Talk:City status in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. When the review is complete, a bot will update the article talk page.

	City status in the United Kingdom is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 12, 2004.
July 9, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority scale. Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. United Kingdom Portal FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) High This article has been rated as high-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 University? 2 Counties 3 Google Books 4 Inverness again 5 The Table 6 1974 reorganisation 7 Inverness — when was it granted city status? 8 City status awarded to "town" or "council"? 9 Chester 10 Blurry photo 11 Style problems 12 Settlements or cities 13 Stroke City commentary 14 Golden Jubilee in 18??

[edit] University?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Counties

At the moment there is a column in the list of officially designated cities for ceremonial counties. Since ceremonial counties are peculiar to England, shouldn't this be changed to something applicable to the whole United Kingdom, e.g. traditional counties?GSTQ (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of the column is, really. But definitely not traditional counties: it would properly be ceremonial counties, preserved counties, lieutenancy areas or (just plain) counties for England, Wales, Scotland and NI respectively. Rather than do that, it might be best to just delete the column. I don't think adding the historic counties would contribute anything: quite a few cities were counties in their own right, while (for example) the area of modern Birmingham was in three of them. In the end the counties column doesn't add any information on the subject of the article, which is City status in the UK. Lozleader (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing this column. Following the links to the city articles themselves can provide the sometimes tangled story of their counties much better than this potentially contentious column here.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the column could be headed Current lieutenancy or Current lieutenancy area (lieutenancy being perhaps more generic than ceremonial county) with all relevant lieutenancies given, for Scotland as well as for elsewhere, under the new heading. Laurel Bush (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

I say remove it. If we needed an extra column at all, something like size and/or population within the city boundary at the 2001 census would be more interesting. MRSC • Talk 14:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also for removing the column. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A size or population column would be problematic re cities (eg Inverness in Scotland) which lack statutory boundaries and for which different statisticians use very different notions of boundary. If city status is related to letters patent, however, then lieutenancy seems important. Some cities seem to be also lieutenancies, and both conditions seem to derive from very similar notions of crown privelege or obligation. Laurel Bush (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

I disagree with changing the column to lieutenancies. The purpose of the column seems to have been a geographical pinpointer; I doubt many readers would be familiar with the concept of lieutenancies so that it would be unlikely to assist the reader in this respect. It's the Lord Chancellor's Office who issues the letters patent on behalf of the Queen, not the Lord Lieutenants: I don't think there's any particularly compelling connexion between the lieutenancies and cities. I also think the proposed population column is a bad idea, for the reason given by Laurel Bush. If the column is going to give assistance to the reader by geographically pinpointing a few cities the reader might be unfamiliar with, then it should use a system with which the reader will be familiar. I personally think traditional counties would be appropriate, especially given the historical bent of the article. Administrative counties and regions might be just as recognizable in England, but I'm not sure about Scotland or Wales or especially Northern Ireland. They seem to change so often too. On the other hand, the table could do just as well without the column.GSTQ (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that having a column with some kind of geographical descriptor is a good idea, and for England using ceremonial counties seems best. For Scotland, Wales and NI, it's less obvious, and perhaps could be missed out. That could mean cutting the table up into four pieces, but that may be a good idea anyway.

On the subject of proper names for columns, the "Type of local government" column title seems to me to be inappropriate: its contents in fact seem to describe what type of body the city status is formally held by (e.g. Charter Trustees). This is obviously useful information that should be retained, but I'm afraid I can't think of a sensible column title right now! --RFBailey (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

