Talk:List of urban areas in the United Kingdom

Manchester - Liverpool a single metropolitain area

If Manchester and Liverpool are treated as separate conurbations I can't see why the two cities are considered as the same metropoiltan area. This is surely a mistake even if it is possible to have a place that could be regarded as both. Tetron76 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

By your logic "If St Albans and London are treated as separate conurbations I can't see why the two cities are considered as the same metropoiltan area. This is surely a mistake even if it is possible to have a place that could be regarded as both." Metropolitan areas are different than urban areas and are usually much wider. Eopsid (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone regard Liverpool and Manchester as the same place. There might be a RS which would allow the usage as a metropolitain area or may be I am simply ignorant on this area. But from wiki definition it describes an area that has to have a core. There is a clear geogrphic split in the regions, no common administrative region. There are also metropolitan universsities for both cities. As for St. Alban's there is certainly a case that it shouldn't be regarded as London either but relative size makes the Manchester-Liverpool much more questionable. 149.170.169.3 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the ONS map used as a link for metropolitain areas Manchester and Liverpool are clearly very distinct as not even a touching boundary. Source 5 does mention Liverpool-Manchester but this is likely a cyclical reference and should not really be used as at best it is secondary source which doesn't state its primary source. Sinc eit states that it uses encyclopaedia as ref it cannot be known whether this includes wikipedia itself.149.170.169.5 (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

On the ONS map of Travel to Work Areas the wolverhampton and Birmingham TTWAs have no common boundaries either but they are in the same urban area and hence same metropolitan area. That reference is really used in cases where the urban area is not mentioned in the other sources. Source 5 is used as a source on numerous other pages such as List of metropolitan areas in the Americas, List of metropolitan areas in Asia and Metropolitan areas of Mexico so I think it can be used as it's usage here is so widespread. Eopsid (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the article to sensibility. The point isn't worth discussing, somebody is POV pushing. Until the ONS says it is a single urban area, then it isn't. In some contexts, it is useful to take them together but this is not one of them. See also North West England#Metropolitan areas. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The division of Liverpool and Birkenhead into separate urban areas is a statistical anomaly due to the fact that the Mersey is over 200m wide. In reality they function as a single urban entity and this should probably be acknowledged in the article. Anyone who doubts this should travel to Birkenhead and examine the (small and very local) scale of its commercial/retail district. By contrast, Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Halifax and Wakefield are separated by many miles of sporadic development and exist as proudly independent settlements, as any examination of their commercial/retail districts would confirm. They might satisfy the strict definition of a contiguous urban area, but they generally don't function as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.142.105 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Before this page was changed to List urban areas of the UK from List of conurbations of the UK and thus excluding the Liverpool Manchester Conurbation. There are plenty of sources out there referencing to a Liverpool Manchester conurbation samples found from the AESOP-University of Manchester article here: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:89997, and in this book here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and in this book on Metropolitan Governence and Spatial Planning here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and this book here: Liverpool-Manchester conurbation and from Invest in Sefton here: http://www.investsefton.com/investment/lifestyle/ and here liverpool-manchester conurbation jointly have a combined population of 5.56 million as the article was changed they don't fit current criteria and to previous editors who are not happy with those sticking to there guns in keeping the two cities separated Look at "conurbation which is a region comprising a number of cities, large towns, and other urban areas that, through population growth and physical expansion, have merged to form one continuous urban and industrially developed area" example of one link where Greater Manchester links directly with Liverpool continuously starting from Manchester city centre-Salford-Swinton-Walkden-Worsley-Astley-Tyldesley-Atherton-Leigh-Golborne-Ashton in Makerfield-Haydock-St Helens-Prescot-Huyton-Broadgreen-Wavertree-Edge Hill-Liverpool City Centre,there are others via Warrington. Which according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary's definition of a conurbation " a large area consisting of cities or towns that have grown so that there is very little room between them" the urban link I have shown has no room between them consider a separate UK article based on the original conurbation article.--Navops47 (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Camborne/Redruth

Shouldn't that be on the list, According to the Camborne article it has a population of 59,100. 82.33.88.252 (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The source this article uses has a lower figure of 39,937. The Camborne article's source gives a 404 error so I am doubtful whether the 59,000 figure is real or not. Using the power of Google I found the working source and it seems the 59,100 figure is for the Camborn, Pool and Redruth Community Network Area which doesn seem the same thing as an urban area but the source does say that it is the largest urban conurbation in Cornwall. Eopsid (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What should happen to this list when the 2011 census data comes out

When the 2011 census data comes out, I propose that we rename this article as 'List of urban areas in the United Kingdom (2001)' and start a new list for 2011. The new list would take over the title of 'List of urban areas in the United Kingdom' and is not renamed with the 2011 qualifier until 2022 when the 2021 list comes out. My reason for this is that it will be interesting to see where there has been growth and where there has been decline.
Does anyone have the 1991 data? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we just update the figures and then add a seperate column of some of the 2001 values (this could end up appearing cluttered but we could just delete some of the less useful columns) or a seperate section comparing the two.

On the subject of the 1991 data if you look at the notes section of this articles source the definition of an urban area changed slightly between 1991 and 2001 also the ONS dont have the 1991 data accessible on their website. Eopsid (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that other factors (local government, definitions) have changed in ten years. I don't doubt that we will need to replace this article - I'd just rather we didn't simply over-write it with the new data. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

2010 estimates and 2011 census data

Just in case anyone is interested. The ONS have estimates of the population in 2010 for most of the urban areas listed in this article. See this spreadsheet [1].

Also on this page [2] the ONS talks about when they will release the data for the urban ares. They say that they have yet to finalise the date but it appears it will be some time before or during February 2013.

