Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 20

Updating Northamptonshire articles

On 1 April this year, the local government of Northamptonshire will undergo a complete change, as the existing districts and county council will be abolished and replaced by two new unitary authorities of West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire, this will mean that likely hundreds of articles on Northamptonshire related subjects will need to be updated to reflect the changes, which will obviously be a big task. I'm willing to help but I can't do it all alone. You can get an idea of how much needs to be done by looking at Category:Populated places in Northamptonshire Is anyone here willing to join a taskforce to update all the Northants related articles come April? I've left a note about this at the Northamptonshire wikiproject talk page but have had no responses. G-13114 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I will happily do some of them, I think the Northants wikiproject discussion is pretty dead. Most of the county wikiprojects are dead honestly. Looks like no one's even replied to anything on the Northants project talk page since 2017... On a semi-related note, one of the ones that needs updating is this article List of settlements in Northamptonshire by population which I created 10 years ago, its really awful. Eopsid (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Good luck with doing that. I suggest you read your sources properly and are careful not to insert lots of OR into articles such as in the first sentence in West Northamptonshire, which I have just changed. It is mind boggling just how windspread this practice is within this encyclopedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd help a bit though I probably won't do anything until the new districts/parishes show up in the OS linked data or on Mapit though I don't object to updates being made after 1 April so please don't jump the gun, we've still got over 4 days left. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking mainly of updating the infoboxes with the new local government information, and replacing any instances where the old district is mentioned, and referring to the old districts in the past tense. We'll also have to amend the existing district articles to refer to them in the past tense, but that won't take too long. I wasn't going to do anything until after it had happened. G-13114 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, come to think of it Northampton will need a new infobox, as from next Thursday it will no longer be a district. So the district infobox will need replacing with an ordinary settlement one. G-13114 (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Well we could chose a certain part of the alphabet from the Populated places category to update.

Well I split of Corby to Borough of Corby so we could also split to Borough of Northampton though the boundaries of the town and district are similar, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 19#Article for both Borough and town? however given the borough is going to be abolished it might be OK to have a separate article for it since there is less risk of content forking. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger, I don't see what was ORy about that West Northamptonshire change you made. You just changed the word forming to covering? Eopsid (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a fundemental difference between what the words mean - to form part of something, and, to cover over something, are distinctly not the same. This new council, and the area it has authority over, is not the same thing as the ceremonial county of Northants, so saying it 'forms part of' the ceremonial county is factually wrong, whereas saying 'the council's area of authority covers part of the area of the ceremonial county' is correct. Incidentally, this is not just my opinion, the source used says 'covers', not 'forms'. Whoever added the sentence was therefore changing the source detail to something else, ie inserting OR! This topic is far from trivial nit-picking because it illustrates the casual approach taken by so many authors to an already messy topic, which only makes the topic more messy. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The way the lieutenancy areas are currently constituted is as a combination of local government areas. They do not exist independently. Therefore it is formed from a combination of the areas of West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire. Suggesting the unitary authority area merely covers the lieutenancy area imbues the latter with a sense of permanence that it does not deserve. West Northamptonshire covers part of the historic county of Northampton, but it forms part of the lieutenancy area, as per the 1997 Act. Owain (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• We well also need to decide what to do with the categories like Category:East Northamptonshire District and Category:Borough of Kettering. I suppose that all the content other than the elections should be moved to the new district categories apart from the elections which refer specifically to East Northamptonshire. See also discussion at Talk:Grade I listed buildings in Suffolk Coastal#Possible Merger?.
• On a related with respect to existing district categories I think we need to look at generally prohibiting sub division at district level. For example IMO rather than having Category:Villages in Mendip District all villages etc should be included in a county level category namely Category:Villages in Somerset and then those in Mendip can also go in Category:Mendip District but we shouldn't be creating X in District categories since most readers are unlikely to know the district a place is in but are likely to know the county. I'd make several exceptions though (1) obviously those like Herefordshire that are counties as well, (2) articles specifically about the district/council like elections categories and on Commons things like maps of the district, (3) London boroughs since it would likely be unwieldy to only have London and people are more likely than other districts to know the London borough, (4) for districts that are also settlements (or some other highly recognizable entity) such as Category:Southampton since readers are likely to know the city even if some that we have a single category for include a small amount of rural land and (5) people from categories since they don't normally belong in a topic category and would overload at county level. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  OK Mapit has updated[1][2] though the OS hasn't yet, some of the article have been updated and I've put the old districts and their categories in the new districts though we might need to see if we largely empty the old district's categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just gone and updated all the civil parishes beginning with A and B in the Civil parishes in Northamptonshire category to mention the new districts. Looks like most of the towns are already done, I did the ones that weren't. Also moved two articles. Looks like User talk:Johnjoseph had already done quite a few. Eopsid (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

C-Q now done Eopsid (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've not been able to come online as much as I'd like recently, but I have been doing some Northants related work. Thanks for the hard work. G-13114 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Only letters left are T and W. Eopsid (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think thats all the villages and hamlets now done. I havent done anything with the categories. Eopsid (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Back in 2019 when the new districts were created it took around 2 months for the OS to update which hasn't been done yet as Corby still exists and North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire do not show up in search and also note the the BBC's coronavirus map still shows the old districts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hill Ridware

This article only has one source and that is a housing development for a village. It needs updating or I'd merge it into the village it's part of. Surely a housing site isn't reliable for a likely 1000 year old village? RailwayJG (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I felt this so urgent that instead of sleeping, I've searched for several seconds, and then spent a few minutes expanding the article. It now has just enough reliable sources, so problem solved. Obviously there will be many more articles in similar condition, and as it would be unreasonable to expect me to fix them for you, I hope my example will help you understand what to do in the future. TiB chat 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge or deletion of the Sheffield Urban Area and West Yorkshire Urban Area