How about thinking of something that emerges from considering the following poor possibilities: "Bearer of City Status", "City Status Holders", "Body carrying the city status"?  DDStretch  (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bearer of city status" seems best of those titles to me; given the variety of bodies a less clumsy term seems unachievable. As to just leaving out Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or using different units for different home countries, that makes the table irregular by providing information for English cities which it doesn't provide for other cities. The table should be able to show the same sort of information for all the cities on it as far as possible, and I can't think of any geographical indicators that are common to all the countries other than: (1) traditional counties, (2) administrative units, (3) degrees of longitude & latitude! (3) is not likely to be helpful to the reader, which leaves (1) & (2), and of those the most uniform amongst all the home countries is (1). If we can't reach a general consensus on a column title which covers all cities in the list, I think it would be better just to get rid of the column. But Lozleader so far is the only person who's objected to using traditional counties, and she hasn't cited a reason. Has anybody got a good reason (1) wouldn't be appropriate?GSTQ (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Absence of opposition is not the same as even tacit support. I would rather delete the column rather than dive into a morass of recurrent arguments that litter a variety of UK-related pages whenever "traditional", "historic", and similar kinds of adjectives are used to qualify "counties". Is that reason enough for you?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I quote part of my last comment: "If we can't reach a general consensus on a column title which covers all cities in the list, I think it would be better just to get rid of the column." I'm not sure where Ddstretch got the impression that I had said or implied that absence of oppostition equalled tacit support. I was merely summarizing what had been said thus far regarding traditional counties (effectively, nothing) before presenting my argument for their inclusion, and inviting other users to present a good reason against. At this point it seems to me general consensus is for removing the column.GSTQ (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe some cities are also lieutenancies. A Lieutenancy column would idientify those which are and those which are not (except perhaps - complication - where the name of the lieutenancy - eg Inverness - is also that of a non-lieutenancy city) and lieutenancy names (generally also names of counties or former counties) would serve as geographical pointers. As regards what body bears city status for Inverness I am not sure there is one, unless it is the museum where the letters patent were on display last time I saw them Laurel Bush (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

OK, I didn't mention traditional/historic counties deliberately, because I'm thoroughly fed up of Wikipedia arguments about them. However, to clarify, I support the use of "ceremonial county" (for England) or "administrative area" or "council area" (for Scotland and Wales) to describe a city's location, and oppose the use of "traditional county" (these have changed over time, and so aren't necessarily helpful--e.g. Bristol, Peterborough). Besides, I don't want to see the supporters and/or detractors of the Association of British Counties showing up here, wreaking havoc and causing edit wars! Lieutenancy areas aren't particularly helpful as a descriptor, as (generally speaking) people don't know what they are. --RFBailey (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Laurel Bush's wisecrack about museums "bearing" city status is a bit wide of the mark; city status isn't a physical entity that can be put in a museum, it is a conceptual attribute that is granted to a conceptual entity, e.g. a city council, a board of trustees &c. "Bearer of city status" seems the least clumsy column title possible in the circumstances. I don't see how the fact that there are havoc-wreaking supporters or havoc-wreaking opponents of traditional/historic counties affects the merit of their being used for the column. But using administrative areas (including in England, for consistency's sake) would be better than the situation we have at present, where no pinpointers can be given for cities outside England.GSTQ (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how City Councils or Charter Trustees are "conceptual entities"--they do actually exist! The problem with Inverness is that it doesn't have a City Council, and I don't know if it has Charter Trustees--therein lies the problem. In Inverness's case, the city status appears to be conceptual, certainly when compared with, say, Birmingham.

You're right, the presence of havoc-wreaking supporters/detractors of traditional counties isn't a reason to exclude such information. However, the fact that traditional/historic counties changed over time and were never constant, not to mention complicated (e.g. the Soke of Peterborough), is a valid reason.

The one advantage of using Ceremonial Counties in England rather than administrative areas is that we'd be saying "Leicester is in Leicestershire" and "Sheffield is in South Yorkshire" rather than "Leicester is in Leicester" and "Sheffield is in Sheffield"--that doesn't really help describe where Leicester or Sheffield are, does it? --RFBailey (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well for the same reason perhaps we should use registration counties in Scotland instead of administrative regions. It would save saying that "Glasgow is in the City of Glasgow". I think we can safely use counties of Northern Ireland, they've got pretty uncontroversial boundaries even though they're no longer used by the government. What about Wales? Local government units will involve saying "Swansea is in Swansea". Preserved counties?GSTQ (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Registration counties? I believe Glasgow is a registration county, but boundaries are likely to be rather different from the current boundaries of the city (which date, except for one minor change, from 1996). I believe the boundaries of the city are, however, also those of the lieutenancy. And I believe Welsh preserved counties are, in fact, lieutenancies (and, unlike lieutenancies anywhere else in Britain, are used by the commission responsible for reviewing constituency boundaries). Laurel Bush (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Actually, I also agree that the possibility of havoc-creating people causing problems does not in itself count against using "traditional counties", but I do think that the the use of "traditional", "historic", etc counties would give a false sense of permanence of boundaries, etc., which would then become the target of disruptive edit-wars. Furthermore, they are not current area entities, and so may cause further problems of understanding in readers unfamiliar with the tangled history of (administrative) units in the UK. I, too, think that in England's case, using ceremonial counties would be best, as they are not contentious entities, and so would solve the problems outlined so far as well as minimizing the chance of disruptive edit-wars. I also think that if separate kinds of areas are best for the other constituent countries of the UK, then we should have separate tables for each of them. It might ruin a certain single-table neatness, but it would allow for a more accurate and well-targetted set of information.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Status Bearer" (or "City Status Bearer") may be a slightly less long possibility for the name of the column currently written as "Type of local government". I believe this is accurate and descriptive of what is being shown in that column.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion here, but why not use the ISO 3166 or NUTS geocode system? -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Or the ONS coding system. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for "Status bearer" being the heading title. It's way more accurate than "type of local government" anyhow. As for counties, it seems agreement has not been reached on what to do with this column, and so I'm going to suggest removing it. If the reader is uncertain about the location of a city, he can simply click on the link to the city and find out.GSTQ (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed out earlier that some cities seem not have any "status bearer". As regards location, map refs should work. Laurel Bush (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