On a speculative (OR-y) note. The new data should show that Newport and Cwmbran are now one urban area and so are Basildon and Wickford because they are when looking at Google maps. Eopsid (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I recently contacted the ONS about when the 2011 census data will be released. They replied that it will be released in Summer 2013 but that they are going to be called Built-up Areas rather than urban areas to "avoid previous inconsistency in terminology with the rural-urban definition, and provide a name that more accurately describes the geography". Eopsid (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The 2011 census data on built up areas has been released and can be viewed here [3] This is only for England and Wales. So I propose we split this article into 3 sections one for Scotland, one for Northern Ireland and another for England and Wales. What forms part of some built up areas has changed massively from the 2001 data especially for Newport, Cardiff, Sunderland and Tyneside. So I'm not sure a column showing how much the population has changed would be useful. Eopsid (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I just updated the article with the 2011 census data. I split it into three sections as I mentioned before. Eopsid (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Farnborough/Aldershot Largest Settlement

This has been changed back a few times but the largest settlement in the Aldershot Urban Area is Farnborough, with a population of 57,147.

Aldershot has a population of 33,840. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.26.73 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This article's souce gives the following populations which differ from your claims which you no doubt got off Aldershot and Farnborough's Wikipedia articles: Aldershot Urban Area 243,344 Aldershot 58,170 Camberley/Frimley 47,123 Farnborough 57,147 Farnham 36,298 Frogmore 9,665 Sandhurst 19,546 Yateley 15,395 Eopsid (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This articles listings are incorrect. Rushmoor has a total population of 94,400 at the 2011 census. Farnborough's 2001 figure of 57,000 has increased, athough the figures are not yet released. This leaves 37,000 in Aldershot even if the increases only took place Aldershot, which they haven't as over 2000 homes have been built in Farnborough in the last 5 years. Further to this Farnborough has 8 local council wards to Aldeshots 5 and 3 county council wards to Aldershots 2. In the 2012 local elections 67% of votes cast were cast in Farnborough. Aldershots own wiki page list, it's population correctly in 2001 at 33,840. Farnborough is the largest settlement in the AUA by some distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.26.73 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This entire article is about the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2001 definition of urban areas and the population figures of 2001 from ONS. We can update this only when ONS issue new urban area data from the 2011 census; I don't know if they've done that yet. When they do, we can then update the entire article, but we can't guess the figures ourselves. For one thing it's likely some of the urban areas will be redefined at that point. The ONS 2001 figures are based on "urban areas" and conurbations within them, not towns, so the figure Eopsid quoted is for the Aldershot conurbation (Aldershot subdivision of Aldershot Urban Area) in 2001, not Aldershot town in 2011. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

ONS as a poor source for Urban Area data

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Largest urban areas of the European Union about whether Demographia.com is a better source for UK Urban Area data than the Office for National Statistics. 19:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you wrong. Discussion is about use of additional (national) sources in the article. For this changes must to be consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanet

I've arrived to Ramsgate by ferry from Oostende, Belgium quite a few times. I drove a small lorry to Weymouth (Bill of Portland) and exported (from a UK point of view) still alive crabs. I was sometimes difficult to adjust departure from Portland, to a perfect time arrival on the way back. Since I liked the area , I several times drove around while waiting for next the ferry. It semt to me that Ramsgate was builded together with Broadstairs, and Broadstairs with Margate. I've now learned that the Thanet area counts 135.000 inhabitants. So I'm surprised to not be able to find the Thanet area in the list. ( Totally beside the point, I think the welcoming road-sign at the ferries was nice - but in the phrase "Welcome to Ramsgate - please drive on left, I cannot help thinking that the word "please" in this context was a bit funny. ) Boeing720 (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's on the "List of most populous built-up areas in England and Wales" at no.56 after High Wycombe and before Accrington/Rossendale. Eopsid (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

UK Top 5

Is it possible if we could have a quick top 5 list in the UK on the top of the page? I needed to know and had to scroll down and cross check each table. Thought it would be easier for people like myself to check. If so, that would be awesome. --Erzan (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

2011 census

When information from 2011 census will be added?--Yacatisma (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Information from the 2011 census has already been added except in the Northern Irish case. I couldnt find the relevant data when google searching. The scottish figures hadnt been updated until just now so thank you for giving me the motivation to try and find the new data. Eopsid (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that there should also be an article showing the figures for the 2011 BUASD's (Built Up Area Sub-Divisions) not just the BUA's?Acklamite (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There is one. There is this one for England: List of localities in England by population and it needs updating.

The Welsh One (List of localities in Wales by population) has already been updated.

They use the terminology Locality rather than BUASD for some reason. Eopsid (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That was due to some people trying to defend (invisible) 1974 boundaries in 2014 for places that have become part of a greater urban area. It is all a bit 'mine is bigger than yours according to my rules' and rather undignified. Up to the 2001 Census, the ONS also used the term 'locality', so the practice was defensible. Now that they don't any more, it isn't. Any rolled forward article would have to be given a new name, 'list of BUASDs', which is hardly attractive, but that is what the primary source uses. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Notable changes column

The final column on the England/Wales table points to the 2001 census but not to a source that sets out key differences from 2001 to 2011. You shouldn't have to wade through all the details of the two census in order to understand the differences - that would be OR or Synthesis. Is there a source clearly setting out the changes? Eldumpo (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

They have maps its very clear what the differences are if you compare two maps. Comparing them in this way is pretty much the same as a comparing the populations from each census. Eopsid (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The info in the column is taken from the 2011 census which itself includes a list of differences, not sure why the reference points to the 2001 census. WatcherZero (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If the 2011 census clearly sets out the differences (I would suggest it should be a better reference than having to compare two different maps) can someone add a better link please. Eldumpo (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Table headings references to Nomis

Further to the above I have noticed that most of the table header columns point to a Nomis introduction page. Where is the actual data (including population) for all this information. I have had a quick look and couldn't find it. Please could someone post a direct link to the actual page(s)? Eldumpo (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is it. I am not sure if the link'll work. [4] From the intro page you have to go to key statistics then choose a table, usual resident population is the main one used here, then wizard query and from there you can choose built-up areas and which ones you want data for. Eopsid (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there not a better way of obtaining the data. It's surely Synthesis to have to do the above to extract each BUA. There must be summaries somewhere that give an easier access reference for people? Where is the link for determining what areas are included in each of the BUAs in the list. I did the above process for Leicester and there were 8 entries which have presumably all been added - but where are the reliable sources making that assumption. Finally if it is decided to keep the census as the basis of this article then shouldn't the article name be changed to BUAs to reflect the source. Sorry, I know lots of questions above but this article needs to be more transparent. Eldumpo (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The name probably should be changed to Built-up areas. They have built-up areas including subdivision which shows subdivisions of the BUAs you can use that for finding whats in each area as well as the maps. I dont see how its synthesis, its all from the same source. I think there might be summaries on the ONS site which links to this one but that shows less areas then is in the list here. Eopsid (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you dig out the ONS summaries. If they show only certain entries so be it, the picking of 100k is presumably arbitrary and not reflected by sources? This article would be perfect but is for the 2001 census. Must be a half-decent 2011 summary somewhere? Eldumpo (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested source for this article