This article is definitely not very notable as if includes already existing boroughs and cities in the wider West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire articles. Aside from the off missing village or town. What is not included? These articles cover the same areas as their counties and Hull doesn't have one for its urban area with hessle? These articles could easily be placed in their county articles. Sheffield could pass given it also covers parts of North East Derbyshire and Bassetlaw but that's it. West Yorkshire doesn't it is all the boroughs which could be covered in the West Yorkshire Article. RailwayJG (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Sheffield Urban Area and West Yorkshire Urban Area. RailwayJG (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sheffield seems to contain a number of significant places such as Rotherham so maybe should be kept. WY BUA isn't named after a settlement so should probably be kept and is quite distinct to West Yorkshire the county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree the urban area has all five boroughs and they are by governed standards already one conurbation. Its a bit like the West Midlands county. One article and no urban area. And Central Lancashire. Multiple boroughs as a distinct new town. RailwayJG (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Both the West Midlands and West Yorkshire county/urban areas are distinct things. The county contains more than just the conurbation. I'm not sure what you mean by one article and no urban area for the West Midlands. West Midlands conurbation does exist. West Yorkshire the county includes quite a few towns like Castleford, Pontefract, Hemsworth and Todmorden which lie outside the urban area. The Sheffield Urban Area is even more distinct from South Yorkshire than The West Yorkshire Urban Area is from the county. Eopsid (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

So why is there a Leeds City Region article? It appears there's almost three different urban areas. The West Yorkshire Article. West Yorkshire Urban area and a so called city region article RailwayJG (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

And yet there's only one urban area for Greater Manchester? RailwayJG (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignore last response saw Manchester City Region RailwayJG (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont particularly like the Leeds City Region article but it does cover a different area than West Yorkshire, it includes Harrogate for example Eopsid (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't city region articles be merged into the wider city or countys as they seem to be confusing. Its like the Greater Manchester article. Greater Manchester Urban Area. Greater Manchester City Region and Manchester-Liverpool Metropolis articles. There are too many repeating already established facts. RailwayJG (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merger_of_the_urban_area. Hope on here and debate it...I think it should be merged but I will let like everyone has me. Contribute to the discussion. RailwayJG (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Usually we follow the steps here Wikipedia:Merging rather than creating it at article for deletion when proposing a merge. And the discussion would be on the West Yorkshire page Eopsid (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we have too many articles on urban areas, city regions and what nots. But thats because local government in England is a mess and Wikipedia has to reflect that instead of putting things in neat categories. Eopsid (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've put proper merge tags on it and created a discussion at Talk:West Yorkshire#Urban Area Merge proposal now. I've copied your argument from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merger of the urban area there Eopsid (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Little Aston

Seems an anon thinks the personal opinion of someone with no source is reliable. It quotes "People who live in Little Aston identify stronger with Sutton Coldfield then with Lichfield". There is no official source or poll to suggest this and the anon seems to be trolling. Maybe page protection should be added?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Aston RailwayJG (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I revised it using official sources, hopefully that will help. --Pontificalibus 15:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Unless the anon decides that it doesn't work for them. But then again keep tabs on it RailwayJG (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Little Aston is really a pretty poor article, with vast amounts of unsourced content with the occasional inline external link, and statements like "At the last UK census there were 935 homes in the village, well over 10% of which were multimillion-pound properties,<ref>HM Government UK Census - 1991 Public Data</ref>". "Last"? And when did any census value the properties? I've added a 2011 census figure. PamD 23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree RailwayJG (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

City region Vs urban areas

I've had a lot of debates about these as many know but I want to call into question. Urban areas and city regions. If one county has an urban area like Manchester with Greater Manchester and Manchester built-up area. What purpose does Manchester City Region serve? Couldn't this be mentioned in the built up area or Greater Manchester article. Another is the Leeds City Region. It again covers West Yorkshire like the built up area does and county. With exception to Barnsley York Craven and Selby. It could stand on its own but would it be better in the West Yorkshire Article or Leeds article? RailwayJG (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

UK city regions are distinct entities from built-up areas and counties. They're also notable. Therefore, separate articles for each to avoid confusion. Rcsprinter123 (chat) 12:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Per Rc. A City Region is a legal creation, a partnership of contiguous local authorities - usually to share some element of governance (transport, education, trade, tourism etc). For me it isn't a geographical "region" to be used in articles the same way we might use urban area. Koncorde (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That's understandable it's not a should it be deleted or merged discussion of course. I'm just interested to see what city regions serve as opposed to built up areas and why they are separated. RailwayJG (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggest mergers

Could I make a suggestion for a merger on the following articles:

Coventry/Bedworth Urban Area Mansfield Urban Area Luton/Dunstable Urban Area

Are these in strong enough stead to warrant their own articles? RailwayJG (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It Depends whether we can find extra sources for them. I think https://archive.org/details/conurbationsofgr0000free mentions all three. The Luton one gets mentioned quite a bit in a lot of sources that refer to the Luton to Dunstable Busway, like this (https://www.luton.gov.uk/Transport_and_streets/Lists/LutonDocuments/PDF/Engineering%20and%20Transportation/busway/Full%20approval%20business%20case/Full%20Approval%20MSBC.pdf) for example. I didnt do that thorough a search for Mansfield but this (https://www.mansfield.gov.uk/downloads/file/429/mdlp-chapter-12-central-areas) mentions it. From a quick google books search for Coventry conurbation I could also see sources we could use there. These articles could definitely use work but I think there are enough sources for them to exist. Although one of the main problems is that sources use different names for the conurbation. Eopsid (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: From the content of the articles, all three span multiple local government districts which appears to be the consensus view of acceptability from the recent discussion. As Eopsid says it is just a question of adding a couple of independent sources. I already used 'The conurbations of Great Britain' in Burnley Built-up area, so it is just a case of copying the reference and changing the page number(s). Please give it a try.TiB chat 17:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay fair enough wanted to ask if these articles were reliable RailwayJG (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Farnborough/Aldershot Built-up Area

