Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements

How much space to devote to the infobox image?
The current guidance says "no more than 6 to 8 images for even the largest settlements" but is there any advice re excessive total size? See talk:Milton Keynes (maybe it just needs more eyes - especially those of editors who have the benefit of distant perspective - to just add a common sense opinion. There isn't even a dispute as such, too few participants!) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you seen WP:UKCITIES and WP:LENGTH. Regs, --The Equalizer (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Taking the "even the largest settlements should have no more the 6 to 8 images", we could have six in a vertical column, 1/2/2/1 or 2/2/2. In each case, we have six images but the resulting infobox be so large as to disrupt the rest of the article – especially in the new layout with no empty space to fill beside the ToC. I shudder to think what eight images would do.
 * I can't think of a way to refine the advice. "Not more than six images, not more than three high" almost does it. But a row with just one image takes as much space as two rows of two images each. Sigh. If only common sense were common. A frequent refrain at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style is "oh no, not yet another instruction". If it is not a general problem it doesn't need a general solution. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The pictures could be merged into one collage and uploaded perhaps? The Equalizer (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't advise on a sensible overall size. It is not possible to legislate for good design. But it is worth looking at a few examples of "custom and practice"
 * Oxford (1/2/3, looks good to me),
 * Reading (2/1/2, looks good to me),
 * Cambridge (just one big one, nice if terse),
 * Coventry (1/2/2, looks good to me),
 * Leicester (a mess! but still a sensible overall size. pics are illegible),
 * Northampton (1/3/3, demonstrating that 3-up is not a good look as again pics are illegible, but also a sensible overall size),
 * Cardiff (2/2/2/1, and a good demonstration [especially in Wikipedia2023] of what happens when the infobox is allowed to bloat to a silly extent. The capital of Wales deserves better. IMO!
 * Edinburgh (1/2/2/2. A bit big but reasonable given the size and significance as capital of Scotland. Image block has same number of elements as Cardiff but they have been scaled appropately. IMO2!
 * Glasgow (2/3/2: sensible overall size but the row of three is illegible).
 * Comments? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Image use policy
 * Additionally I see this page which has policy on collages and display sizes.
 * But it's all a bit moot, if I want to view a larger image I would click the image. The Equalizer (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Adding images to articles" specifies a "no wider than". Not "no taller than". And it is about individual images, not a collection.
 * Putting the images in a collage gives a little more control of each than does multiple image. Not a lot, but certainly some. But that is irrelevant to this discussion, which is "how many column inches of the infobox is it reasonable for the image to take". It would not be difficult to create a collage 290px wide by 2900px tall, for example (eight portrait format 290x387 pics stacked). I can't see there ever being a consensus for such a monstrosity but some articles don't have many watchers and the lack of a guidance means that it can't be just wrapped up without a long debate.
 * It is not possible to expand individual elements of a collage (unlike multiple image). If you click on it, you just get a larger version of the collage.
 * I would like to think that this is a hypothetical debate but the reason I am raising it here is because of two real cases of proposed new image blocks. The only counter argument reduces to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the absence of any guidance. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ceremonial counties in Northern Ireland and Wales
In the Lead section, it says "County: use the ceremonial county (England, Wales and Northern Ireland only)".

I think it would better reflect current use if it said something like:

County: Use the county (ceremonial county in England) when not clear from the administrative district. Omit for Scotland and Wales.

This achieves two things.


 * It doesn't ask for "ceremonial counties" for places in Wales. Outside the administrative county of Gwynedd, few of the articles I looked at mention a preserved county at all outside the infobox.
 * It doesn't use the phrase "ceremonial county" in relation to Northern Ireland. The articles I checked do list a county in the lead, but don't refer to the 8 lieutenancy areas directly.