If you can tell us which ones don't, that might help us all see a way forward on this.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that Inverness, Stirling and Newry would be the bearer-less or "non-corporeal" cities. Lozleader (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, assuming no more and perhaps even if there are a small number more, these can surely be dealt with by means of a special footnote attached to, say "none" explaining the situation in a "status bearer" column, whilst the rest have what would be considered the natural content for such a column?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Map refs are uncontroversial, but are they actually helpful? I'm not fussed either way about their inclusion, but a map ref column would seem to be clogging the table up with too much information without helping the average reader. The reader can see the cities are in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Isn't that enough?GSTQ (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Books

Just came across this in Google Books: City Status in the British Isles, 1830-2002 By J. V. Beckett
Published 2005
Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
202 pages
ISBN 0754650677

It's possible to read a lot of the book in previews and it seems very solid (and interesting). I don't see it referenced in the article. I suppose someone ought to buy a copy :-)Lozleader (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inverness again

Interestingly, a petition for matriculation of a coat of arms for the City of Inverness was recently refused by Lord Lyon. [1] The decision was based on the fact that there is no legal persona to grant the arms to, and that Inverness is a city in name only. Lozleader (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Curious. As the article says, "There is nothing to grant arms to. Arms is property that must belong to someone. Highland Council has responsibility for the city of Inverness." Um... so why were the arms not conferred on Highland Council, with some sort of specification that they relate only to the City of Inverness and not the whole of the council area? And more's the point, if the Lord Lyon is correct, on what corporate entity was the royal charter conferred in 2000? I think it's fairly safe to ignore the point in that article about Elizabeth II/Elizabeth R though, which sounds spurious to me. DWaterson (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, actually Inverness#City Status clarifies slightly. Odd though. DWaterson (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The letters patent refer to the Town of Inverness and do not include any reference to The Highland Council. Highland Council has responsibility for the city of Inverness appears to be erroneous, except perhaps to the extent that the council was involved in campaigning (together with at least one other body) for grant of the letters. The letters themsleves are not addressed to anyone in particular, but seem to have been delivered to Inverness Town House care of the Inverness Lord Lieutenant. Laurel Bush (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] The Table

I was looking at a possible redesign of the big table. See sample below....

City	Mayor	Year granted city status	Details	Occasion	Notes	(Diocesan) Cathedral (pre 1888)	Type of Local Government
English Cities
Bath	Mayor (1590)[1]	TI	Charter of incorporation dated September 4th, 1590.[1] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated April 1, 1974.[2] Status maintained by trustees established by The Charter Trustees Regulations 1996[3]	Incorporation of city.	Recognised as city by "ancient prescriptive usage".[4] [5]	Bath Abbey No longer a cathedral	charter trustees
Birmingham	Lord Mayor (1896)[6]	1889	Letters Patent dated January 14, 1889[7] City Status confirmed to Metropolitan Borough of Birmingham by Letters Patent dated June 25, 1974.[8]	Golden jubilee of incorporation of Borough of Birmingham.	In response to petition that from corporation of Birmingham noting that it was the second most populous town in England and the largest borough without the title of city.[9]	not applicable	metropolitan borough
Bradford	Lord Mayor (1907)[10]	1897	Letters patent dated July 10, 1897[11] City Status confirmed to Metropolitan Borough of Bradford by Letters Patent dated April 1, 1974.[2]	Golden jubilee of Queen Victoria	City status was also granted to Kingston-upon-Hull and Nottingham. These were the three largest county boroughs that were not cities at the 1891 census.[12]	not applicable	metropolitan borough
Brighton & Hove	Mayor (1854)[13]	2000	Letters Patent dated January 31, 2001 ordained that "the Towns of Brighton and Hove shall have the status of a City".[14]	Millenium Competition	City status also awarded to Inverness and Wolverhampton.	not applicable	non-metropolitan district, unitary authority
Bristol	Lord Mayor (1899)[15] [16]	1542	Letters patent constituting "Bishoprick of Bristol" dated June 4, 1542[17] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated April 1, 1974.[2]	Creation of Diocese of Bristol		Bristol Cathedral	non-metropolitan district, unitary authority
Cambridge	Mayor (1207)[18]	1951	Letters Patent dated March 21, 1951.[19] City Status confirmed to non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated May 28, 1974.[20]	750th anniversary of incorporation of Borough of Cambridge.[21] [22]	Petition from the Corporation of Cambridge noted that of six "ancient seats of learning" in Great Britain, only Cambridge was not a city or royal burgh.	not applicable	non-metropolitan district
Canterbury	Lord Mayor (1988) [23]	TI	City Status confirmed to the non-metropolitan district by Letters Patent dated May 28, 1974.[20]	Recognised as city by "ancient prescriptive usage".[4]		Christchurch Cathedral	Non-metropolitan district