I have noticed this article lacks any real clarity. And has only ONS data, an article to a health assessment by a council and a conurbations link to Manchester. Now I get the area crosses three counties but I have never heard the area being called an urban area. It is a bit like Hinckley, Nuneaton and Burbage. They are neighbouring each other but no official BUA. Another is the West Midlands County. Areas of Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire border the wider conurbation but are not considered part of them. And the area only covers five towns which could be covered in each article. I would suggest either deletion or a merger with Farnborough which is the largest town in the so called urban area.RailwayJG (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The article has multiple sources and is an official BUA, why don't you think it is one? I dont think you never having heard of it being an urban area is an excuse for deletion. Eopsid (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

To be fair Eopsid there are other articles I have made which crossed other districts which used BUA ONS Data but have been merged or deleted. IE Lincoln Urban Area, Chesterfield Urban Area and Tamworth Built up area. But this urban area lacks any real clarity other then a link from Manchester. A health update and two ONS data's. RailwayJG (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by a link from Manchester? All those ones you made were mostly in one district, with only small parts outside. The Aldershot one differs because less than 50% of it is one district. Eopsid (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

But I do agree that some of the old existing urban area articles probably could do with being merged. I may go through some later this week adding more sources or putting merge notices on them if I can't find any. Eopsid (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Balsall Common status?

Is Balsall Common in Solihull...a village or a town. Some info says village and some people assume town...??? RailwayJG (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Balsall Common RailwayJG (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Does it have a town council? Does the sign when you enter it say town or village? What sources call it a town? Eopsid (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Its not a town, I cannot find any mention of it being one though some maps don't show plain "Balsall". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom

Just looking at this article List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom that was recently (2 years ago) renamed to ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom. Does anyone oppose me moving it back to the previous name and adding columns to the grid to make the article more like List of metropolitan areas in Europe where we quote multiple sources for population figures. I was going to use the same sources as that article. Eopsid (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the original title makes more sense to those of us who didn't have a clue what ESPON meant before now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Judging by the history on the talk page, someone didn't like what the data said because it undercounted Milton Keynes, so renamed the article and put a warning on the top. Eopsid (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The someone was me, but not because it confused BUAs and BUSAs (see above). The reason was that it was an output from a specific project that tried to deliver a consistent result across all European cities but their methods were unclear and inconsistent with the ONS top-level figures (even though it was very roughly based on the 2001 census). So the prefix ESPON was added make clear the contents of the tin because visitors kept trying to 'correct' it with later data (2011 census, subsequent ONS and Council estimates etc). Koncorde may be able to explain better. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So if you did want a list of metropolitan areas, you would be far better off to ignore the ESPON list and start again. But I don't know what wp:RS you would use other than the ONS's 2011 census BUAs, which some of our fellow editors would like to deprecate. And of course we may find that the ONS has changed its logic again when it publishes the 2021 census. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

BUAs and Metropolitan areas are different measures, see: Urban Area, Metropolitan Area. Source wise I was thinking of using the ones in List of metropolitan areas in Europe and following the same structure there with multiple sources but more UK focused. That article does use the EPSON source as one of its sources. Eopsid (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do know that they are different and that it is difficult to get a reliable definition of a MA. (Q: Are Liverpool and Manchester in the same metropolitan area? A: It depends.) The ESPON project is nearly 20 years old, how is it still useful for anything other than historic populations? and even then it is pretty useless because it can't be compared with anything given that nothing else in the UK is computed on the same basis. But let's wait for Koncorde to advise because they have been monitoring this stuff for quite a while and can take the long view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

:Per comments by JMF. The issue is the source material for this article is the ESPON study which is 20 years old and there has been no subsequent update. The original page name was, basically, wrong in the first place and a form of Original Research (but that is by-the-by).

The issue now is that any facts and figures used are dependent upon the source in question either conforming to the original studies MUA/FUA, or updating the MUA/FUA, and providing corresponding population figures - otherwise we are not comparing/updating the same thing - and as the population values for many of the ESPON regions do not remotely correlate aith our own ONS criteria this is a definite issue.

Such manual updating or creating of our own list of MUA or FUA based on any other criteria is OR/SYNTH which is why there has been reversion when people try to update their own figures from whichever source best suits their feelings. As such the solution was to box this article off.

I would suggest if we want to create a "Metropolitan Areas" article we first identify what specific official source we are using, so that whenever it is required we can update it while ensuring the underlying methodology is paired with something relevant, repeatable and consistently easy to reference. Koncorde (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

So the multi-source approach of List of metropolitan areas in Europe where each column is a different source should be avoided? Eopsid (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the multi-source is unavoidable for international lists (particularly when conflicting versions of such lists are made using different metrics), and if we were to do a multi-columned list of the different ways a Met Area is calculated for UK we're then running into issues of which one is the authoritative version for the infoboxes, and by what criteria.

So, yeah, I would think the best thing to do is identify which is the source we are best using for each article on wikipedia as that is where it will trickle down to, with subsequent dick waving competitions. Koncorde (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Swinton, Greater Manchester

Some editor removed the box...i don't know how to readd it.RailwayJG (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: I've reverted the changes, see Help:Reverting, if you click on the version before the problematic edits and click edit you can restore when there are multiple bad edits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: thank you and will do. RailwayJG (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also someone might want to have a look at if Co-op Academy Swinton has been vandalized since the IP appeared to remove vandalism a few weeks ago. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