In the absence of a directly available source for this list (see above) I suggest we use an alternative to the census. City Population is I believe a reliable source, and it is noted that they only actually order the 13 UK Urban Areas greater than 500k, so there is an argument to only list those, but they do also list (but not order) areas greater than 100k. It is also noted that they combine the data as UK wide [5] which fits better with the title of this article. Having checked their Top 4 against our Top 4 the numbers are the same, which can give some confidence about the use of the source. The use of City Population also ties well with WP:SECONDARY, although it need not be CP if anyone has another reliable source. Appropriate links to the actual census could still remain for completeness. Eldumpo (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I am shortly going to commence on making the above changes, but keeping the 100k cut-off. Eldumpo (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Greater Manchester built up area

Hi can someone explain a report published by the City Growth commission in February 2014 stating Greater Manchester Metro had a resident census population of 2,894,240 in 2011 calculated by using ONS defined built-up areas found here: http://www.citygrowthcommission.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Metro-Growth-February-2014.pdf and why are those figures not included if they don't belong here where do they belong ?--Navops47 (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wigan is not in GM Built-up Area

@Deano wig: Wigan is in the county of Greater Manchester. It is not in the Greater Manchester Built-up Area which is officially defined differently. The map File:GMBUA2011.png shows what is and is not in the built-up area.

Wigan has its own Wigan Built-up Area which is currently number 43 in the list.-- Dr Greg  talk  21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wigan and Ashton actually falls within Liverpool..List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom. Wigan is even served by the Liverpool Merseyrail metro. 2.216.88.102 (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong on both counts WatcherZero (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Birkenhead urban area

An anonymous editor keeps seeking to remove any mention of Ellesmere Port from the ONS-defined Birkenhead urban area. I keep reverting them. The issue is not whether Ellesmere Port is "really" part of the Birkenhead urban area or not. The issue is whether ONS define it as part of the Birkenhead urban area - which they do. The criteria for the ONS definition may seem strange, but they are logical - based on the distance between built-up areas, which can be treated as contiguous. What should remain in this article is the definition of the Birkenhead urban area as it is defined by ONS, not what any individual thinks it should be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Any data from OSN should dropped in favour of the EU EPSON. List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom. EPSON are impartial. 2.216.88.102 (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327160948/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_1.pdf to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/ks_urban_north_part_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921224350/http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/articles/ref/builtupareas_userguidance.pdf to http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/articles/ref/builtupareas_userguidance.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924002318/http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/StudiesScientificSupportProjects/UrbanFunctions/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf to http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/StudiesScientificSupportProjects/UrbanFunctions/fr-1.4.3_April2007-final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808052707/http://gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/population/estimates/special-area/settlements-localities/mid-2012/index.html to http://gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/population/estimates/special-area/settlements-localities/mid-2012/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

It hopelessly inaccurate. EPSON got it right. This article has Liverpool at over 800,000, omitting Birkenhead and Wallasy, on the opposite river bank, while Manchester is 2.6 million. These have it right List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom. 2.216.88.102 (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You do know that under EPSON (which is outdated data, not updated since 2011 and due for next update in 2020) Liverpool is considered part of Manchester with a combined population of 5.6m right? They removed the pan-metropolitan entries from that wiki article. WatcherZero (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Chester?

The urban area has a population of 118,200 according to its own wiki page but is not in the list (where it would have been 66th). CALDlykLIJ (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have to say that the source for Chesters population (the Telegraph) is likely just not right and that is probably the answer. The Telegraph may be using some wider district figure which includes areas outside of the 'urban' area. Koncorde (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Accurate figure for the Urban Area is 92,919.[6] Koncorde (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Larger urban zone" instead of "Metropolitan area"

I have just deleted a number of cases where places clearly outside London [eg, Reading/Wokinghan] had been shown as in the London Metropolitan Area. (I have reverted my deletions pending discussion). I don't believe that we have a reliable source for what is or isn't in a "Metropolitan Area", whereas there is a clear definition of Larger urban zone. If we mean commuter belt, then surely we should say so. What I'm really saying is that I consider the term "Metropolitan Area" too vague and too open to POV/OR.
Comments?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a very "meh" situation. The ESPON study has been used to form the backbone of List of metropolitan areas in Europe and List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom which has merged together different methodologies to identify / explain something that isn't readily understood or conveyed (and muddied with the existence of "Metropolitan Counties" / "Metropolitan Districts"). The definition by the EU Commission doesn't necessarily gel well with all these different ONS standards which can lead to oddities like Warrington and Chester, which fall outside of any "Urban Area" other than their own, but fall within a "Metropolitan Area" (which I believe is also the case with Reading) which has the same or similar name to an Urban area.

I had a vigorous debate on the issue on the Liverpool article[7] which is currently using the 2.24 million people value of the "Liverpool/Birkenhead Metropolitan area" and conflating it with a solely Liverpool Metropolitan area / Merseyside / City Region / Urban Area / Council, in the same way some other articles conflate "London" with "London Metropolitan Area" and "London Metropolis" and "Greater London", nevermind various authorities etc. Koncorde (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not surprised. However if the table heading were "X commuter belt", then at least the methodology would be transparent, but if and only if the CB had an NPOV RS. Which is maybe a big ask. Taking Oxford as a "for instance", yes lots of people commute from Oxford to London but a lot more people commute into Oxford, So if Banbury (say) is in the Oxford commuter belt does that make it part of the London metro area? Reductio ad absurdum.