Does this sound sensible? Aoeuidhtns (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Co-ordinates
Could we include somewhere in this guide a reminder that the coords template should be given the parameters "|region:GB_type:city". TBH I'm not quite sure what benefit the "city" has (and yes, even the smallest settlement comes under "city" here), but the "GB" means that someone clicking on the coordinates to get the "Geohack" page is then shown GB-specific maps such as OS, as well as international ones, so it's very helpful for the reader. It will also usually need "|display=inline,title" if in the infobox, or "|display=title" if free-standing, to ensure that the coordinates appear at the top of the article. Pam D  22:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe that "type:city" specifies a city-sized zoom level when you select a map. It can also specify which icon to plot on a map. See Template:coord.  Dr Greg  talk 01:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What makes a city?

 * Assuming the consensus is to call Colchester a city, is it worth updating the guidelines to cover the issue? Something like:
 * "It is common for a district, rather than an individual settlement, to be granted city status, in which case the district will usually be named 'City of [Settlement]'. In these cases the namesake settlement should be referred to as a city provided this usage can verified by reliable sources. For example, 'Lancaster is a city within the wider City of Lancaster district'."
 * I'm sure that could be expressed more succinctly, but you get the gist. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds useful, so we don't need to go round this loop again. Pam  D  07:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, although the provided this usage can verified by reliable sources bit can be tricky as most sources will still refer to the settlement as a town (in cases like Colchester) until they are updated or superseded by newer sources. In Colcheter's case the newly created city council's website still referred to the settlement as a town, even when writing about the district having obtained city status. WaggersTALK  08:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , see WP:AGEMATTERS. Any source that predates the award has ceased to be reliable in this respect. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree too but I'd put it more strongly: for legal and technical reasons, Letters Patent must be awarded to a Body Corporate, usually the Borough Council: they cannot be awarded to a settlement as such. But the clear intention is declare the settlement a city. So I'd turn ADH's proposal on jits head and say that the namesake settlement should be referred to as a city unless this usage is contradicted by reliable sources. The House of Commons Library is authoritative on this subject and this is what it says:
 * source= }}--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Another highly relevant document: --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Another item which could do with adding is to highlight that the designation is not valid until said Letters is created and any article edits should reflect this. An announcement just explains the intention to award. Regards, --The Equalizer (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 08:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a go at doing a first draft to kick things off. Improvements welcome. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ...does anybody know what a Letter actually says?

Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith To all to whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas We for divers good causes and considerations Us thereunto moving are graciously pleased to confer on the Town of XX in Our County of XX the status of a City Now Therefore Know Ye that We of Our especial grace and favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that the Town of XX shall henceforth have the status of a City and shall have all such rank liberties privileges and immunities as are incident to a City In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the XX day of XX in the XX year of Our Reign"
 * The text is in the Crown Office’s General Guidance for Warrants and Patents PDF (pg 25) within the "What makes a city?" House of Commons Library link. The Equalizer (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As it is a bit of a faff to find, I shall assume that the US "fair use" doctrine applies and replicate it here:
 * "City Status
 * Note in particular to confer on the Town of XX in Our County of XX the status of a City and direct that the Town of XX shall henceforth have the status of a City. That seems to me to nail the lid shut. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite! If you look at actual examples 'town' is substituted for 'borough' where necessary, for example:
 * Colchester: "to confer on the Borough of Colchester in our county of Essex the status of a city"
 * York: "to confer on the Borough of York the status of a city"
 * Southend: "to confer on the Borough of Southend-on-Sea the status of a city"
 * For whatever reason most pictures of the documents are terrible, but I'm sure you get the gist. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @A.D.Hope, was literally gonna bring that up.
 * That format was not clearly used last year for Milton Keynes, Colchester and Wrexham last year which is kinda the whole point of this guidance? If it did state "Town of" then there would be little debate. So the guidance has to be clear what happens if "borough (etc.) of" is used and such borough (etc.) has a separate article on Wikipedia. In these cases, do both the borough (etc.) and the settlement it is named after are to be described as a city? and in what specific way. Some district leads may describe themselves as a "city" in their own right while others are "with city status"?
 * The guideline would have to cater to both, as while in 2002 they catered to specifying "town of" (such as Newport) even if the local authority was the same, in 2022 they clearly did not even if they were also the same.  Dank Jae  20:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ADH and DJ. I should have guessed that it was too good to be true. But it is seriously weird for Boroughs like MK, Carlisle and York that have substantial rural areas.
 * Thus clarification makes writing a guideline rather difficult. It supports ADH's "wait and see" model and contradicts my "just do it", so that part of my draft is not correct. Anyone fancy revising? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Before we revise I think we should also make sure we know how the granting of city status works in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as in both cases I believe it's different to the 'give it to a convenient local authority' model in England and Wales. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Scotland is legislatively slightly different to the rest of the UK regards honours, but all countries allow for a part or whole of a council area to become a city. Eg in the recent competition, the borough of Wrexham had the designation, Bangor in NI or Dunfermline in Scotland are not their own districts however. The Equalizer (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can part of a council area be granted city status in England and Wales? The only examples I can think of are when an authority has been abolished and charter trustees established, meaning the city only covers part of the new council area (e.g. Durham). A.D.Hope (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See List of cities in the United Kingdom; there are several examples there.  Dr Greg </b> talk 00:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Bath, Carlisle, Chester, and Durham are the only cities in England and Wales where the status is maintained by charter trustees, and in every case I believe the status was transferred from a previous local government district rather than being newly-granted. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Letters Patent wording uses 'town' in the case of town councils and 'borough' for borough councils etc. The Letters Patent for Wolverhampton states that the Town of Wolverhampton shall have the status of a city, although the whole borough changed uts name to Wolverhampton City Council. If that is correct, surely it works backward compatible? As i have pointed out on the Colchester page talk, the intention was for City status to be granted to the main town which holds the history, and was in fact the original borough boundary until expanded in 1974. If the Cith Council area/district decided to rename itself to 'Colne Riveria' does that make city status void for Colchester... it can all get confusing, i admit. Goom80 (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I know its not reliable source material, but what good would contacting various councils do to ask whether they accept the main settlement and wider borough to be interchangeable when referring to city status? For example, do the City of Doncaster Council take the view that Doncaster urban area itself is a city, or just a part of one? Having contacted Colchester City Council on this very matter, I was informed that Colchester is the city and the wider district (former borough) takes the name, and that, as already pointed out, only a legal entity - in this case, the authority area, could apply and be eligible for city status. The entity could choose what part of the area it wanted to include, or have it cover the entire authority area. In Colchester's case, it was the latter, but the area that the council themselves focus on as being the core city is Colchester proper, aka urban area/town/ancient borough/Camulodunum/Colinia Victricensus... whatever other name it formally went by. Goom80 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's be very careful, a town can either have a parish or district council/UA, the seemingly equivalent terms town council or borough council are in effect honorific. Also, a council can virtually name itself as anything - eg. Durham parish is named City of Durham, yet it does not cover the area of the city, nor are the trustees from that council, they are from the district.
 * Thus, see my note further down the page about names of districts. The Equalizer (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An area with its own council has always been initially chosen in England and Wales, but elsewhere they have been more flexible with urban-only locations, it's only academic anyway as both are still overseen by councillors albeit the administration body is different. The rules for the last competition stated either type of area can be submitted by any applicant. The Equalizer (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like the extent to which an entire LA (with rural areas) with city status is referred to as the "city" differs between areas. For example, in Milton Keynes (my home city), the Council and local media outlets seem to refer to the entire LA as the "city" or "Milton Keynes." E.g. look at Milton Keynes City Council's recycling page where "in Milton Keynes" is frequently mentioned, and the frequent reference of Olney and the villages outside the urban area as "Milton Keynes" towns and villages or "older areas of the city" . However, in Bradford, the Council seems more inclined to refer to the LA (again with city status) as the "Bradford District" . In both cases, the local authority received Letters Patent and thus de jure both the urban and rural areas are part of the "city", but I guess MK wants to include the rural areas in order to further emphasise the city's "uniqueness", while Bradford wants to maintain the separate identities of the BUA and the rural areas (this is just my guess :D). In any case, their respective main articles (and Colchester's) should state that they are cities, as despite the LA articles also stating that, the vast majority of readers are mainly interested in the non-political stuff, and clearly the intent was for MK, Bradford and Colchester, etc., to be referred to as "cities" regardless of where people assume their "boundaries" are (which is more often than not the core urban area). Those who are interested in politics can look at the City of Milton Keynes, City of Bradford and City of Colchester, etc., articles, and if they have a problem with 2 articles claiming the "city" title, then there's not much we can do. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and there's little point in worrying about minor details about which part is technically the city pertaining to Letters Patent, when realistically, the common sense view is all that matters. I can confidently say that most people when referring to Colchester as a city think of the urban core itself including areas like the Hythe. Basically the entire continuous urban area. People living in areas like Mersea, Tiptree etc although legally part of the city district would not consider themselves city dwellers, or those living in a house in the middle of nowhere. It's definitely stange quirk for the city to include rural area. I guess in future maybe they'll plan to build on these areas to expand the overall city, who knows? Goom80 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Draft text for new guidance)
New awards of city status