New articles on built-up areas

I've noticed that @RailwayJG: has created a number of new articles on built-up areas as defined for Nomis (ONS). Are these articles really necessary and helpful for readers? I suspect that, in many if not all cases, they are not - they will merely lead to confusion and misinformation, and if references to BUAs are needed they would be better as redirects. I started this discussion at Talk:Birkenhead Built-up area, but if others think it would be best to centralise the discussion here, I'd be happy with that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Well how else can you identify built up areas. If you look at them they are those with 40k plus and Birkenhead isn't part of the Liverpool Urban Area. It is a sperate area like the Tamworth urban area goes into Lichfield District which Tamworth isn't part of and the Rhyl and Prestatyn area. They are just articles I don't see your confusion and misinformation concerns. They are from a reliable site and can have their own articles. RailwayJG (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a variation of the Borough/Town discussion above. There is a danger of ending up with three different articles all saying more or less the same thing about a given area. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But I've now revised the Birkenhead Built-up area stub so that, at least, it now has fewer inaccuracies than the original version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a consensus here that all the BUAs listed at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom, as defined by ONS in NOMIS, should have their own, discrete, articles? If that is the consensus, so be it, but at present they do not. I will abide by any consensus, but those writing the articles should please explain what areas the articles cover, and make sure that they contain accurate, not inaccurate, information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Three articles. One. The town. Two. The metropolitan borough or district. Three if it exists a built up area or urban area. Simple. There are more articles for Manchester then there are for Birkenhead Wirral. IE. One. City of Manchester. Two. Greater Manchester. Three. Lancashire mentions Manchester. Four. Manchester built up area. Five. Major cities in UK. So almost five articles with manchester and only three for Wirral and Birkenhead? RailwayJG (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Must confess I can't work out what there is in the BUA artice that isn't, or couldn't be, covered in Metropolitan Borough of Wirral . Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Ellesmere Port, basically. But it could easily be covered at Wirral peninsula. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree but given Wigan is separate from the main Manchester urban area. I can see why it has its own. The bua articles are just that. Areas that are in or around a settlement. IE. Teesside is around Middlesbrough and Redcar in North Yorkshire but also covers Stockton-on-Tees and Hartlepool which are in County Durham. So they are two separate counties in one bua. Another is Leeds. There are apparently five articles for Leeds. Leeds city article. Leeds and Bradford article. Leeds City Region article. West Yorkshire Built Up Area. And there are three cities and five boroughs. and another for Kirklees and Wakefield referred to as the Wollen District which covers my hometown of Batley and Dewsbury Ossett Cleckheaton and these go over two boroughs. RailwayJG (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

But that is, essentially, in need of correction. We should not perpetuate bad practice - we should reduce and minimise it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a little correction but Hartlepool is techincally not in Teesside (but only just not). Eopsid (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Bad practice? Your accusing me of something? RailwayJG (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like im being attacked for contributions I made to the wiki is that the reason I have been called out on here? RailwayJG (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

No need to be petulant, you were not being attacked, we were merely discussing the rationale behind the concept of BUA articles in addition to all the existing articles covering the areas in question. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It sounded like I was I am disabled so sorry if I misinterpreted. RailwayJG (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you did but don't worry about it. The problem is that British, and especially English, local government and area definitions is a horrible mish-mash and trying to make sense of it for wikipedia aricles is something of a nightmare, see the discussion above about boroughs and towns, which is more or less the smae problem. Basically there is no simple answer and what might be right for one area is not applicable to others. I am not convinced that the specific example of Birkenhead really requires a seperate article for the BUA but can see there are other conurbations where it could be more appropriate. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Built-up areas (aka Urban areas) are the only honest reflection of modern settlements as seen by a distant observer. If you look at the editing history of the Cardiff article, for example, there are constant tugs-o-war between the oh-yes-it-is (part of Cardiff) versus oh-no-it-isn't. There are many editors who cling to (a) the local authority area, which can give a completely misleading impression. [See, for example Cambridge which is significantly bigger than the area controlled by Cambridge City Council] (b) the 1974 boundaries that are wildly out of date [or even, in the case of Milton Keynes, the 1967 New Towns Act designation]. IMO, if we have to throw babies out with the bath water, then the the BUA is the only one of the three that must be kept. The 1974 definition (usually, but not always, a Built-up Sub Area) is of idle curiosity value: at best it merits no more than a sub-section of the overall Urban area article. The political control of the main part of the settlement, party representation, election history needs keeping but please, not in the main town/city article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The statement that "Built-up areas (aka Urban areas) are the only honest reflection of modern settlements as seen by a distant observer" is only (at best) partially true - or, true to a partially sighted observer. The fact that many built-up areas adjoin other built-up areas, with no open gaps, does not mean that people in one part feel part of the same area as people in another part - ties to communities, to business and shopping centres, and in some cases to historic local government boundaries, also carry weight and need to be taken into consideration in determining where one area (and hence article topic) starts and another ends. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Except for the larger ones that we already had articles for and those that are named after multiple settlements (or not named after a settlement) shouldn't these in general just be covered in the settlement's article? Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area is probably OK to stay as is Liverpool Urban Area but Grimsby built-up area surely could just be covered in the Grimsby article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The Grimsby urban area is probably best covered in the North East Lincolnshire article, it's a multi-centred conurbation and so much so that the local council can't even agree to name the district after it's largest and most well known town... Eopsid (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think whether we should have an article for the urban area should be dependent on how multi centred it is (i.e. are large parts of it in different districts) or its size. I think the Birkenhead one was the largest without its own article. Also looks like I created the Birkenhead Urban Area article, which does just redirect to the main Birkenhead article just under 9 years ago. I think most of the new ones are fine, but a few could just be merged into the main article for the town the urban area is named after. Eopsid (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose Macclesfield Built-up area is a good example of one that doesn't need a separate article since it can easily be covered in the town's article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, I can't work out if Built should be Built or built. I would think it would be odd to capitalise it. I'd rather combine the articles with the locality wherever possible, although there may be a handful of exceptions which require separate articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