It seems to me that we are tying ourselves in knots trying to apply USA low-density concepts to high-density England. TBH, I question the value and merit of that column, full stop, --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The terms used in the article are the officially used ones, but if you want the dumbed down equivalents Built Up Area is continguous urban sprawl, a distinct agglomeration of residential, commercial and industrial development without green gaps (and so may feature many smaller urban centres which have been absorbed by urban sprawl from a larger neighbour); Meanwhile Metropolitan Area is the distinct commercial and economic centre it belongs to, i.e. highest net commuter flow. So far example there may be a 20 mile or more break of countryside between them however the people in the smaller settlement do still primarily commute to the larger neighbour for employment. The distinction from using the term commuter belt is that while many people within a cities commuter belt may flow in to a central city, that city may not be the primary source of employment for local residents (e.g. 20% of the population may work in London but 40% work locally so while its within the London Commuter belt London is not the primary Metropolitan area to which the local population belongs). WatcherZero (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not a US system at play, it's a very EU standard. The problem is just lots of ways of slicing the land up, often overlapping, using marginally different definitions (or grossly similar). The mix between authorities, counties, FUA, MUA etc just makes it even worse. Koncorde (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Leicester

Can anyone justify the claimed figure for the population of Leicester? According to ONS (the only reliable source) the population as of the 2011 census was 443,760. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

There was a couple of IP addresses changing all things Leicester for a few months a few years back. Probably one of those. Leicester Urban Area was protected as a result of the constant changes being made. Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Per next section (Worrisome lack of citations), I suspect that there will be a lot of changes so maybe it would be best if an enthusiastic editor would go through at least the top 20, checking and citing the figures, and only then resorting the table? For now, I will just cite the true figure but not change the order.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Chaps - I was one of the main editors on clarifying much of the population data for Leicester and Bristol as well as several other areas, indeed I was wrestling with the aforementioned IP editor a couple of years back with the Leicester page. As to the current changes, the figures changed by John only tell part of the story - the numbers and Nomis links provided by John only show the cities built up area subdivision (BUASD) population counts, but not the full built up area (BUA). There is breakdown of the areas in the tables at the following links with maps to demonstrate the BUASDs at these links:

Leicester 2011 full BUA details - for 2011 the Leicester BUASD is 443,760, the full BUA is 508,916
Bristol full BUA details - for 2011 the Bristol BUASD is 535,907, full Bristol area is 617,280

To obtain the full BUA details John you'll need to do a database query on Nomis, the SQL scripting used there means you cannot directly link to the results and so when I added refs I could only put a general Nomis url. If you need clarification on how to use the db query I am happy to provide further details.

Note that these BUA numbers are basically the population of city council areas, plus the population of any suburbs outside the council area before countryside. Leicester's council area population (329,839) for example is different to the BUASD (443,760) which is different to the full BUA (508,916). For your interest I even broke down how the BUASD figure is obtained with Leicester on the talk page here.

The List of urban areas in the United Kingdom table was actually correct before the changes therefore, and so the changes made by John will need to be pulled back. I am not in the UK at the moment so may correct if not done by the time I have returned.

Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

My edits were made in good faith and fortunately not too much damage has been done. As I explain below under 'worrisome' etc, NOMIS has broken a facility that previously worked, which offered the KS for true overall BUA, not just the BUASD that happens to have the same name. I will follow up with them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to close out this discussion, I confirm that the original figure for Leicester was correct. My challenge was based on incorrect data due to a fault in NOMIS and was thus invalid. As noted below, NOMIS have repaired access to the overall Built-up Area figures. It now says: "There were 508,916 usual residents as at Census day 2011".

References

Worrisome lack of citations for built-up area population figures

Few of the figures given for built-up area populations are cited. I have found at least one so far (#Leicester above) that doesn't match the ONS data. In the past, it has seemed (to me at least) very difficult to extract this data from Nomis but they appear to have made a change that makes it a lot more accessible. So if anyone wants to spend the time citing each entry, here is how to do it:

1. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report (I have forgotten how I found that!)
2. Name of urban area and then Search ... Example: Bristol
3. Select the relevant built up area ... Example: Built-up areas (villages, towns or cities), ...Bristol (in South West Region)
4. Get the E number from the URL ... Example: E35001261 from https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=E35001261
5. Plug into template:NOMIS2011 ... Example UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Bristol BUA (E35001261)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.

Questions? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have struck out the above because, as of 16 July, it does not work. It may become available again at a later date. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

(That example showed that the figure for Bristol was wrong too, so I have corrected the table in the article). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of single sourcing the figures is to make them comparable, if you start using different figures from different sources and/or different dates then they are no longer comparable and the table becomes meaningless. WatcherZero (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As explained in the Leicester subsection above, the definition of BUA has been blurred and I am glad GSS codes ('the E number') are being referenced as that can help clarify the differences a little.

E34004965 is the full Bristol BUA
E35001261 is the Bristol subdivision BUASD
E06000023 is the Bristol council/county area

E34004647 - full Leicester BUA
E35001399 - Leicester BUASD
E06000016 - Leicester council area

Note that the Nomis search above does not find the E34******* references.

My comments on the lack of citations and incorrect population numbers being added are in the Leicester section above.

--The Equalizer (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Until recently, NOMIS was providing the figures for the overall BUA, not just the BUASD. (I am familiar with the issue because the ONS assigned the name "Milton Keynes" to just a part of it for no obvious reason, yielding a laughable figure). Evidently NOMIS has changed something because, as you correctly point out, the E34nnnnnnn codes no longer work and these are the only ones of real world value. I see also that the 111nnnnnn codes have become E35nnnnnn codes, but our citations that use them still work. I am writing to NOMIS to ask for an explanation. In the meantime, I will back off. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

E3400nnnn codes working again

NOMIS have fixed the error that broke E3400nnnn codes, so it is again possible to use them and any existing citations are valid again. However as yet there is no easy way (sing the 'easy access' functions of the website) to find out the code for a given urban area. This needs more work and is planned. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi John - thanks for highlighting the fault to Nomis - the report definitely works now.

As for codes, do you mean the GSS codes? There is a link to a DB containing the codes at the bottom of the ONS coding system Wiki page.

Also if you look at the Nomis webpage url for the report it shows the code at the end of the url.

Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Revised instructions that I now believe to be correct

NOMIS have fully repaired their system so that it gives the correct data for 'Greater Xxxxxx" Built-up Area (as well as the 1970s (?) boundaries Built-up Sub-area). (revised 20 July 2019):

1. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ then section headed Local Area Report
2. Name of urban area and then Search ... Example: Bristol
3. Select the relevant built up area ... Example: Built-up area (villages, towns or cities), ...Bristol (in South West Region) (caution! not "Built-up area sub divisions (town or city sub divisions)").
4. Get the GSS E number from the response ... Example: "This report covers the characteristics of people and households in Bristol Built-up area in South West (GSS code E34004965)".
5. Plug into template:NOMIS2011 ... Example {{NOMIS2011|id=E34004965|title=Bristol BUA}} produces UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Bristol BUA (E34004965)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. which reports "There were 617,280 usual residents as at Census day 2011".
6. Wrap in ref tags and attach to figure in table.

Tested for Leicester and Bristol but I won't apply to the article to allow rather more time than I did last time for gremlins to emerge. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Uncited changes to the table data

J mareeswaran, slightly concerned that your edits are based upon "feels" rather than facts. I haven't had chance to review the changes as yet, but at the very least your change to "Greater Merseyside" is very much incorrect. Your changes do not appear to be based upon any given source, and you haven't explained the criteria for change. Entities such as the Liverpool City Region, and Leeds City Region are very different to Metropolitan areas for instance. I would suggest you explain your changes here because at present I am considering reverting prior to the changes made 16th August onwards. Koncorde (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say the Metropolitan area should be equivalent to the Travel to work area.

There is no specific wikipage for each TTWA. I have tried to be as accurate as possible. As you can see Greater Merseyside is just a wikilink to Greater Merseyside section in Merseyside article which has the necessary explanation. Specifically I understand that Warrington is part of the Liverpool metropolitan area but not part of Merseyside. That is why I have updated that to Greater Merseyside

1. "I would say" is not a sourced change.

2. If such a thing as a TTWA exists and needs an article for it, create it?

3. Warrington is not part of Liverpool Metropolitan Area, nor is it part of the Liverpool Urban Area, nor is it part of the Liverpool City Region, nor is it part of Merseyside. Greater Merseyside has no official status, and I would struggle to think of any given source that would use the definition of "Greater Merseyside" to include Warrington that would be considered a reliable source for the claim. Diverting an article to a subsection so people can read what it isn't is not the correct answer.

I would suggest you please stop re-diverting the articles until you can come up with a rationale for these changes. Koncorde (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

as I mentioned above, my source is Wikipedia. Below is extract from Greater Merseyside section of Merseyside wikipage:

Other nearby towns are not part of Merseyside, such as Skelmersdale, Ormskirk, Warrington, Runcorn, Widnes and Ellesmere Port (all parts of either Cheshire or Lancashire), but the designation "Greater Merseyside" has sometimes been adopted for Merseyside and these six towns unofficially. J mareeswaran (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As no doubt you are aware, Wikipedia never cites itself for obvious reasons. If you want to use material from other articles, you must check their citations and use those. If those articles lack citations, that is a good clue to stop until you or somebody else has provided them. What you must not do is propagate errors. In addition, I strongly suggest that you follow Koncorde's check list. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This sentence "has sometimes been adopted for Merseyside and these six towns unofficially" is a massive red flag, in particular as the sourcing for this claim is exceptionally weak and not based upon any clear rationale (the claim is sourced to a provider of Atlas) and can be refuted through referring to all official sourcing.

The table should reflect the Official versions of the Built Up Area, Subdivisions, Corresponding Metropolitan Area, and Overseeing Combined Authority. This may in fact mean it refers to historic entities or may not be up to date if changes have been made recently (such as Local Government Changes in 2019), but this means that the corresponding articles should be created and or referenced, and / or sourced specifically to the primary, secondary or tertiary sources discussing the implemented changes.

Referencing the changes made is critical to ensure that what has been changed is accurate and can be backed up. Koncorde (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't expect this specific issue to generate a controversy as Warrington is included in the Liverpool ESPON metropolitan area (which is where the header for this column is redirecting today). If there are are no reliable/acceptable links for metropolitan area /TTWA, then maybe we should remove this column as it is very confusing? J mareeswaran (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Liverpool ESPON metropolitan area". There is a "Liverpool / Birkenhead metropolitan area" as part of the ESPON study which is how Warrington and Chester ended up being included. However both concepts are distinct but regularly conflated by people trying to write puff pieces. The Liverpool "metropolitan" area itself corresponds to the Liverpool Built-up Area. The problem is that, again, changing definitions and conflation of FUA / BUA / MUA / City Regions / Combined Authorities / Counties / LEP / Met Boroughs / Met Areas etc etc.

The problem is - nobody thinks of "Liverpool - Birkenhead" as a single entity, no more than "Leeds–Bradford metropolitan area". They are generally considered as distinct components with their own metropolitan dimensions. As such the underlying article for such a met area does not exist as beyond the ESPON study it doesn't functionally do anything. Koncorde (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

My confusion remains. I am not from UK, so how do I know when ESPON criteria should be used and when it should not be used? I see that Luton TTWA is distinct from London TTWA but Luton is included in London Commuter Belt based on ESPON reference. How would you decide what goes where? What is the criteria?

