styled the CITY OF/ ROCHESTER In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster/ the eighteenth day of March in the twenty-third year of Our Reign./ BY WARRANT UNDER THE QUEEN’S SIGN MANUAL /

Lozleader 10:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and here is the text of the Letters Patent granted on 25 January 1982:

ELIZABETH THE SECOND/ BY THE GRACE OF GOD OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN/ AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND OF OUR OTHER REALMS AND TERRITORIES/ QUEEN, HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDER OF THE FAITH/To all whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas part of the Borough of Rochester upon Medway/being the area of the City of Rochester as constituted immediately before the 1st April 1974 has from that date/been called and styled the City of Rochester by virtue of Our Letters made Patent on the 18th March 1974/And Whereas We deem it meet and proper that the whole of the said Borough and not the said part of the Borough as heretofore should/have the name style and status of a City and for this reason and for divers other good causes and considerations Us thereunto moving/We are graciously pleased to confer on the said Borough the status of a City Now therefore Know Ye that We of our special grace and /favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that the BOROUGH OF ROCHESTER UPON MEDWAY/shall henceforth have the status of a CITY and shall have all such rank liberties privileges and immunities as are incident to a City/In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the twenty-fifth day of/January in the thirtieth year of Our Reign/BY WARRANT UNDER THE QUEEN'S SIGN MANUAL/Bourne

Lozleader 10:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting some letters patent, which appear to confer a right. I still suspect however, that a local government area (or its council) has the right anyway, that there is nothing to stop use of the "city" title without letters patent. And no: I dont think I am confusing different kinds of letters patent.
And are Inverness and Stirling really cities, if there is no body constituted to actually exercise a supposed right?
Laurel Bush 11:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

I see your point, in that the area councils can change their name, and that the four city councils have that title by virtue of the 1994 legislation, whereas councils established elsewhere in the UK had to apply to be called cities after each reorganisation. In which case why bother with the whole competition to gain city status business? Stirling council could just rename itself.

As far as Inverness and Stirling are concerned, I'd be very interested to read the text of the Letters Patent (same with Newry) to sse who or what or where got the status.

Lozleader 12:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. And thanks for drawing attention to the wording of legislation which creates local government areas - using "city" in names without reference to whether there are letters patent. I had been thinking that councils go to the trouble of getting letters patent because then they can get a particular class of coat of arms, but another point now occurs to me: I guess there are features of the position of Lord Provost that depend on letters patent.
I dont think, by the way, that Stirling could have just renamed itself as a city, because it seems to have no representative body to do the renaming.
You are persuading me that I should make some effort towards getting hold of the texts of the Inverness and Stirling letters patent.
Laurel Bush 14:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Actually, you're not completely wrong with the coats of arms: with the 1975 - 1996 districts Lord Lyon allowed the city councils to have crests and supporters, which was denied to the other districts (except Perth and Kinross which made a case to keep its unique eagle supporter as Perth had once been the capital of Scotland). The 1996 councils are all allowed crests and supporters, but the four cities have a gold mural crown over the arms (although Aberdeen refuse to display theirs: long story), whereas the other councils have coronets (based on those of the old county councils) made up of "paling piles" and "garbs" (or wheatsheaves).

Lyon's 1975 decision to allow the four City districts more elaborate arms was stated to be because the chairman had the title Lord Provost under statute. In 1996 (a different) Lord Lyon seems to have made the distinction of coronets for the same reason.

Oh, and I meant that Stirling council or (Highland or East Dunbartonshire) might rename the council area (not just the town, which as you say has no separate administrative body) if they felt like it Lozleader 15:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Cant quite imagine the entire Stirling council area wanting to call itself a city but, because of its Sirling name, this would make rather more sense than a similar move for the entire Highland council area (which may be said to include the 'city' of Inverness, except that that 'city' seems to have no defined boundaries and, therefore, no real location). Seems to me letters patent do not so much confer city status as gant royal approval and, therefore, access to supposed benefits which depend on that approval. How does this look?:

Cities in the United Kingdom are usually local government areas which are recognised as cities by letters patent. Also, however there are cities, commonly known as such, which are not local government areas, or do not have letters patent. London is perhaps the most notable example of a city without letters patent. (The London area, in some senses a city in itself, actully includes two cities with letters patent: the City of London and the City of Westminster).

