Talk:List of English districts by population

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Erk! Everything from 302 to 326 seems to have been lost when the figs were updated to the 2002 census. sjorford 13:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 2006 figures

These figures are highly dubious. They are based on 3 year old data[1] which have been proven inaccurate by the mid-2004 figures. josh (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

RE 2006 figures

UK census figures are taken only every 10 years 1991,2001 etc. the next complete census will be taken in 2011 but until then all figures you will see anywhere are growth estimates based of the 2001 figures.

Watcherzero 19/05/06

[edit] London boroughs

Would it make sense to add another section header and listing of just the London boroughs?

[edit] Merge in of List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was do not merge with List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population. -- DWaterson 16:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose They are completely different measures -- the urban areas as defined by the ONS are meaningful and distinct from districts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratarsed (talk • contribs)
  • Strong oppose Same reason as above. David 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. As mentioned above, Urban Areas and Sub-Area populations are defined by a Primary Source, the ONS. They are distinct from local authority areas. A merge of the two datasets would be impossible, one reason being that large towns such as West Bromwich and Huddersfield do not have like-named local authorities, and ranking by both datasets at the same time is also impossible. User:Captain scarlet (who is pushing the merge) has attempted to engage other editors on the talk page by the use of inflammatory language (such as "Sheffield data scandal") and has failed to this point. I firmly believe (as shown by the use of phrases such as "Sheffield ... is statistically always larger than Leeds, on paper and in spirit" and "the ONS which is biased") that User:Captain scarlet is simply trying to push a POV agenda to promote Sheffield as it is ranked 5th on List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population, and (quite correctly) 3rd here. Fingerpuppet 09:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose. Districts and Urban Areas are 2 different things, if they were the same then the Census would not produce 2 reports, one for urban areas and one for Local Authorities. The idea of merging the two is absolutely meaningless. --Statsfan 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. However some attention probably needs to be given to this and related articles to make sure the lingering problems brought about by User:EarlyBird's actions (unilateral page-moves including taking measures to prevent the page-moves being simply reversed, and other edits) are corrected.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with the statement about work being required on the article, for the reasons that you give. Fingerpuppet 10:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The merge is an attempt to merge and rename the lists so as to avoid creating yet another list with less arbitrary creiteria for the area considered. Contrary to Fingerpuppet comments I have not pushed the merge but proposed; my contributions page is a testimony that am in no way lobbying the move towards other contributors and this merge is generated by a good faith feling that the current set areas have been arbitrarily chosen and rigid to the point of accepting no other sources. The current set of articles is on the fringe of unacceptablity on Wikipedia since it seems one source alone is acceptable and as such no contirbution is possible on theses unless been vetoed by Fingerpuppet and his rigid responses on talk page. Concentrating on the current frame is an error since this move is not and cannot be meant to be made with the current names, as Ratarsed points the two areas considered at the present are incompatible in nature and the merge/rename porosal comprise a rename to consider a less arbitrary criterion of area delimitation.

Can I say your statement "no contirbution is possible on theses unless been vetoed by Fingerpuppet" is unfair. Fingerpuppet has correctly pointed out that the information is of primary source from the Office of National Statistics and just because you're not happy with it, does not make it invalid. If Fingerpuppet hadn't point these facts out then I or others would have done. --82.37.199.48 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This merge proposal was generated by the responses of the User:Fingerpuppet who has made a point to show* the rigidity and absurdity of the current areas considered. Indeed some cities/towns see indeed random suburbs included while others see their teritory amputed for such or such reason with double standards applied. The result of the vote isn't as relevant as is the need to change the criterion for the inclusion or exclusion of districts. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Super extra strong oppose. They are completely different things, and Wikipedia needs to have both. Cheers, DWaterson 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They are both useful, and quite different lists. They should be linked, but not merged. Andrewa 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Potential Review Process

After bringing the merge process as detailed in the section above, User:Captain scarlet is now threatening to take List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population to a Peer Review process. The grounds given for this are that:

The article is neither properly sourced nor properly edited or maintained since it does not allow:

  • other editors to modify it
  • its strutcure is rigid and does not allow any editing
  • it represents a unilateral point of view
  • it allows being referenced by one source alone.
  • this article is inaccurate and does not represent a neutral ground

This has serious repercussions across all articles and information based upon UK Census data, or estimates based upon UK Census data prepared by the Office for National Statistics, including this one. As all data of this type ultimately comes from the ONS, should this data be considered suspect by the editing community at large, then this article would fall under the criteria given and would be potentially considered invalid. In addition to this, all articles containing data ultimately sourced from the ONS (such as all local authority articles, and the majority of major settlement articles where different) would need that data removing. Fingerpuppet 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I just might lose faith in the human race; I have not threatened to bring the article to RfC, I have warned!

This has serious repercussions across all articles and information based upon UK Census data, or estimates based upon UK Census data prepared by the Office for National Statistics, including this one. As all data of this type ultimately comes from the ONS, should this data be considered suspect by the editing community at large, then this article would fall under the criteria given and would be potentially considered invalid. In addition to this, all articles containing data ultimately sourced from the ONS (such as all local authority articles, and the majority of major settlement articles where different) would need that data removing.

It is precisely because these articles use a single source of reference that they present a unilateral point of view and as such require cleaning up under rules and conventions that regulate Wikipedia. The fact that you are persisting in preventing any other Wikipedian from contributing to this article is a serious situation, a situation you have brought upon yourself by not answering the worries of the Wikipedian that sough your aid on the article's talk page, myself included. Quoting you, how can you talk about local authorities since this article is about randomly vchosen areas that no one seems to agree on? What is it then; randomly chosen areas or LA limits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain_scarlet (talk • contribs)
This is absurd. Which other set of national census data would you like to use as a second source? That other census which is held every ten years? Oh, no wait... DWaterson 12:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What is absurd is the way the data collected by the ONS is interpreted and presented in these articles and how it conveys points of views, clearly, disagreements exist. I do however not see any wish on your side to avoid such situation. this isn't a rose garden, you cannot sit complainsant at the situation and think it'l die off. I saw a clear fault in the structure of the article and offered compromise, this was tossed aside and you are now in the situation where the entire community might be warned of the situation. I've offered Fingerpuppet a talk oportunity which he refused, this is the result; a diplomatic, Wikipedia sanctionned procedure. I offered to look at the situation in an adult and reasonable manner but by ignoring my request you're forcing me to show the community the situation by putting off guard and having to defend yourselves, it's regretable but without some compromise on your side it's unavoidable. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
And where does all this end? You disagree with the ONS's figures for the Sheffield Urban Sub-Area, and wish to combine it with the data from other areas to demonstrate your own PoV rather than simply reporting the census figures. What next? By the same logic, perhaps you disagree that the figure for the Sheffield Local Authority area and feel that it must be combined with, say, Rotherham MBC's figure to give your "true" and "unbiased" figure? You have already stated that the reporting of the Leeds local authority data is somehow "biased against Sheffield". You have used phrases such as "Sheffield data scandal". Yet you agree completely with List of largest cities in England by population, which in no way represents cities, but a single report's agglomerations of local authorities (called Primary Urban Areas) that specifically state that they are NOT to be used outside that report? Somehow despite that being a single source that specifically states that the data is only to be used in a single context, then that's all right?
This article is about local authorities. The other one is about defined Urban Sub-Areas. They are different areas. Fingerpuppet 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In other news

Contributors to this page may be interested in this AFD on List of largest cities in England by population and this RM on List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population. Cheers, DWaterson 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mid-2006 population figures now available

[2] here are the mid-2006 population estimates which the article needs to be updated with. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done the first two blocks - could somebody else now carry on? David 19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastbourne

Where is eastbourne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentem (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's there - ranked 237th. David (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)~on the article it has a population of about 97,000Blackwave...... (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)