What I'm trying to do is eliminate some of the footnotes and incorporate them in the table. I also thought the "Occasion" column would be of interest... Lozleader (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the present design of the table, and think it caters to the vast majority of readers in its present form, which enables readers to see basic essential information on each city without too much space being taken up by each entry. If the reader wants more specific information, he can always check the footnotes, but I do not believe most readers would.GSTQ (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that changing the table to look like the above would make it very unwieldy and excessively large. I think there's a case of if it ain't broke, don't fix it here! --RFBailey (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1974 reorganisation

Re "... This meant that the various municipal boroughs that ..." : is the text correct? or should it say "various county boroughs"? or "various county and municipal boroughs"? or "various boroughs"? 25 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.161.200 (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's correct, in that county boroughs were also municipal boroughs. But maybe boroughs would be less misleading. Having said that there was one urban district (Ely) with city status. Maybe "various local authorities" would be better... Lozleader (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have changed it to "local authorities". 26 March 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.162.104 (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inverness — when was it granted city status?

Some references say 2000, some say 2001. Which is it? (+References please!)--Observer29 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember 2001 as the date on letters patent, last time I saw them. There may have been earlier intimation of a decision in favour of Inverness. Laurel Bush (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

The winning cities were announced on 18 December 2000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1074434.stm), but the Letters Patent were dated 31 January 2001 according to the London Gazette source in this article. Whether it's 2000 or 2001 is debateable, but I'd suggest that as it was a Millenium competition, then the 2000 date should take precidence. Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to add the same info as Fingerpuppet: announced December 18, 2000, LP January 31, 2001. The competition was certainly supposed to be in celebration of the year 2000, but there were delays due to political factors. In particular the lack of a designation of a Welsh or Northern Irish city led to problems, with arguments going on until late November at least.See BBC here

An announcement had been expected since the summer of 2000 and it seems to have been delayed until the last possible minute, and then only by a written answer in the Commons, meaning the letters patent were not ready until the next year (what with christmas and all).Lozleader (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for info. I see that Lozleader has now added Inverness to Scotland with appropriate wording to reflect the fact of the matter in a succinct way. Regards. --Observer29 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City status awarded to "town" or "council"?

I would like to open an discussion regarding the notices of the grants of city status to the three English and Welsh towns in 2000 and 2002 as published in the London Gazette. It appears there has been a change in the wording of the announcements which suggested city status was bestowed on the "town" and not the "borough" or council.

In the London Gazette of 5 February 2001 the wording of the Wolverhampton announcement says "...to ordain the Town of Wolverhampton shall have the status of a City" and for Brighton and Hove says "...the Towns of Brighton and Hove shall have the status of a City." On both instances the word Borough is not used as was previously the case for Sunderland in the London Gazette of 26th March 1992 "....the Borough of Sunderland shall have the status of a City" and Derby in the Gazette of 14 June 1977 "....the Borough of Derby shall have the status of a City." and nearly all previous city status grants.

The announcements in the London Gazette of 21 May 2002 for Newport and Preston is also very interesting as it says "to ordain the Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport and the Town of Preston shall have the status of a City." Here it clearly states for Newport, the town within the County Borough.

I recalled in 2001 both Wolverhampton and Brighton and Hove Councils had special meetings to change their names to "City" Councils. This had me wondering whether perhaps it was the recognised urban town that got the status and not the Council. At this point I contacted both Wolverhampton and Brighton Councils who replied with interesting information.