Laurel Bush 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Certainly with Stirling, the city status application outlined proposed borders. I don't know if the letters patent referred to those. The wording proposed forgets the issue of ancient prescriptive usage, as well. Morwen - Talk 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have the wording of the Stirling application? You know who made the application? Do you know the proposed borders? Those of the royal burgh, as abolished, for local government purposes, in 1975?
My proposed wording for the article: How would you work in the sense of 'ancient presciptive usage'? Second paragaph? Dont think it is excluded by what is there at present.
Laurel Bush 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

That *almost* works as a first paragraph. Essentially, all the current cities have their city status by virtue of patents since 1974/75 except the City of London. The second paragraph could mention that the origins of the status lie in ancient prescriptive usage or earlier grants. Except Salisbury, I've just realised. That makes two cities by prescription, the others are de novo grants, albeit in most cases continuing a status previously enjoyed. Hmmm. tricky. Lozleader 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am imagining an article structured more in terms of 'classes' of city, 'local government cities with letters patent' as the largest class. (I guess there might be some overlap, some cities fitting into more than one class). Laurel Bush 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

I have now seen wording of letters patent for Inverness. They refer to the Town of Inverness, not to the royal burgh (which had ceased to exist as a local government area 25 years before the letters were drawn up in 2000). In other words, the letters patent appear to refer to nowhere in particular. Since 2000, however, the Highland Council has assumed the right to use city in reference to a council managment area, which is supposed to be represented by an area committee of elected councillors. The management area is the area of the former local government district of Inverness, created in 1975 and abolished in 1996, and management and committee area boundaries have been out of alignment since changes to ward boundaries in 1999. As a result of ward boundary changes this year, 2007, the management area and committee are being abolished in favour of a new Inverness, Nairn and Badenoch and Strathspey corporate management area. The corporate management area will include an Inverness city management area, represented by a city committee, and with boundaries quite different from those of the previous management area. Like the previous management area, however, the new management area will include a large rural area around Loch Ness, an area which was not within the royal burgh and is not usually considered part of the town of Inverness. So far as I know, nobody has tried applying for a city coat of arms. Laurel Bush 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

It seems to me that under Type of Local Government, within the article, the entry for Inverness should be None. I am seeing no correspondence between city status, as granted by letters patent, and any statutory local government area. Equally there is no correspondence between the sense of city used by the Highland Council and any statutory local government area. Laurel Bush 10:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Agree with None: that's what we have for Newry. What do we know about Stirling? Lozleader 10:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At present, I have nothing specific about Stirling, but I imagine None is also appropriate for that one. Laurel Bush 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Huh?

"In 1911 an application for city status by Portsmouth was refused. Explaining his reason for not recommending the King to approve the petition, the Lord Advocate stated... "

Why would the Lord Advocate ("the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Executive and the Crown in Scotland for both civil and criminal matters that fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament") have any roll in conferring city status upon Portsmouth? --Mais oui! 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question, the question about the city status was addressed by the member for Portsmouth to the Home Secretary, but was answered by the Lord Advocate, who prefaced his remarks with "my right honourable friend has asked me to reply to this question" He also replied to a question from another member (about Westminster Bridge station's opening hours) addressed to the Home Secretary. I assume the HS was absent and the LA was filling in for him. I will amend the text... Lozleader 21:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes

the notes are getting rather scary now, i note! Morwen - Talk 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mental! What to do, what to do? Add a column or two to the table and bung the info in there? Move the lord mayor notes to another article? Can't really call it List of Lord Mayors in England and Wales as people would be looking for the names of the individuals. List of Lord Mayoralties in England and Wales, kind of ugly....