When a town is awarded city status, the article will need to be revised. There are some important points to must be borne in mind:
 * 1) City status does not exist until the Letters Patent have been signed by the Monarch, sealed with the Wafer Seal and delivered to the relevant local authority. Any prior announcements, even by the Prime Minister in Parliament, are not relevant: they may be noted in the body of the article but the settlement is not yet a city.
 * 2) For legal and technical reasons, the Letter is addressed to the local authority (typically a Borough Council).  The text of the standard form of the letter declares that it is a specific town that is being declared henceforth to be a city. When the Letter has been delivered, the article may be changed to say "city" unless reliable sources make clear that an exception applies – for example in the case of Brighton.
 * 3) Per WP:AGEMATTERS, any otherwise highly reliable sources that describe the settlement as a "town" may be ignored in this respect if they predate the award.
 * 4) A widely practised convention is for the Borough concerned ("Borough of Camford", say) to rename itself "City of" (as in "City of Camford"). This has no legal status, Nevertheless and despite this lack of de jure foundation, Wikipedia may reflect this de facto usage when a reliable source reports it.
 * Collins refers to the settlement being a city in such district rather than the district having city status so I'd say with Colchester the best wording is "Colchester is a city and unparished area in the Colchester district, in the county of Essex, England". Even though neither the settlement or unparished area holds the city status. Same with Lancaster. Note that the district probably should be called "Lancaster" rather than "City of Lancaster" as its name is just "Lancaster" even though "City of Lancaster" is natural disambiguation sometimes used in legislation.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1 discussion

 * "Colchester is a city in Essex, England" is what it should be. Going into unparished areas and districts in the first 10 words is unnecessarily complicated and immediately raises questions of what an unparished area is and what this "Colchester District is" only to find it's a link to an article called... "City of Colchester". Koncorde (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep it short and to the point. I had worded that 'Colchester is a city and administrative centre of the wider City of Colchester district' in keeping with other articles. Goom80 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm growing to dislike the "administrative centre" statement. It kind of makes sense in the governance section, or in context in the lede with changes in parish, civil and borough etc but wedged into the lede feels more and more peacock'y as time drags on and still conflates the two things. If we should mention it it should be less repetitive and wooden sounding. Koncorde (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So, do you propose the wording: Colchester is a city in Essex, East of England. Should there be a mention that it's part of the wider City of Colchester district to link to that page? Goom80 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Mentioning it should either be in second paragraph along with common things like historic boundaries / counties / boroughs / parish and / or in the governance sections. Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's tricky, because although Collins phrases it so it's definitely the metropolitan district of Salford which holds city status (as explanatory note 4 at the bottom of this order states). Incidentally, Britannica gets itself in a right muddle over Winchester 'cathedral town', so we're not the only ones battling with this. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Was going to call this out, most city districts don't even have the word city in their formal district name - only the two city counties (London, Bristol) and Kingston upon Hull do. The council name for them are a different story however. The Equalizer (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support my proposed wording, unparished area if generally useful even if not relevant to most readers as its the way we generally define places that don't have parishes.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2
It's quite easy to get caught up in definitions when dealing with topics like this, so I'd like to propose a guideline which ignores the precise details:


 * In the United Kingdom city status can be granted to areas of varying size, from compact urban areas (e.g. Stirling) to large districts which include towns and villages outside their core urban area (e.g. City of Lancaster).