According to Mark Wall of Brighton Council in an email dated 17 August 2007, "The City Council was granted City Status in 2001 and an Extraordinary meeting of the council was called on the 15th February to receive the Letters Patent and determine whether the council should alter is name from Brighton & Hove to Brighton & Hove City Council. Whilst the council had actively sought consideration from Her Majesty's office to be granted city status, there was a need for the council to formally pass a resolution to accept that position and accept the Letters Patent."

According to Amy Hardiman of Wolverhampton Council in an email dated 17 August 2007" Thank you for your enquiry. The award of City status on 31 January 2001 was to Wolverhampton as a place and not to the council and therefore the title of the Council did not change automatically. The legal status of the Council is as a metropolitan borough council under the Local Government Act 1972, which is technically what we became in 1974 when the 1972 Act came into force and still are, as is Coventry, Manchester, Birmingham etc. Councils can choose what to call themselves. (I know that Wigan in Greater Manchester used the title Wigan Metro, with no reference to Council.) After the grant of City Status, the Council passed a resolution at the next full meeting on 14 February 2001 to change its title from Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council to Wolverhampton City Council. It was open to the Council to decide to call itself the "City Council of Wolverhampton" or not make any change at all."

Amy's reply makes it clear city status was given to the place and NOT the Council. To get clarification I contacted Linda Henshaw at the Ministry of Justice and in her email of 28 August 2007 she says " You have asked whether city status is given to the town in the Council area from which a request for city status is successful and not the council. The last occasion on which a competition was held was in December 2000 when it was announced that to mark The Queen's Golden Jubilee grants of city status would be made to a suitably qualified town in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Application was to be made by an identifiable local authority that served the town. This would suggest that the identifiable council might then seek to change its name to include the word 'city'. I cannot, however, advise on how any future grant of city status will be undertaken. I am unable to comment on your statement "It is then an official requirement for the Council governing the new towns to have a meeting to formally become city councils". The procedural aspects of local authorities would, I suggest, be something on which the Department for Communities and Local Government might assist you."

Do you think there has been a change in the granting of City status to "towns" as an identifiable urban entity and not the administrative local authority which bears the same name and controls the town? Does this mean the section about City councils needs to be updated? I'd be very interested in learning your views on the matter.

--Statsfan (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. I can see how that would work for Wolverhampton, Preston, Newport or any of the other 21st century cities, but I'm a little confused as to how it works for Brighton & Hove. The wording of "The Towns of Brighton and Hove shall have the status of a city" is somewhat confusing. The statement clearly suggests that there are two separate towns of Brighton and Hove (which is to be expected), but they only hold city status jointly. Does this mean that Brighton is a City and so is Hove, or that neither is individually, and that only the combination of the two towns hold that status? Fingerpuppet (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the towns of Brighton and Hove ceased to exist and jointly became components of a new place called the city of Brighton and Hove. --Statsfan (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they were. Take the following similar example - when a district gains borough status, it's a borough - but it's also still a district in legal terms. When a town becomes a city, it doesn't lose its town charter (or it doesn't undeclare itself a town if it was a civil parish post-1974). Hence a city is also a town.

How does this relate to the discussion? Well, Brighton and Hove are still separate towns - there are still roadsigns to each place (rather than "Brighton & Hove"), they still have their own town charters, there are still references to "Hove Town Centre" and "Brighton Town Centre" and so on.

I hope I've explained my thoughts properly. Whilst considering all the possibilities, I'd like to add another one for discussion. Is the wording change (and the potential removal of involvement of a local authority) a response to the issues at Rochester? If Rochester's wording had been something like "The Town of Rochester shall have the status of a City", then it would never have lost its city status, as it would have applied to the settlement, as suggested. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be on to something here. I was reading through the minutes of Newry and Mourne District Council for March 19, 2002 here: [2] In particular I was struck by the advice that the Council could decide to change the name to Newry City and Mourne District Council or retain its present name. Lozleader (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, the city status does extend to the entire districts... The City of Brighton and Hove (Electoral Changes) Order 2001 states that The non-metropolitan district of Brighton and Hove has the status of a city. The City of Wolverhampton (Electoral Changes) Order 2003 states that The metropolitan district of Wolverhampton has the status of a city.