One example I can see as being able to be kept is the Tamworth Built Up Area as it does include Fazeley which is not in its district but Lichfield's. And another I think could be merged into Kirklees and Wakefield is the Heavy Woollen District article as it is mostly in Kirklees with the exception of Ossett which is in Wakefield. But it is a conurbation and is not on any BUA Maps. And the articles for Burnley and Rossendale/Accrington are able to be covered as they go into the boroughs of both Burnley and Pendle. And Rossendale and Hyndburn. Birkenhead crosses into the Cheshire county with Ellesmere Port and Wirral. Harrogate Built-up area I would be fine with being merged into the borough of Harrogate article as it only covers the borough and two towns. And the Leamington Spa BUA article. Into the Warwick article. I think if it crosses into other authorities like the Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area and Cardiff-Newport metropolitan area. These should be kept as the urban area extends into other boroughs or counties.RailwayJG (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I presume that you will stick to the ONS definitions of which BUA is which and what their boundaries are. That is the only neutral RS we've got. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In principle I agree with RailwayJG's approach even though I can also see the problem of many articles saying something similar. Although it is common practice here to mix up different entities into the same article, especially if they share a name (eg, Happyville is a town and parish in...), it is still not quite correct to do that. It might save time in the short run, and ostensibly avoids confusion, but in the long run it does precisely the opposite. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if a reasonable criterion fto have a separate "X urban area" (aka "X built-up area") article might be that it must contain multiple Built-up Sub-Areas? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Built-up areas, I believe, may extend beyond LA boundaries without containing "sub-areas" (and we as editors should not seek to define them, per WP:NOR). What is needed, above all, is clarity for the reader. If a reader wants information about, say, Birkenhead, they will go to that article. Any other definitions of a wider built-up area are subsidiary - and should not be mentioned in the lead where they could be confusing. They should be flagged up at the top of the article in a WP:HATNOTE - such as {{for|the wider NOMIS definition|Birkenhead Built-up area}} - and explained in the detail of the article text, as a relatively minor technical clarification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Many places have multiple definitions and we manage the way many other encyclopedias do and have them all in 1 article. With Birkenhead both the BUA and BUASD can probably be included in that article without problems. Namely you write "In 2011 the population of Birkenhead its self was 142,968 while the wider built up area had 325,264." The 1st may need clarify that its for the BUASD though since some may not be happy with that being a definition of the town its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure who "you" is - not me! The point of confusion is that the 325,264 figure covers an area most of which is certainly not Birkenhead in any real world sense. It is an area defined as a statistical construct, and given the name of its largest town. So, that figure should not be contained prominently in the Birkenhead article - it should be mentioned and explained, but only in passing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"You" is the person writing the article. Birkenhead BUA could be included in a section in the Birkenhead article though I agree it covers a far larger area than what would be though and its larger so a separate article may be appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree stongly with Ghmyrlte and obviously disagree strongly with C,S. Of course it depends on the size of the settlement. If a place has less than 10,000 population, C,S is certainly correct; they are most probably still correct at 100,000. But at 200,000 up the balance changes and GHM is correct: bigger settlements are polycentric and and it is being disingenuous to pretend otherwise. One size doesn't fit all: what is appropriate for Greater Alpha is not appropriate for Zeta-under-the-hill. And conversely. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer is not to have a separate article for each facet but create new categories, eg Category: :Birkenhead built up area; which each relevant article could link to. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Should the consensus be that at least some BUAs should have articles, what would a good one contain? Regardless of the decision, some of the examples will certainly get merged without expansion. It seems that comparing them to the urban areas of previous censuses is not simple, does anyone know if the definition will remain in the imminent one? Are we going to be able to find many in-depth sources specifically talking about the BUA for them to really be considered notable? Also a reminder that {{NOMIS2011}} is quite useful wherever you write about this stuff. Keep an eye out for the 2021 version.TiB chat 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Just going through the new articles in the Urban areas of England category these are my thoughts on whether they should be merged.

Urban Area	Merge or not	Reason
Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area	Keep	Multi-centred
Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area	Weak Keep	It is multi-centred but its quite small
Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area	Keep	Multi-Centred, the older Dearne Valley article used to halfheartedly cover this urban area
Birkenhead Built-up area	Weak Keep	It is the largest UK urban area without an article, but its mostly covered by the articles on the Wirral, and the only part that is in a different district isn't a "strong part" of the built-up area. Its a bit of an odd one because the urban area is really just a smaller part of the larger Liverpool metropolitan area rather than a truly independent urban area. But there arent really any reliable sources for that. I also think the problem with this one is that it has a misleading name because these urban areas are just named automatically by a computer, West Wirral Urban area would make more sense but I just made that up and its obviously not in any sources.
Burnley Built-up area	Keep	Multi-centred crosses multiple districts
Chesterfield Urban Area	Merge	Only small parts lie outside the Chesterfield district so can be covered there.
Grimsby built-up area	Weak Keep	Multi-centred but could covered in North East Lincolnshire article
Harrogate Built-up area	Weak Merge	Almost multi-centred with Knaresborough but all in Harrogate district and not that big.
Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area	Keep	Multi-centred, three parts of roughly equal size.
Lincoln Urban Area	Merge	Only small parts outside Lincoln district
Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area	Keep	Multi-centred with Warwick
Tamworth Built-up area	Merge	Only small parts outside Tamworth district
Telford urban area	Merge	Only small parts outside telford district