Lozleader 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bath

Not sure about the date 1590 for Bath's status. This was the date of its charter of incorporation, but it seems to have been regarded as a city before that... The Charter Trustees believe it has been a city by prescription since 1088 [3].Lozleader 12:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I see a bot came and did a job on the footnotes, so they no longer have any numbers = useless. Might be time to incorporate this stuff in the table anyway. Lozleader 12:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted this change and left a note on the bot's operator's page.... Morwen - Talk 15:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

V good. But it does go to show how foot note heavy that table has become. I think it would be a good idea to integrate the letters patent into the (probably renamed) "Since" column. Fiddly job other things to do, but some day...Lozleader 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

University?

I thought that city status was not only 'traditionally awarded to places with a cathedral', but to PLACES WITH A UNIVERSITY? (eg Cambridge, Southampton, and quite a few more) (this unsigned comment was left at the top of the page by User:86.7.17.108 I put it here.) Lozleader 11:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Cambridge only became a city in 1951, despite having a university since 1209. Oxford is a city by virtue of a diocese being established there in 1541, nearly four centuries after the university's foundation. Other examples will illustrate that there is no particular correspendence: lots of cities have universities: but the date of creation of university and city do not tally; meanwhile lots of universities are in towns without city status. (A case in point: Reading has had a university for 80 odd years, but has not been able to claim the title.) Lozleader 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Scottish cathedrals

I don't understand your point about the Scottish Episcopal Church. So what if it is part of the Anglican Communion? It's not the national church in Scotland and so is irrelevant to the question of whether any particular place in Scotland is a city or not.GSTQ 03:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