I would imagine there is no obligation on the council to call itself "city council". I remember that an administration in Liverpool dropped the title of "lord mayor" in favour of chair or chairman for a while. Lozleader (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the case of Brighton and Hove, you may like to compare and contrast their situation with what was done for Stoke-on-Trent back in 1925: Originally six towns (Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Stoke-upon-Trent (note the subtle, yet important difference in the name of this town and the name of the city), Fenton, and Longton) they became federated together in 1910 as a county borough known as Stoke-on-Trent, which after some boundary changes and expansion, became a city in 1925. Road signs in the city still point to the separate towns, and there is still a dispute about what some would see as Hanley's usurpation of the name "city centre". (Wikipedia's article about it is roughly correct according to my understanding, but it is a bit unclear in places.) Brighton and Hove were united into a borough prior to city status being given as quoted. It would be interesting to see where the announcements for Stoke-on-Trent were different. My guess is that the county borough was awarded the status, rather than the six towns separately.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

From the London Gazette, July 3, 1925:

Whitehall, July 1, 1925. The KING has been pleased, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 5th ultimo, to ordain that the County Borough of Stoke-on-Trent shall be a City and shall be called and styled " The City of Stoke-on- Trent," and that the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the said Borough shall be one body politic and corporate by the name and style of "The Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Stoke-on-Trent."

Lozleader (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder about those areas of the settlements outside the local authority boundaries? For example, Wolverhampton (the urban sub-division, hence the settlement) has some parts outside the area administered by Wolverhampton City Council. Whilst they are part of the settlement (or town), are they parts of the City? I rather suspect that that's a question that can never be definitively answered. Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have dug through the gazettes and newspaper archives to find out exactly who was awraded the city status. These are the grants since 1977 (unfortunately the N.I. grants weren't gazetted):

Announcement	Letters patent	Status granted to
June 7, 1977	June 7, 1977	Borough of Derby
N/A	November 4, 1980	Town of Lichfield
N/A	January 25, 1982	Borough of Rochester upon Medway
February 14, 1992	March 23, 1992	Borough of Sunderland
July 7, 1994	September 16, 1994	Town of St David's
July 7, 1994	Presented June 1, 1995	Armagh (??)
N/A	March 29, 1996	County of Cardiff (with effect April 1, 1996)
N/A	March 29, 1996	County of Swansea (with effect April 1, 1996)
N/A	April 1, 1996	"the New Borough of York"
N/A	October 11 2000	Town of Hereford
December 18, 2000	January 31, 2001	Towns of Brighton and Hove
December 18, 2000	January 31, 2001	Town of Inverness
December 18, 2000	January 31, 2001	Town of Wolverhampton
March 14, 2002	May 15, 2002	Town of Newport in the County Borough of Newport
March 14, 2002	May 15, 2002	Town of Preston
March 14, 2002	Presented in May 2002	Town of Stirling
March 14, 2002	Presented May 14, 2002	Lisburn (??)
March 14, 2002	Presented May 14, 2002	Newry (??)

It is interesting to note that inn the case of Cardiff and Swansea the grant is to the entire county, but in the case of Newport only to the town in the county borough. Lozleader (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If only the town of Preston was awarded city status how come the borough council (which includes a large rural area outside of Preston) changed tis name to Preston City Council? Penrithguy (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, councils can call themselves whatever they like. Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chester

Chesters an old Roman City and has an old Cathedral... Seems unusual that it was only given City status in 16th century. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.90.246 (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The date is correct: the building that is now a Chester Cathedral was a monastery before 1541. It is true that there was a cathedral in Chester until 1075 when the see moved to Lichfield, but this was a different church entirely. Chester was not one of the 19 cities recognised by "ancient prescriptive right" by the Home Office, but by virtue of the letters patent of Henry VIII. The place's status in Roman times is not really relevant, city status as we understand it dates from the Middle Ages. There are plenty of places which were a Roman "civitas", that have never been considered a city (eg Cirencester, Colchester, Silchester, Wroxeter etc) Lozleader (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blurry photo

I can see no justification for this out of focus picture. The mayoral chain is not exactly prominent and in other respects its no more than a picture of some bloke standing in front of a political banner that has no relation to the article. A decent picture of a mayor in his/her full regalia would be brilliant. But no picture is much better than this poorly taken shot. Jooler (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Two other reasons for not including it are that someone is claiming copyright on it (see image name) and secondly that it's a .png which is a good format for a diagram but not a good format for a photo. Jooler (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh whatever. Personally I can't see that it was doing any harm (I disagree with your premise that no picture is better than a poor one), but I'm not going to get into a revert war. Cheers, DWaterson (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style problems