There are some older ones too I think would be better off merged like Derby Built-up Area, Nuneaton Urban Area and Cannock Built-up Area. Eopsid (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Plus Bristol has two articles, which i've already put merge proposals on. Eopsid (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Think you mean East Wirral, not West Wirral! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right, i think my brain just liked the alliteration. Eopsid (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Late coming; after so many years of this project we could probably do with a real rationalisation exercise for those of us still active, as the pyramid / russian nesting dolls of different metrics are messy. I could weigh in on this subject in particular but I think a broader discussion should be had on what can, can't, shouldn't, and must'nt be conflated. Koncorde (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area doesn't pass WP:NOTE, while it appears a first glance that three different sources have been used, they are just three different places publishing ONS data. I also struggle to imagine who would be interested to read it locally, let alone on a global scale.TiB chat 20:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as things go I'd say that ONS is a third partly source for stating population figures in general but its arguably a primary source for the terms BUS/BUASD. While I think Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area is OK for an article its less clear if we need separate articles on the ONS's definition of a place if it already has a general article of the same name. There was an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population where this point was discussed. Lists of BUAs are probably OK even if they only come from 1 source but I'm less sure if we need individual articles on the BUAs from their settlements. Consider for example Woodbury Salterton uses the BUA statistics to give the population of it but we probably wouldn't need Woodbury Salterton Built-up area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Would agree with the two comments above. As a unit of reference they are a "thing". As something used in common parlance, or that people write about, the BUA (and similar such things) are somewhat lacking and already conflated. Koncorde (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the remarks about the BUA term, but the term "urban area" is widely used nationally and internationally. I suspect that the ONS got push back for using it (correctly, IMO) for villages and small towns ("we are rural, not urban! How very dare you!!") in the 2001 census, so they replaced it with the technically correct but decidedly uncatchy BUA. Thus we end up metro-scale localities and smaller towns having ONS BUAs. The former is useful, not least because it avoids edit wars and not only on WP; the latter is not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If they don't pass the notability criteria. I would support deleting them, I've tried before about 7.5 years ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannock Built-up Area but no one supported the deletion. I think most of the articles we have on urban areas even the older ones will struggle to pass WP:NOTE and anything you do find might talk about something similar but with a different name or definition. Eopsid (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been searching for a few hours for additional sources (specifically for Burnley). 'Built-up area' seems not to be in wide use at the moment. 'Urban area' is in such wide use, I found it very difficult to find anything about this particular area. 'Conurbation' seems to have been the common term in the post-war years, and I found this The conurbations of Great Britain (1966). It looks it be widely useful for these articles. An appropriate OS map would also be an obvious additional source. That should deal with the notability problem as far as I can see.TiB chat 17:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to that, was an interesting read. Would make a good source, which I may add to these articles. Eopsid (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and stuck merger proposals on the new built-up area articles for Tamworth, Staffordshire, Lincoln, England, Telford and Chesterfield, Derbyshire. I've also merged the two Bristol ones, Greater Bristol and Bristol Built-up Area. Eopsid (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've just PRODed and merged a couple of these without being aware of this discussion. I think Sometown Built-up area articles should be deleted or merged to Sometown for failing WP:GEOLAND except where multiple third-party i.e. non-local-authority sources discuss the distinct area in detail beyond simply repeating ONS stats. Built-up areas with multiple towns etc might be more complex to address, but simple deletion is an option if the only sourcing is ONS stats.--Pontificalibus 11:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I would support merging some of the smaller ones. I changed your Derby prod to a merge proposal. I put a merge proposal on a load before, no one opposed the mergers, but I just havent got round to merging them yet. Also the names can sometimes be confusing Sometown Built-up area might be named for Sometown but it might have multiple centres like the Grimsby one you just merged and another example is the Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area. Would these be better to merge into the district article, if the district contains the whole area? Eopsid (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area is notable at all. I think it's quite idiosyncratic of ONS to name the area after Leamington, and not something anyone else has followed. The fact that Warwick and Leamington Spa adjoin each other is already mentioned in both articles, so I think the best solution here is to delete. There's nothing to stop us from mentioning ONS's "Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area" in both articles if it's warranted, without a redirect from that title, but I don't think it is warranted.----Pontificalibus 12:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if they were all actually vaguely continuous built up areas. Woodbridge falls within the Ipswich Built-up area. When the article was edited earlier to add that "fact" the first paragraph ended up telling us first that Woodbridge "lies a short distance from the wider Ipswich urban area" (it does - there are lots of green fields between the two) and then that it "also forms part of the wider Ipswich Built-up area". Although technically, with the link in place, this is true, it's also likely to lead to significant confusion for non-technical readers - i.e. >99% of readers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the problem - these articles are about specific ONS constructs created for statistical purposes with no wider consensus as to their definitions.----Pontificalibus 13:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont see how its confusing. Woodbridge and Ipswich are connected by urban development, thats why they are in the same built-up area. They are connected very thinly as to be almost meaningless however. Eopsid (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Having, literally, by chance just driven between Woodbridge and the edge of Ipswich, they don't I'm afraid. And to say so is going to confuse a non-technical reader. Woodbridge isn't part of Ipswich - it's close to it, but to say it's part of the built up area is wrong. The map of the BUA shows this - Martlesham, Martlesham Heath and Woodbridge are distinct units. It gets even more fragmented when Bramford is included, let alone Rushmere or the bit by the showground towards Nacton. But anyway - lets just confuse our readers by telling them that somewhere is part of something that's super technical and used only for statistical purposes. We could also tell them it's in a different historical county if you want... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Saying Woodbridge and Ipswich aren't part of the same built-up area is WP:OR. Eopsid (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. And what's more, the ONS gives a clear methodology for their decision. Less that 200 metres between adjacent buildings, and there is a map with every BUA, here is the one for Ipswich: UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Ipswich BUA (E34004730)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. and yes, it is contiguous and we have an impeccable WP:RS that says so. No doubt there are people who grew up in places that were unambiguously distinct when they were kids but things change. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean that they don't trust Wikipedia not to tell them what that nasty Office for National Statistics said nearly ten years ago? And their map will probably show an even more extensive adjacency in a few months' time? (As I know it will do for a similar connection that I am more familiar with, that was pretty tenuous in 2011 but is rather less so now and not at all by 2031.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because the ONS invent something, doesn't mean we should have an article on it. We don't have an article on Self-employed tradespeople in multicultural metro suburbs (ref) do we? This Ipswich Built-up area concept is not supported by other sources.----Pontificalibus 08:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a different question, where the usual notability criteria apply. Sometimes the urban area/BUA can be part of the main article, sometimes not. For example, should the Cambridge BUA be part of the Cambridge article? a large part of 'Greater Cambridge' is outside the jurisdiction of Cambridge City Council, even though you can't see the join any more. Such a merge will just be edit war fodder.