City status outside the United Kingdom

I have removed the section on cities in the Republic of Ireland, it should not have been here. It is not in the United Kingdom and its city charters were granted by Norman Kings long before the United Kingdom came to exist. I have separately started (under See Also) a list of other city status articles outside the UK, starting with Ireland and the Netherlands as they were easy to find. However, most countries don't seem to get so excited about this issue. --Red King 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with this - I was a bit alarmed at such a large deletion without consensus beforehand, but I think you are in fact correct. Cheers, DWaterson 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal; much of the article is historical and so there is no great force to the argument that it is only the United Kingdom as presently constituted which should be included in the article. According to this argument, all city charters granted in England, Wales or Scotland before 1707, or in Northern Ireland before 1801, would be irrelevant to the article as well. The status of cities in Ireland before partition (whether located in the present-day U.K. or not) is certainly relevant to this article insofar as it has any bearing on the current situation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps this article should be renamed "in the British Isles", although that seems rather unsatisfactory to me because it ignores the political union which has influenced the city statuses of the settlements in all these countries. It also unnecessarily includes the Isle of Man &c.GSTQ 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear no, don't make matters much worse and introduce "British Isles" too. (See Talk:British Isles before you leap out of the frying pan into that fire!) You really are displaying a rather arrogant world view. The determination of city status in the Republic of Ireland is quite different to that in England. (And Scotland, as above). There is already an article about the history of Irish cities. There is no basis to repeat the same material here, and more than there is to repeat the Netherlands article. --Red King 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No cities were created in the counties that are now the Republic of Ireland between 1801 and 1922, while Ireland was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So there are no anachronism problems. --Red King 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good gracious, we needn't have a fresh conversation about the phrase 'British Isles'. It is, however, the most common term in general use for the combination of the two present-day countries of the U.K. and Rep. of Ireland. We might even better rename it "... in Britain and Ireland". I disagree with your drawing a distinction in this respect between the United Kingdom of G. B. & I. and the U.K. of G.B. and N.I. - the titled here is merely "of the United Kingdom (unspecified)". To rename it "in the U.K. of G.B. and N.I." is not only getting a bit long but also illogically specific. As for the argument that Irish cities' not belonging in this article is on the same level as Dutch cities' not belonging here, I think that is patently an exaggeration. The two (U.K. and Rep. of Ireland, that is) are countries which I believe ought to be treated together on this topic if there is to be any consistency, because most of the relevance of the topic predates the partition of Ireland by far. By saying that the Irish situation is different from the English and Scottish system is neither here nor there. Of course it is. But whilst Northern Ireland is included in this article there ought to be an inclusion of discussion about cities in the rest of Ireland, because that is relevant to the present-day situation in Northern Ireland. It would make more sense to have separate articles on "City status in England and Wales" or "City Status in Scotland" than to discuss cities in Northern Ireland without discussing them in Ireland in general. After all, the (related) systems in those countries far predate 1707 too. How about the "in Britain and Ireland" idea then? At least it would save the situation where cities in Northern Ireland are overlapping two separate articles, as they are at present.GSTQ 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree here. The article is (and should be) about the situation in the present-day United Kingdom, and the historical developments that created the situation in the present-day UK. The Republic of Ireland is no longer in the UK, and there is therefore no reason to include the information here just because the RoI used to be a part of the UK - especially when it can be conveniently split off from what is already an extremely long article. There is no need to rename the article "...in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" because the term "UK" is not "unspecified", it is very clearly specified in the definition on the United Kingdom article, of which this article should use the same. DWaterson 09:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a nice and simple compromise? A little stub section with a sentence or two for cities currently in the Republic of Ireland, with a link to the relevant Irish page? Fingerpuppet 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me, though a link under 'See also' is probably sufficient in reality. DWaterson 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Fingerpuppet's compromise suggestion what we had already & what was being objected to? I accept DWaterson's comments about the meaning of the "UK", but he doesn't address the question of calling the page "Britain and Ireland". If we accept the compromise suggestion then we still have two articles duplicating the same material (about all Ireland). If we keep things as they are presently then we have two articles duplicating the same material (about Northern Ireland only). And if we try to deal with the two islands separately then Northern Ireland gets left out of the general consideration of the U.K. and that relevant material needs to be duplicated in the Ireland article (for instance Golden Jubilee cities). I really think "Britain and Ireland" are best dealt with in one article.GSTQ 03:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To follow that logic, the article should equally be called "City status in the European Union". That arbitrary line has has much validity as yours - indeed rather more, more since at least both states are members of the EU, whereas the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist over 75 years ago. The hustorical designation of chartered cities in Ireland was on an entirely different basis to any concurrent designation in England, and any future designation (see Sligo) would be even more different. --Red King 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I say, why have cities in Northern Ireland overlapping two articles? The suggestion about the E.U. is a furphy: the discussion of city status in Ireland pre-dates partition, let alone the E.U.GSTQ 02:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why has this discussion stopped? Should I go ahead and remove Northern Irish cities from Cities in Ireland and rename it to 'Cities in the Republic of...' then? Because I'd assume that was what the consensus was from Red King's focus on present political situations. I think it's really unsatisfactory having material duplicated in two separate articles because whatever is edited in one will have to be edited in the other. That is the main reason why I would object to Fingerpuppet's & DWaterson's proposal of a stub section on cities in all Ireland and a link to Cities in Ireland. Two articles on 'U.K.' and 'R.o.I.' would be the logical alternative to my suggestion of one on 'Britain and Ireland'. Any more contributions from anyone else?GSTQ 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My point was that cities in Ireland came about through an entirely different process than those in England and Wales. Another editor says that the position in Scotland is also different. You are trying to shoe-horn everything into an English model. It would be more realistic to MOVE this article to "City status in England and Wales", because in reality that is what it is mostly about. --Red King 20:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ick, even if that were done, it would give someone a hell of a lot of work repairing double redirects - this is a *very* heavily wikilinked article. It would also be controversial, so a Requested Move would be quite necessary to gain more consensus than there is on this talk page. Personally, I still think that "in the UK" is correct, because the UK is the current legal entity - the question of historical derivation is a bit of a red herring here. I support the moving of the Eireann cities to the Ireland article with a "main article" link back, and I see no problem doing the same on the Cities in Ireland article (which already has a "main article" link back to this page). After all, there is no harm as such in the same information being slightly overlapping and duplicated if that's more convenient - articles on the UK and Eire don't necessarily need to follow precisely the same organisational conventions. I note that User:Frelke on Talk:Cities in Ireland also seems to favour limited duplication between the articles. Cheers, DWaterson 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What I've been doing here is reversing the tables, exposing to UK editors how it feels when your perspective is reduced to a bit part in someone else's world view. I'm not really serious about any of these MOVE ideas, just pointing out that the world doesn't revolve around England. --Red King 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I kind of dislike the idea of a stub section on cities in the Republic in this article if there's not going to be any discussion in the article of those cities. Otherwise it would look like a gratuitous inclusion of the kind Red King is opposed to (Netherlands &c.).GSTQ 23:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Royal charters are a type of letters patent