This is an old and respected Featured Article, but it seems to be behind times when it comes to the style of text. The Manual of Style, which should always be followed by FAs, is often ignored when it comes to punctuation and text formatting. Furthermore, there are several sections which are under-linked and numerous links which are over-repeated, and links are generally used inconsistently throughout the article. I have already started attempts to redress these issues, but I cannot complete this task alone. This article requires attention, or it might suffer the unfortunate fate of the many demoted articles. Waltham, The Duke of 22:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the substantial concerns voiced was that the leader was too short. I agree, it is also defective. It doesn't address Scotland or Ireland, and does not outline the evolution of the modern practice of granting city status. Off the top of my head, I might suggest the following addition to the header at the end:

City status in Ireland was granted to far fewer communities than in England and Wales, and there are only two pre-nineteenth century cities in present-day Northern Ireland. City status in Scotland did not explicitly receive any recognition by the state until the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century, a revival of grants of city status took place, first in England, where the grants were accompanied by the establishment of new cathedrals, and later also in Scotland and Ireland, without cathedrals being established. In the twentieth century, it was explicitly recognized that the status of city would no longer be bound to the presence of a cathedral, either in England or elsewhere, and grants made since then have been awarded to communities on a variety of criteria, and on a variety of occasions.

Does anybody think it's too wordy, and are there any proposals to edit it in any way? Should there be anything about the many losses of city status which have been effected by the abolition of bodies bearing the status?GSTQ (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. I have combined it with the existing intro, and added a third paragraph for the reforms and losses of status (concluding it with a nice reference to its beginning, which I think is called "circular scheme"); with a few tweaks, the result is the following:

City status in the United Kingdom is granted by the British monarch to a select group of communities. The status does not apply automatically on the basis of any particular criteria, although in England and Wales it was traditionally given to towns with diocesan cathedrals. This association between having a cathedral and being called a city was established in the early 1540s when King Henry VIII founded dioceses (and therefore cathedrals) in six English towns and also granted them all city status by issuing letters patent.

City status in Ireland was granted to far fewer communities than in England and Wales, and there are only two pre-nineteenth-century cities in present-day Northern Ireland. In Scotland, city status did not explicitly receive any recognition by the state until the nineteenth century. At that time, a revival of grants of city status took place, first in England, where the grants were accompanied by the establishment of new cathedrals, and later in Scotland and Ireland. In the twentieth century, it was explicitly recognised that the status of city would no longer be bound to the presence of a cathedral, and grants made since have been awarded to communities on a variety of criteria, including population size, and on a variety of occasions.

Because of a series of local-government reforms in the late twentieth century, letters patent have been issued for most of the affected cities in order to ensure the continuation of their status. Failure to do so has led, in some cases, to loss of city status; however, most of these communities have later regained their title, leaving Rochester as the only former city in the United Kingdom.

What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly fine, except I don't like the resulting clumsiness in the last sentence of the second paragraph. Also, local government reorganizations took place as early as the nineteenth century, not just in the late twentieth. I've also reworded the third paragraph. Here's a revised version:

City status in the United Kingdom is granted by the British monarch to a select group of communities. The status does not apply automatically on the basis of any particular criteria, although in England and Wales it was traditionally given to towns with diocesan cathedrals. This association between having a cathedral and being called a city was established in the early 1540s when King Henry VIII founded dioceses (and therefore cathedrals) in six English towns and also granted them all city status by issuing letters patent.

City status in Ireland was granted to far fewer communities than in England and Wales, and there are only two pre-nineteenth-century cities in present-day Northern Ireland. In Scotland, city status did not explicitly receive any recognition by the state until the nineteenth century. At that time, a revival of grants of city status took place, first in England, where the grants were accompanied by the establishment of new cathedrals, and later in Scotland and Ireland. In the twentieth century, it was explicitly recognised that the status of city would no longer be bound to the presence of a cathedral, and grants made since have been awarded to communities on a variety of criteria, including population size.

The abolition of some corporate bodies as part of local government reforms, beginning in the nineteenth century, has deprived some ancient cities of their status, however letters patent have been issued for most of the affected cities in order to ensure the continuation or restoration of their status. At present Rochester is the only former city in the United Kingdom.GSTQ (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose on a variety of occasions was rather redundant. Concerning the third paragraph, I only remembered the later reforms, mostly the 1974 one. I still like the late x century comment, though; it introduces some variation and precision, and it is accurate because the first reform was, it turns out, in 1888. Generally speaking, although I am satisfied with the lead, I should have preferred it if there could be less repetitions of nineteenth century. But there isn't anything we could do about that, is there?