 *  When city status has been granted to an area which includes multiple settlements we should be guided by common usage reliable sources when deciding whether or not to refer to a particular settlement within that area as a city. For example, although Lancaster,  and Morecambe , and Carnforth are all  both in the City of Lancaster district only the former is referred to as a city in reliable sources. We should therefore refer to Lancaster as a city but Morecambe and Carnforth as a town s. Reliable sources should be ignored where they predate the award of city status (see WP:AGEMATTERS)
 *  When a local authority has been awarded city status and renamed itself 'City of [Settlement]' this name can act as a WP:NATURAL disambiguation between the articles about the settlement and local authority. 

I would also support the creation of a more detailed explainer of city status to act as a reference for interested editors, but I don't think the guideline necessarily needs to get into letters patent and the like. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC) ; edited 09:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC) ; edited 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)  ; edited 16:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Would anyone object if I put the above up for general discussion at WT:UKGEO? Any final thoughts, positive or negative? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes this makes sense, agree with the test and the suggestion for general discussion.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections from me. Well done on this, I think it covers pretty much everything we've discussed and is nice and clear. <b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b><small  style="color:#080">TALK  10:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2 discussion

 * Support yes Morecambe is definitely not a city, it should be described as being in Lancaster district.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ... in the City of Lancaster district, I trust you mean. Explicitly, not piped ( City of Lancaster not Lancaster ). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Piping is correct, as I noted "Lancaster" is the actual name of the district and "City of Lancaster" is natural disambiguation. For unitary districts with city status "City of" is normally used such as City of Leicester.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think we should have a discussion about changing the leads of such articles to something like 'Lancaster, commonly known as the City of Lancaster, is a non-metropolitan district with city status...', with a source. First things first though, eh? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think just "Lancaster" can be used in the lead just like with Ribble Valley. If you look at the Historic England listings you can see for Little Trinity in Cambridge district is uses just "Cambridge" while for Plymouth Naval War Memorial it uses "City of Plymouth". Similarly for parishes it lists Obelisk as being in "Ripon" parish not "City of Ripon".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If a place has multiple common or legal names it's good practice to include them all in the lead, I think. There's probably a guideline about it somewhere, but it's common sense really to make sure readers know what the article is about. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it isn't universal for UAs. York, Southend on Sea, Milton Keynes for example. Many of the metropolitan districts (effectively UAs) don't have the term city in their title, nor do the Welsh principal areas (again UAs in all but name) The Equalizer (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On past performance, rules do need to set down clearly, minimising wiggle room. For example, your We should be guided by common usage when deciding whether or not to refer to a settlement as a city. would need to say "guided by reliable sources" and maybe even "settlement within the district that has received the award". (Before its award, Milton Keynes was being described as a city, since that was its design brief. But maybe that one is too exceptional and not likely to arise again any time soon.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made some tweaks based on your comment, what do you think? I'm still keen to avoid too much detail as it easily gets unwieldy, and I do think we can safely ignore outliers such as Milton Keynes (which is happily no longer an outlier). A.D.Hope (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That reads better to me. Support.
 * We definitely don't want to cfork city status in the United Kingdom, let's just refer readers to that article for the gory detail.
 * Am I correct in assuming that your text is to replace #2 in my original draft? We will still need #1, #3 and #4, though I think it would be better to have your text first (swop order of #1 and #2). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. On balance I don't think we need 1 (a link to 'city status' is probably fine), 3 can likely be condensed, and 4 may contain more detail than we need to go into. Perhaps:
 * Reliable sources should be ignored where they predate the award of city status (see WP:AGEMATTERS)