There is also philosophical point: do we report the 2021 reality or do we pretend that nothing has changed since 1974? Woodbridge and Ipswich are now the same settlement. Trumpington and Cambridge are now the same settlement. There are many examples where previously independent towns and villages have been swept up and integrated, just as much as Camden and Highgate became part of London in the 1800s. Geography should describe what is, not some outdated mental model of what it used to be when we were kids. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a different question: we report what multiple independent sources discuss in detail. If Woodbridge and Ipswich form a continuous urban area we report that reality by mentioning it in the Woodbridge and Ipswich articles. However we don't have a stand-alone article on the combined area if it's only supportable by an ONS source, because the fact that reveals the reality that the combined area is not widely regarded as single entity, and fails WP:N.----Pontificalibus 10:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've stuck a merge proposal on the Nuneaton Urban Area now too Eopsid (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

And on Harrogate Built-up area too Eopsid (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've proposed a merge of Ipswich Built-up area too. ----Pontificalibus 06:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I see you've just merged the Southend urban area article. I think it would be better to have stuck merge proposals on it and merged it rather than just merging it without discussion. I've also changed the redirects for it and Grimsby one you merged to point to the section in the articles you merged them into. I've just had a quick look for sources. I'm honestly a bit surprised how there aren't any for Southend urban area or Greater Southend or Southend conurbation, seeing as its quite big, relatively old, not connected narrowly, crosses 3 districts and accounts for the majority of the population in each. Best I could find was this [3] Eopsid (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s not really a surprise that there are no sources, people don’t start magically treating distinct settlements as a single place in the absence of any overarching governance structure simply because there aren’t any fields between them. This Southend area is a pure ONS contrivance, and I didn’t see how anybody could have argued for keeping it as a separate article in the absence of SIGCOV. But sure, I will start a discussion about all future merges of these if people think that is a useful thing to do.11:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

First page of a Google search for "Southend urban area":

• https://www.southend.gov.uk/downloads/file/1637/urban-capacity-study---final-reportpdf
• https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/632709/aq-plan-2015-southend-urban-area-uk0021.pdf
• https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/no2ten/2017-zone-plans/AQplans_UK0021.pdf

Lots of copies of Wikipedia of course but the citations continue on successive pages.

"I see no ships" - Admiral Nelson (allegedly). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

None of those meet SIGCOV. The first is about the urban area governed by Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, which is an entirely different concept. The other two are just part of the UK Air Quality Plan which uses automated modelling for the country subdivided by ONS agglomeration areas.----Pontificalibus 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying there a single place. Just that they form one single urban area. Eopsid (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this might be of interest [4]. I tried to delete and merge a few of the articles on smaller urban areas 7 years ago, but I gave up after one of the AFDs resulted in a Keep. Honestly I think deleting a load would probably pass now but only because there are a lot less Wikipedia editors than there used to be thanks to Mobile phones. Eopsid (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've stuck a PROD on Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area. I agree that its not notable enough for an article but I dont think the recent edits with summaries like this (The notion that Warwick is within a Leamington Spa area is absurd to anyone other than statisticians, they're two similar-sized towns adjacent to each other) is helpful and neither are ones that change the word urban or built-up or conurbation to the more vague term statistical area. Eopsid (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I do think we shouldn't start assigning names to and designating areas "urban areas", "built-up areas" "conurbations" etc unless that is supported by multiple sources. Just because the ONS decides to create these things for statistical purposes doesn't mean they meet the commonly accepted definition such places. This what they say about the built-up areas: "the names, like the areas themselves, were created via an automated process". It certainly shows with that Leamington one! ----Pontificalibus 15:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I dont think the designating them as "urban areas", "built-up areas" "conurbations" is problematic. The ONS is a reliable source for this. Yeah the names can be a bit dodgy but in those cases they probably don't deserve articles. Hence the PROD for the Leamington/Warwick one. Eopsid (talk)

Well, if no one else other than the ONS has named it, then we certainly shouldn't invent our own name. That's why we need multiple sources discussing these areas in detail in order to have a separate article - otherwise we're misleading our readers by giving these things undue importance and notability. Perhaps a useful thought exercise is to pretend the ONS never auto-generated these areas, and then decide whether an article on the conurbation could be justified using other sources and if so what it would be called.----Pontificalibus 16:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Other than the ONS source, there is that book from the 1960s on conurbations which Trapped in Burnley linked in this discussion earlier. Which does actually mention the Warwick-Leamington Spa conurbation but unsurprisingly doesn't give it a name other than calling it just Warwick and Leamington. I think finding sources isnt too difficult for larger conurbations like Tyneside and the West Midlands conurbation. But the problem is the name might be used for multiple slightly different things. For example for Southend we have the Southend urban area but there is also the primary urban area which is mentioned in that centre for cities thing linked below, both are just an attempt at defining a "Greater Southend" but with different methodology. I just tried to look for US examples. They dont really have articles for urban areas but instead metropolitan area articles which honestly aren't much better than the UK urban areas articles we have. St. Joseph, Missouri metropolitan area and the Jefferson City metropolitan area for example have their own articles, but only have the US census as a source and have relatively small populations <200,000 Eopsid (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No, Warwick is not in Leamington and Leamington is not in Warwick. They share a single conurbation though, aka BUA or Urban Area. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

[exdent]
A couple of thought experiments to add to those above:

• Brighton, Hove, Syresham, Worthing, Littlehampton: unambiguously a single urban area. BUA is E34004748 and called "Brighton and Hove", probably because that is the name of the UA. We call it Brighton and Hove built-up area.
• Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch, Highcliffe, Winterborne Minster, Ferndown: in parts inseparable, in others just a daisy chain, BUA is E34005031 and called "Bournmouth/Poole", which is not the name of the council (it's Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, WM and F are outside it). We have an article for the BUA, but it kept its head below the parapet by not using the trigger words – it's at South East Dorset conurbation.