The abolition of some corporate bodies as part of local-government reforms, beginning in the late nineteenth century, has deprived some ancient cities of their status; however, letters patent have been issued for most of the affected cities in order to ensure the continuation or restoration of their status. At present, Rochester is the only former city in the United Kingdom.

Waltham, The Duke of 23:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the nineteenth century was a pretty momentous time as far as cities in the U.K. are concerned. And, unfortunately, the only way of saying "nineteenth century" is "nineteenth century", unless it's reduced to "it", which we can't really do. As for "late nineteenth century" or "nineteenth century", I'm not really fussed, but the repetition of the cumbersome "nineteenth century" suggests to me that we should try to avoid making the phrase even more cumbersome by adding yet another word to it. Besides, if we were after accuracy, why not just say "1888"? It is only a leader, if the reader's interested, he can read further.GSTQ (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was mostly aiming at variety... I don't think late makes it more cumbersome. In any case, although we could say beginning in 1888, it is neither specific nor general enough, and I should instead suggest beginning with the Local Government Act 1888, which ties is nicely with as part of local-government reforms, as this is indeed the first of these reforms. (Adopting the idea would also leave us with only two nineteenth centurys in the intro.) This might be a lead, but it doesn't mean we should be general at all costs; tidbits like this one help spice the introduction up a little. Waltham, The Duke of 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, Your Grace, I can put up with slips like "ties is nicely", and even "less repetitions" (it should be "fewer repetitions", of course), but "tidbits"? It's so American. I've altered the leader as per Your Grace's suggestion, by the way.GSTQ (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't slept yet, and it probably shows. If it weren't for this, I shouldn't have forgiven myself. :-D I have just made a few style corrections to the third paragraph; I had noted them above, but you probably failed to notice them in time. Successive was a nice touch, by the way. I've also noticed the section re-ordering, which certainly constitutes an improvement.

Now that we have got the lead out of the way... Can you do anything about the small number of in-line references? Unfortunately, I can be of no use there. Waltham, The Duke of 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Settlements or cities

Regarding this, the article makes clear the wider districts have the city status in some cases. The articles linked describe districts, not councils. The original change was applied only to those cities where the wider district holds the status and is therefore consistent. MRSC • Talk 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stroke City commentary

The following message was left on my user talk page, which I've moved here as it's the more appropriate forum for discussing this edit and others like it:

So I'm not sure what your involvement in the article is but out of courtesy I'll leave you a message seeing as you addressed me in your last edit. The name of a city is entirely relevant to the article because otherwise people won't know what the article is referring to. It would be like insisting on calling say Swansea exclusively Abertawe— I'd know what was being referring to but most people wouldn't. Judging by your user page you no doubt have some "unionist" sentiment(or whatever you want to call it), but bear in mind neutrality is key to wikipedia. Thanks.ʄ!•¿talk? 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In response:

1. I don't have to justify my edits to this article by meeting some threshold of "involvement", but since you mention it I have made a significant number of contributions to it for at least a year, perhaps more, I can't remember. Check the page history.

2. The name of a city is of course relevant to the article, and the two names are mentioned where this is relevant. For instance, the sentence "There are only two pre-ninenteenth century cities in modern-day Northern Ireland, Armagh and Derry, which was renamed 'Londonderry' by its city charter." The comparison with Swansea and Abertawe is spurious. Both "Londonderry" and "Derry" are English-language names. Both are widely understood, whether or not there are some who refuse to use either one or the other themselves. No confusion could possibly occur in this sentence anyway, because both names are mentioned.

3. This is not a neutrality dispute, this article doesn't fail that test as it stands. This is a dispute about relevance. To say the naming controversy is relevant to this article is tantamount to saying every article which mentions the city should have a sentence after the first mention, saying "warning: controversy about name: see here". The whole point of the Wikipedia policy of using Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county was to avoid the necessity of doing this. There are fascinating topics about every city mentioned in this article, but unless they are relevant to city status (and Londonderry's seventeenth-century city charter is relevant) they have no place in this article, but rather in the articles concerning the cities themselves. My unionist sympathies have nothing to do with my reverts of these edits. Rather, I am concerned that the edits would interfere with the article's being considered to be written interestingly and brilliantly.GSTQ (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Jubilee in 18??

"on the occasion of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in 1897." Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Golden Jubilee in 1887? Calle Widmann (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, probably should be Diamond Jubilee. David Underdown (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)