The ESPON study is very old and created for itself a definition of metro areas that it could use consistently for every urban area of the EU, to make cross-Union comparisons. It had to make many compromises to achieve that. Accordingly, it is only valid within its own context and cannot be used generically. So the best answer to your question is "never". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately people do use it for everything. Which leads to much confusion when adjacent towns are included in two met areas, or not in any met area such as Warrington. Nobody ever refers to the Birkenhead Metropolitan Area for instance. I don't believe it has ever been defined, certainly not to include Warrington and Chester anyway. The ESPON is very odd data in that respect. Koncorde (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I've got to agree with the changes since 16th August not being very structured and using a less-standard definition of what is classed as an urban area by an EU body. Of course their base data would almost certainly be obtained from the UK's national statistical body, namely the ONS. So I would suggest we revert back to using NOMIS data. I have to question the addition of 'proposed' combined authorities when this implies they aren't active as yet. Also noted was the fact the populations have only been updated to 2019 estimates for the upper/larger entries, with the heading being retitled as such by user Lifeisamystery1980, yet the rest of the table still has 2011 population counts. 2011 may appear to be old now, but it is a census year and will be accurate as opposed to intermediate year rounded up estimates. Regards, --The Equalizer (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Worse still, people are using an ESPON structure that relied on the 2001 census and trying to retrofit very recent LA estimates, which to is unambiguously WP:SYN. IMO, the table should only use the BUAs from 2011 census as this is the trustworthy source. It was difficult to do so when this article was first created because people were relying on citypopulation.de (which only does BUASDs). Now that the BUA data is easily obtained from NOMIS, there is no good reason not to use it for England and Wales. Apart from the time it takes! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to use whatever is reliable. We just need to make sure it is reliable and using the best and most appropriate metrics wherever possible. Koncorde (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted all mareeswaram's edits and gone back to the 15th August 2019 version before all the additional poorly sourced fluff was added. Eopsid (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to delete column "Corresponding Metropolitan Area" from table

We have had multiple discussions above and elsewhere about the ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom, which is piped from "Corresponding Metropolitan Area". In a nutshell, ESPON devised a structure based on 2001 UK census data in a way that it could compare and contrast with very broadly similar census data across Europe. In doing so, it made (and had to make) delineation decisions that do not match those used by the ONS for the 2011 census. So we have mix of (munged) 2001 data and 2011 data, which is poor practice. IMO, the column is misleading to a modern readership and should be deleted.

[Full disclosure: I do not and never have lived in any of the larger conurbations and have no ulterior motive than to make Wikipedia as good as it can be].

Comments before I delete? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde was proposing above to revert all changes back to how the page was on the 15th August. I suggest we go with that simply due to

1 - It already having a metropolitan area column which was correct;

2 - It contained 2011 population figures which are accurate, not the present mix of 2011 census and 2019 estimates;

3 - The current map of '15 largest areas' is not so (Norwich, Potteries, Hull);

4 - There being superfluous blank cells in the table that would get tidied up.

However, keeping the Overseeing Combined Authority column might have added value to the table.

Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If Koncorde is about to make a more thorough reconstruction, I recognise his/her greater expertise and will wait until he/she has finished and then consider whether or not to reopen this mini-RFC. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can remove the metropolitan area column.

It is misleading to link ESPON(2001) data with ONS(2011) data in this way J mareeswaran (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal suspended pending action by Koncorde. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted it all back to the 15th August version as was suggested. Eopsid (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eopsid. Sorry didn't realise we were waiting on any action from myself. Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Citypopulation.de

At the moment, the lead says that citypopulation.de is th main source because it is more accessible. That was certainly true five years ago but it is no longer so. Nomis is now a far preferable source, for two reasons.

1. citypopulation.de only gives urban area subdivisions and thus is certainly incorrect for at least Bristol, Leicester and Milton Keynes, and no doubt more. Nomis gives UAs (generally more appropriate) as well as UASDs.
2. Nomis gives a map of the area that is being reported on, so there is no doubt about what is being counted in and what is not.
3. Nomis reports England and Wales only, unfortunately, so cp.de will remain for Scotland and Northern Ireland (unless someone has better sources for their cities too?)

So I propose that we lose the reference to citypopulation.de and let the citations take the strain. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. The official stats bodies websites in Scotland and NI are Scotland Census and NISRA respectively. However don't reference each figure, town, etc as that will be a huge undertaking - just a general ref to Nomis should suffice, as per the Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Types_of_citation 'general reference' guideline.

Regs --The Equalizer (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Citypopulation.de is not a reliable source for urban areas (built up areas), indeed it doesn't pretend to be. Use NOMIS. In principle, each line in the table should be cited. So I have added a 'how to' below that explains how to do it. (A lot easier than it used to be, which explains that original hatnote).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate: "Nomis is a service provided by the Office for National Statistics, ONS, to give you free access to the most detailed and up-to-date UK labour market statistics from official sources" (nomisweb.co.uk home page). So it is a far better source of information on a wide variety of metrics in addition to population. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

An FYI: how to get built-up area (urban area) population from Nomis

Following on from the decision to deprecatede-emphasise citypopulation.de above, readers may find this 'how to' useful?

1. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ then section headed Local Area Report
2. Name of urban area and then Search ... Example: Bristol
3. Select the relevant built up area ... Example: Built-up area (villages, towns or cities), ...Bristol (in South West Region) (caution! not "Built-up area sub divisions (town or city sub divisions)").
4. Get the GSS E number from the response ... Example: "This report covers the characteristics of people and households in Bristol Built-up area in South West (GSS code E34004965)".
5. Plug into template:NOMIS2011 ... Example {{NOMIS2011|id=E34004965|title=Bristol BUA}} produces UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Bristol BUA (E34004965)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. which reports "There were 617,280 usual residents as at Census day 2011".
6. Wrap in ref tags and attach to figure in table.

Questions or comment? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That only seems to work for England and Wales.... Crowsus (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Drat, yes, it even says "local area report for England and Wales". Well, it's a start. Perhaps someone else can find the equivalent facilities for Scotland and NI? --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

I'm not really sure why it's been decided that citypopulation is not reliable for this purpose, or where consensus was reached to that conclusion. I assume the figures quoted on the article reflect what's on Nomis (and no argument that it is the best source for England and Wales), i.e 617,280 for Bristol, and one I have just picked to check: Liverpool 864,122. Those exactly reflect what is on Citypopulation for the same urban areas in the 2011 census, the only tiny difference being the maps are slightly less exact in that they include a few empty fields to link streets together, e.g west of Ashton in Makerfield, rather than drawing with excruciating precision around each of the back gardens where the urban area is deemed to end.