Size matters! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but those two have sources other than ONS. Sources matter!--Pontificalibus 18:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely. I was too terse, what I meant was that when a conurbation gets big enough, people eventually stop trying to force quarts into pint pots and accept that the historic place names are just handles. The problems seem to arise when there are neighbouring settlements, one large, one less so but still sizeable – the latter protests loudly to anyone who will listen that they have absolutely nothing to do with the former. Blaming the ONS is the easy way out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I want to keep most of these articles but the source for the Brighton and Hove one that isn't the ONS talks about a slightly different area. The South East Dorset Conurbation sources seem better though. I think larger the urban area more likely you are to have sources. But if they are connected by very narrow ribbon development like in Brighton's case they might be less likely because they are less of a distinct area. Also we have to be wary with the sources, like in the Brighton example, they might be talking about slightly different areas. Eopsid (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Centre for Cities

I'm not sure where to put this so best give it a new subsection so that the preceding discussion can continue. If anyone is looking for wp:IS, the Centre for Cities reports on what it calls the UK's 63 'Primary Urban Areas' may be useful - see City by city. Note that they define a 'city' by size, significance and 'reach' rather than legal status (sorry, Ely). Their definition of Middlesbrough, for example, will give some purists apoplexy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I was vaguely aware of the Centre for Cities and I'm unsure what to make of them. I've been working a little on Burnley Built-up area as a result of the views expressed in this discussion. For all the talk of PUAs, I see they define the city of Burnley as all of the area of the boroughs of Burnley and Pendle. This is far larger than any other definition I've encountered thus far, and means that most of the city consists of sparsely populated rural areas and wild moorland. While this is unlikely to have a large effect on the data in their reports, it certainly makes it harder for me to use.TiB chat 14:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you look at it terms of economic geography rather than physical geography, it makes more sense. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think with the primary urban areas they've just resorted to using local authorities/districts as the building blocks for them. Probably just to simplify things. Eopsid (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Current status

Two of the new ones have recently been delted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area. I have nominated another older article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannock Built-up Area (2nd nomination) for deletion. Eopsid (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have also merged all the ones in the table earlier in this discussion that I marked as merge, after unopposed merge discussions on those article's talk pages. Eopsid (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Lincolnshire

So I made a recent edit to an apparently 15 year old piece of the article by removing it because it was unsourced and seemed to use a lot of least ethically diverse and Sleaford is the fastest growing town. Now I am not saying Lincolnshire is not or is least ethically diverse but where sources wise proves that as it is like my edit to a ward on the Sunderland article where it claimed similarities to Cumbria but had not been referenced and was opinionated. That was within reason but as far as I know. The least ethically diverse county is actually Powys. So I would like to ask editors on here if they would look into articles like this and check they are sourced to prove the point as to me. To call Lincolnshire or Rutland least ethically diverse without an official source is more an opinion of an editor or writer then factual. RailwayJG (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather than deleting content, it's worth spending one's time actually looking for sources and perhaps modifying article text accordingly. A two minute search shows that both The Diocese of Lincoln and Lincolnshire County Council describe Lincolnshire as "one of the least ethnically diverse counties in the UK. So add the sources and change the text, by all means to match the source. Don't just delete stuff. see this and this for starters. Take each 'fact' in turn and putting the effort in research the subject is the best way to improving an article. It often doesn't take long. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Smethwick definition

The article on Smethwick in the West Midlands used the ward of Smethwick as its definition. Giving it a population of just over 14,000. However according to City Population, the Built-up Area Subdivision of Smethwick is much larger, with a population of over 50,000. So which definition of Smethwick should the article use? Don't we normally go with BUA's? G-13114 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

BUASD, BUASDs are for the settlement its self and unlike parishes ward boundaries tend to be unstable and arbitrary however the ward population should probably be mentioned. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should be avoiding BUASDs. They arent really used anywhere outside of Wikipedia and that ONS data set on them. Is there a secondary source we can use for the population of Smethwick? Also that City population source is using the BUASD not the BUA. They are different measures. Eopsid (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The article seems rather confused about its definition, as it includes Bearwood for example as part of Smethwick, even though this is well outside the ward of Smethwick. Why should we avoid using them, when the national statistics agency uses them? It's their job to define these things and wikipedia's to report it. G-13114 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC) EDIT: Also looking at it, the BUASD definition seems to be based on the boundaries of former municipal borough of Smethwick, if you look at this old map. G-13114 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a few reasons for not using them, firstly the definition of them and their boundaries changed competely between the 2001 and 2011 census so the benefit of them compared to wards because they are more stable isn't really true. Although I dont know how much the Smethwick ward boundaries changed in the same time period. Secondly the BUASDs are just really inconsistent some, like Watford, are much larger than the district, whilst in other cases towns like Dartford dont have a BUASD at all. The Smethwick BUASD may be well defined and align neatly with the old municipal borough but others don't seem to align with anything. Eopsid (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Wards change too, typically to follow the population. BUAs and BUASDs are the only reliable measure of actual population on the ground, updated every ten years rather than on political whims and expediencies as wards are. The ONS figures are used everywhere that accuracy matters, certainly not only in Wikipedia. Where possible, the ONS does try to follow historic boundaries, even though it creates some weird looking anomalies to modern eyes (e.g., the BUASDs of Milton Keynes follow the old UDC and RDC boundaries). The world moves on, deal with it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the article to give both definitions now. G-13114 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think BUAs are reliable but BUASDs aren't. The sub divisions dont mean anything and are arbitrary, some match old boundaries, some seem to be based off on continuous sub areas and some seem to have no basis in anything. I'm not sure of anywhere outside Wikipedia, the actual primary source and mirrors of it that uses the BUASDs. Eopsid (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly usually there are better measures for towns and cities, like the whole BUA, a parish or the district. The BUASDs are only useful when none of those are available which only really applies for "suburbs" of the largest urban areas like Smethwick. Where there isn't a City proper definition for them. Eopsid (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The BUASDs of the Milton Keynes built-up area don't follow the old UDC and RDC boundaries. Maybe they did in the 2001 data but not the current BUASDs. Eopsid (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the article to say Built-up area subdivision rather than built-up area. It was misleading to not say its a subdivision. Eopsid (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)