This article says city status is granted by letters patent, not royal charter. Now that may be true (I haven't gone through looking at every single one myself), but given that royal charters are a type of letters patent then the sentence should be phrased a little differently shouldn't it? Such as: "granted by letters patent, but not by royal charter" or something like that? Has anyone got any suggestions?GSTQ 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Help! - List of largest cities in England by population

A new page has been added List of largest cities in England by population by a frequent contibutor to the Manchester page with some rather dubious population figures for cities that do not even hold city status!!! I have done my best to make NPOV, however I am rather new to Wikipedia, so if anyone with a little more experience could assist with the debate it would be greatly appreciated! Many thanks 79.73.183.95 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A similar discussion involving the same contributor is occurring at Talk:List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population where the contributor concerned is arguing that the only definition of a city/town or settlement is that given on the page listed above, and that those 56 city-regions are the only cities that exist within England, due to the use of the word "city" to mean ill-defined Primary Urban Areas within certain documents available within the Department for Communities and Local Government. The contributor concerned has unilaterally acted despite being the only user that has commented so far to hold that position. Fingerpuppet 23:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that is being made, which effectively states that there are no clear definitions of what are cities is just plainly false. As I have mentioned on the other talk pages, the Department of Constitutional Affairs webpage provides an enumerative definition by simply listing them all. Since the changes that are being unilaterally made seem to rest upon the notion that there is no clear definition of a city in the UK, it would seem that the entire argument therefore collapses.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, to quote from the FAQ document on the Department for Communities and Local Government website.

As such the 56 PUAs were always intended purely as an analytical device for the State of the Cities Report (SOCR)

Therefore their use in any other situation is invalid. Fingerpuppet 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I've commented on the talk page for that article. DWaterson 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

University?

Does gaining city status have nothing to do with having a university? AJUK ^Talk!! 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Otherwise there would be a University of St David's... :) DWaterson 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no because St Davids has a cathedral, I thought that to be a city you had to have one or the otheror possibly both, after reading this I now think the word City must be of poor definition? AJUK ^Talk!! 00:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(I think the "St Davids" remark was meant as a joke.) I don't know where you got the idea from, but having a university is nothing to do with the formal criteria at all. The definition of "city" should be quite clear from the article: to be a city you have to have letters patent or a Royal Charter, both of which are issued by the monarch.

In the modern era, where city status is granted to the winner of a competition, I could see that having a university would be a selling point (for instance, it would strengthen the case of Reading, in my opinion anyway), but it is certainly not a formal requirement. --RFBailey (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I know you have to have a letters patent or a Royal Charter, but I still think it is a word or poor definition because, whats the set criteria to get that? If its not a University or a cathedral then is it a population over X amount? Well St David would fail that now straight away. AJUK ^Talk!! 00:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no set criteria for getting letters patent or a Royal Charter. The end. (This is explained in the article!) --RFBailey (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)