I do have to admit I'm struggling to find the source Citypopulation based their 2011 Scottish figures on: for instance they quote 957,620 for Glasgow, but the official 2011 census returns shows a hugely different figure (here - it makes you go through a terrible system of drop downs or a barely functioning map every time) of 1,209,143 because they originally counted in Motherwell & Wishaw and Coatbridge & Airdrie, although everyone living locally knows there are gaps between those settlements every much as between Glasgow and other close-but-not-contiguous towns. The anomaly was duly adjusted in the official stats by 2016 with a revised figure of 985,290 (see List of towns and cities in Scotland by population for refs) and that is the map used by Citypopulation for Glasgow's urban area (and Motherwell's, and Coatbridge's). However, maybe I just haven't found the origin of their 2011 figure cos I'm not too smart. Anyway unless there's some big reason why the site is discredited for this purpose, I'd still be advocating the use of Citypopulation for Scottish and NI figures. Apologies for the rambling in there... Crowsus (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Just one counter-example off the top of my head: Milton Keynes. The .de figure is about two-thirds of the population inside the 1967 designated boundary, let alone its subsequent expansion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This might be one of those awkward cases of Wikipedia informing the source rather than the other way round, but currently, Citypopulation for Milton Keynes urban area at the 2011 census shows the same 229,941 figure and map (i.e including Bletchley etc) as the Nomis ref dated 29 March 2019. Crowsus (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

First, I "misspoke" (!) when I wrote 'deprecate', I should have written 'de-emphasise'. The historic reason to prefer citypopulation.de (that it was much easier to access than the ONS) was certainly true at the time it was written, but it is no longer true for England and Wales, given {{NOMIS2011}} as described above.

In the case of MK, it was certainly the case in March 2019 that cp.de was giving the USAs, not the UAs: that is why it is independently cited. Looking at http://citypopulation.de/en/uk/southeastengland/ now, I see the data for Borough of Milton Keynes (248,821) and the so-called Milton Keynes urban sub-area (what were the ONS people thinking of, to reuse the name of the whole as a name for the part???) (171,750). So I can't see where you are seeing the correct figure for the UA?

I see, searching below East Midlands, it also has the USA figure for Northampton.

Citypopulation.de is a commercial site, so I would be astonished if they don't trawl the net regularly for adverse comment and react to it if justified. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup, very probably. The link for the urban areas list at present is here, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

BUA and BUASD

The master list for Built Up Areas & Sub Divisions can be found here. There are a number of sites that provide breakdowns of subdivisions, but the clearest one to read is this one for me which gives the mapping area in addition to a short list of the SD's with their relevant division codes for example Slough which has 5 BUASD of its own. Koncorde (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as @Lennonfan1: is having an issue. Please see the NOMIS website for Greater London BUA. The map will let you zoom in and see that Slough and Windsor are both outside of the boundary lines. This is distinct to Sloud Built Up Area or the Sub Division. You can see the breakdown for this on any number of sites such as here which gives the below

Built-up Area E34004940 Slough

Built-up Area sub-division E35001353 Slough

Which if we compare to say Guilford here

Built-up Area E34004707 Greater London

Built-up Area sub-division E35001200 Guildford

Please provide a reliable source demonstrating what you are claiming. Koncorde (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lennonfan1, are you confusing the Larger Urban Zone (LUZ) with the BUA? Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Poyle has now become part of Slough. Lennonfan1 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The third link I provided at the top of this section shows the 5 SD of Slough including Poyle. What is your point? Koncorde (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Poyle being now part of Slough borders LB Hillingdon and is contigious apart from m25 motorway. Lennonfan1 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Slough now stretches as far as Poyle which is contigious with Longford in London. Lennonfan1 (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lennonfan1: the boundaries of "built-up areas" and "built-up area subdivisions" are defined by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and not by Wikipedia editors. The current definitions were made for the 2011 census. No doubt there will be new definitions for the 2021 census. We will have to wait to see what the ONS decides. -- Dr Greg  talk  14:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lennonfan1, "Apart from the M25 motorway" is the key error in your analysis, because that is what divides the London BUA from the Slough BUA. Your opinion (or mine) on what they should have done is entirely irrelevant. As Dr. Greg says, maybe the 2021 Census will redefine it again but we have to wait and see, not indulge in WP:OR in the meantime. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Apart from the M25, and the fact Poyle isn't totally built up itself either. Poyle has a BUA but the BUA of Poyle is smaller than the area of Poyle (which includes surrounding farmers fields). This is why the BUA of some cities is functionally different to the Met Area vs LUZ. They are different metrics. Koncorde (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Census

For the 2021 census:

• should older population statistics and changes between censuses remain and for how long, each could have a table.
• if the census defines the areas as built-up areas again should urban area be phased out in articles and their names, including this one.

Chocolateediter (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I think if they use the built-up area name again we should move this article to List of built-up areas in the United Kingdom. I think we should remove the old population statistics and changes column when we get the 2021 data. The areas might change a good bit between censuses making extra columns for 2011 data confusing and if anyone wants the old data they can just look at the history or the source. We probably still wont get the data for a couple years. We didnt get the 2011 one til 2013. Eopsid (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree but let's wait and see what they do. Maybe UAs will come back because it is a much more user-friendly term (even if it upsets Col. Blimp in Litle Itchy Bottom which is a lovely little village and not at all urban thank you very much).

I suspect that there will be many changes. It crossed my mind to have a topic at the UK Geography wikiproject but it is just too open-ended and will have to be sorted out on an article-by-article basis. There will be hours of fun dealing with the UAs that have become contiguous and given one name but the die-hards will demand to know what makes the ONS so special and it's a primary source and anyway those chavs in the next street have nuffink to do wiv us because it is across the parish/county boundary (meaning that former field drain that runs in a culvert under the road). WP:NOTFORUM, yes, I know. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Update

The list in this article is completely obsolete now that the full picture from the 2021 census has been processed and uploaded to the source at citypopulation.de Just thought I'd leave a message here if anyone wanted to discuss before I change all the data to the 2021 version? Dflint0505 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems reasonable but IMO it would be better to use the ONS data directly rather than a commercial copy of it. But there's the problem: I can't see this data on the ONS site? So where did citypopulation get its figures from? Are they trustworthy? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to press ahead with an update to the numbers. I'll keep to citypopulation.de as the source, since I can't find an ONS official tabulation - if that makes anyone uncomfortable, please feel free to try and find an alternative. I won't press ahead with the possible expansion of the list down to 50k. I don't have any experience with editing maps, so I'll probably leave the map untouched - if anyone else could jump on that it would be much appreciated.

