Template talk:English Cities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This should be "English cities", not "Cities". ¦ Reisio 03:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- No, "city" is a large settlement. What we have here are Cities. See City status in the United Kingdom. David 15:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] London
Should London be on this list or should only the City of London and the City of Westminster be included? I'm happy with the current setup (with London, the City of London and the City of Westminster all included and grouped together), though I think the matter should be discussed.
David 12:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although only the City of London and Westminster have offical city status through a charter- it is widely considered that London is a city. Astrotrain 13:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would suggest delinking London and leaving City of London and Westminster linked to remove any confusion. Mrsteviec 21:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Bit odd to link the City of Canterbury but Carlisle instead of City of Carlisle. Morwen - Talk 21:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- The differences appear to be the local authority areas, and the actual city itself. I will change it. Astrotrain 16:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- That's good now. I note that following charter transfers in 1974 what you call the "actual city itself" are now generally unparished areas with the city status transferred to the entire district. But this would not be useful to insist on in a box thingy such as this. Morwen - Talk 10:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Westminster, City of Westminster & c.
This is all getting a bit messy with these edits indicating both places (or worse the former and not the latter) hold the city status. This needs some clarification. Perhaps this template needs renaming something along the lines of "Places with city status" rather than just "Cities". Mrsteviec 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Links, and why
Towns which hold city status and are in a district with a different name that does not have city status (7):
- Bath, Ely, Hereford, Lichfield, Ripon, Truro, Wells
Town has city status but is in a district of the same name that does not have city status (2):
Local authority has city status and it is the only article about the place (27):
- Birmingham, Brighton & Hove, Bristol, Cambridge, Coventry, Derby, Exeter,
- Gloucester, Kingston upon Hull, Leicester, Liverpool, Lincoln, Manchester,
- Newcastle upon Tyne, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Peterborough, Plymouth,
- Portsmouth, Preston, Sheffield, Southampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Wolverhampton
- Worcester, York
Local authority has the city status and we also have an article about the smaller area within it that does not - these are the ones that have been linked to inconsistently (13):
- City of Bradford (Bradford)
- City of Canterbury (Canterbury)
- City of Carlisle (Carlisle)
- City of Chester (Chester)
- City of Durham (Durham)
- City of Lancaster (Lancaster)
- City of Leeds (Leeds)
- City of Salford (Salford)
- City and District of St Albans (St Albans)
- City of Sunderland (Sunderland)
- City of Wakefield (Wakefield)
- City of Westminster (Westminster)
- City of Winchester (Winchester)
And finally the City of London which has the city status over the larger city (1):
Mrsteviec 16:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Small point, please can you put some explanation or pointer towards discussion in the edit summary. I was about to revert what appeared to be vandalism to the Bradford article.
- The other matter arising is that apparently the articles themselves are wrong. Bradford states it is a City whereas you are stating that City of Bradford Metropolitan District is the city. I take it that the city status was transferred, was that part of the 1972 act, the 1985 act or the 1992 act? I seem to be thinking as I type, if the settlement of Bradford in the City of Bradford is not a City then what is the correct term for referring to it? MGSpiller 00:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Bradford can still be referred to as a city (in fact anywhere can - like Milton Keynes for example), it just should't be called a city. In practice it may be clearer to say something like Bradford is the main settlement in the City of Bradford metropolitan district. Mrsteviec 00:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- It was the municipal borough and county borough which held the city status until 1974 and from then the metropolitan district. Mrsteviec 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This template is wrong.
The template clearly states as its title Places with City Status in England. I would like to submit that the following TOWNS which are included in this template are NOT cities:
- Bury St Edmunds (Has Cathedral but not city status - Cathedral Town)
- Milton Keynes (never had City Status, being a 'New Town')
- Rochester (City Status revoked in 2002 due to council error [1])
- Southwark (Has Cathedral but no official city status - Cathedral Town)
The full list can be found on the Department for Constitutional Affairs website at the following location [2] So either the template needs to be amended to Cities in England and then also add places like Reading and Northampton, or to have those four towns removed from the list and also remove the template from those articles. JonEastham 22:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed these errors. --Concrete Cowboy 22:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers, I've removed the template from the articles of Bury St Edmunds, Southwark and Rochester too. JonEastham 22:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for making these changes. When I created the template- I only included cities listed in the City status in the United Kingdom page. So someone must have added these false entries after the creation. The only exception was London. Astrotrain 01:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