Dflint0505 (talk) Dflint0505 (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I would hold off doing the update until the ONS actually release the data. They have plans to do so soon judging by their website [8]. I have many doubts about citypopulation.de as a reliable source. Eopsid (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Eopsid's assessment of cp.de, based on their past performance. I have no idea where they've got their figures from.

Dflint0505, if you decide to use them anyway, please make sure to tag the figures as provisional. You also need to acknowledge that you commit to updating it as soon as the ONS releases the validated figures. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the new figures at CPop are not dependable at all and suggest this article is not updated until ONS release master tables. There are several BUASD additions in 2021, which they've failed to take account of for starters as they've mapped to the old locations, they aren't even referencing the new GSS codes at least. I've had to warn a keen editor on the South Yorks BUA page as to why the census figures they've added must be reconsidered. The Equalizer (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Change minimum size to 50,000?

My apologies to Dflint0505 for splitting their original post in two, but this idea really needs its own section

Also, some other urban area articles like the US's go down to 50k instead of 100k as a threshold. Is this another change that could be implemented here? Dflint0505 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

On the face of it, seems fair and citypopulation makes it easy to do and provides a line in the sand against further erosion to 25,000. My only caution is that there have been edit wars over the independence or otherwise of neighbouring settlements. We have always been able to settle those by saying that the ONS has declared X and not Y, they are the authority on the matter, end of discussion. Will citypopulation.de be as acceptable? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

100k seems an appropriate split given the section is described as "most populous" (which would usually be a top 10 or top 20 type thing), but if this article is truly a "list of urban areas" it should probably list them all, or more complete list in any case - subject to whatever minimum threshold the ONS applies. Koncorde (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have doubts about citypopulation.de's reliability as a source. The built-up areas the ONS defines go down in population to only the few hundreds. A page that contains all of them would be a bit much. When the 2021 census data comes out we could lower the minimum size we use. Eopsid (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The Welsh article List of built-up areas in Wales by population attempts to list all built-up areas. We could do the same for the rest of the UK. Not sure if England would be too big but the data splits by region... Eopsid (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems a ridiculous thing to do to be honest. I hadn't reviewed the criteria, but assumed there would be more than just "be a bigger area that 20 hectares". The ONS guidance from 2011 states that there are (were) 5055 English BUA, 150 Welsh, and 4 "cross-border". There's going to be a ridiculous number of sites to maintain that, functionally, really offer very little value to anyone. Most of the Welsh articles for instance point at specific villages, which often have significantly different populations - and people have a hard enough time writing about BUA (due to the nature of "this has the same name as X therefore it must mean all of this is also X!" logic).

Separately, while reviewing the Urban area article I noticed the UK's deviated from our list, and seemed to be the Met areas instead. Koncorde (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I suggest strongly that to do so would be going much too far. Wikipedia should give major national centres and tell visitors where to go to find lower levels of detail. IMO, 100k is a sensible threshold but could live with 50k. If this article needs to be renamed as List of the largest urban areas in the UK (or do I mean "the larger"?) then so be it. Think of visitors on mobile!

Is that essentially the same point as Koncorde is making? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the problem with that Urban Area#United Kingdom article is that it uses a completely different source from this one. Its using the CIA world factbook? [9] Which from a quick scan doesnt look like a good source for urban area populations. The Ruhr is completely missing. Eopsid (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed there is a lower section which uses the ONS definition, so very confusing why the article would bother using two different metrics. Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Gloucester and Cheltenham

pretty obvious that this is one urban area. Pbell99 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Not according to the Office for National Statistics, as of the 2011 census. The ONS is the authoritative source for that decision and they have a clear methodological basis to do so (not more than 200 metres of open space between developed land, not sure which way the M5 counts). Developments along the B4063 may be enough? We have to wait and see what they say when 2021 census detail is released. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Article rename

I've renamed the article, I thought it was too easy. Turns out I did a capital C in conurbation and the un-capped version is already a redirect, so sorry I don't know how to fix it. Chocolateediter (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter, you could request it at WP:RMT. DankJae 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chocolateediter: No worries. I think you could have reverted the move by just moving it back to the previous title and selecting the reason "Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM)". If you still want to move it to List of conurbations in the United Kingdom, you can open a requested move discussion. SilverLocust 💬 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ll leave another move for now I think a wider discussion is needed on UK geo, if I ever do it again I’ll see if I can mange it next time. Thank you. Chocolateediter (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

2021 census data

It is not 2024. we need to update with the 2021 census data 2A02:C7C:3006:2A00:D118:E505:C6A0:A48B (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

now* 2A02:C7C:3006:2A00:D118:E505:C6A0:A48B (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

BUA 'conglomeration' figures have not been released by the ONS yet. It normally takes a few years to produce them. Rounded BUA 'subdivision' figures are available but we don't know which ones make up said conglomerations. There is nothing on their upcoming calendar hence, bit of a waiting game. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I contacted the ONS last month about when they were going to release the figures and this was their response "the Built Up Conglomerations (BUC) are currently being developing as part of the work on updating the Rural Urban Classification (RUC). Once the RUC has been published, we will look to make the BUC available but a date has not yet been set for publication". So yeah no date currently set for when its gonna be released but they are working on it. Eopsid (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Could we not just use the same definitons as 2011 but feed in the 2021 figures? 2A02:C7C:3006:2A00:48B1:F8F7:DBC8:E6B2 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The 2021 areas have a new methodology to create them, those are different to the one used in 2011 and before, so they aren't directly comparable.

Then, it's unknown whether the areas will be the same as 2011, there's been a lot of urban development in between census years which mean they have enlarged, and equally that enhanced methodology may mean subcomponent areas are removed. It would be odd to have 2021 data but no matching maps as those are publicly limited. I know of one area that straddled the minimum hectare size in 2011 but the more granular boundary surveying in 2021 means it falls below and it has been deleted completely.

Furthermore, some 2021 areas are merged from multiple 2011 components or created anew, and given new names altogether which don't match the old.

Just too many unknowns right now, if an update went ahead before ONS publication this forum is active enough that a few would question it, if there wasn't confidence and consensus it would be removed. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)