 * When a local authority has been awarded city status and renamed itself 'City of [Settlement]' this name can act as a WP:NATURAL disambiguation between the articles about the settlement and local authority.
 * A.D.Hope (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, that hits the spot. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Goom80 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the proposal to include the above A.D.Hope (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In the UK, being a city is not a description, it is a legal status: that is why St David's, St Asaph and Wells are described as such. Casual inaccuracy, even if widespread in "reliable" sources, does not change that fact.  There is no legal status by which Mersea Rd, Colchester is any more 'in' any city than is Colchester Rd,  Mersea.  If the not-immediately-apparent nature of city status in the UK is not what uninformed readers might expect from their preconceived notions, then the function of an encyclopaedia is to correct and inform, not to pander to and incorporate error. To "Ignore precise details" is to abandon enclyclopaedic ambition.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The aim of the proposal is to explain what to do when city status has been granted to a wide area rather than a specific settlement, which is to refer to the main settlement within that area as a city where this follows common usage as supported by reliable sources. In this case taking an overly-strict view which ignores common usage introduces error to the encyclopaedia rather than removing it —for example, if we began referring to Lancaster as a town because city status is held by the wider district we would be ignoring the large number of reliable sources which refer to it as a city. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is common sense, and we could look into the formalities of multiple articles on Wikipedia etc... where does it end. If reliable sources support the usage of the word, why make matters confusing? There are videos online at Colchester's city status cereminy of the Lord Luitenent of Essex when presenting the Letters Patent to the Mayor where she clearly states that the Town has become a city. Sir Bob Russell at the same event goes onto to say in his speech that "the sun has set on Colchester's final day as a town and as a borough"... its there for anyone to watch. Goom80 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While I mostly support this proposal, I think we need to be clear about how we define a "settlement." For example, the Milton Keynes urban area includes Newport Pagnell and Woburn Sands (as well as various other villages/hamlets which are now contiguous with the BUA), which were not included in the 1967 "designated development area" of Milton Keynes New Town. Now, do we consider the 1967 designated area of MK, and Newport Pagnell and Woburn Sands, etc to be separate settlements, or do we consider them to be a single one. In my opinion, it should be the latter, and the one which falls under the overall "city" label (when referring to the core settlement), and in MK's case, many reliable sources (as well as general local usage) refer to NP and WS as being part of Milton Keynes (and the "city") . The same applies to other areas in similar situations: E.g. the lead for Morley (IMO misleadingly) states that "it is the largest town in the Borough of Leeds after Leeds after Leeds itself" oblivious of the fact that (a) Morley is part of the West Yorkshire Urban Area and is contiguous with the rest of urban Leeds and (b) Leeds is hardly ever, if ever, referred to as a town, and indeed the former County Borough of Leeds, and the current Metropolitan Borough of Leeds holds, city status, and again there are plenty of RSs which refer to Morley as being part of Leeds (rather than two separate settlements, let alone "towns") . While I agree we shouldn't be to liberal with the extent to which a settlement (which we are describing as a "city") covers, I think WP is often oblivious to the fact that, yes, cities/urban areas do expand outside of their original boundaries, and thus WP should reflect that.
 * Hence I suggest that the lead of ADH's proposal states that In the United Kingdom, city status can be granted to areas of varying size, from compact urban areas (e.g. Stirling) to large districts which include other towns and villages outside of their core built-up-area (e.g. City of Lancaster). When city status has been granted to an area which includes multiple settlements we should be guided by common usage reliable sources when deciding whether or not to refer to a particular settlement within that area as a city. For example, although Lancaster and Carnforth are both in the City of Lancaster district only the former is referred to as a city in reliable sources. We should therefore refer to Lancaster as a city but Carnforth as a town.


 * → Note how I replaced Morecambe with Carnforth as the former forms part of the Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area, unlike the latter. Although I'd personally be content with referring to the whole BUA as a "city", thoughts from others would be helpful, considering the ONS' distinction between "Lancaster" and "Morecambe".


 * Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd keep both examples, so we cover both towns which are part of the urban area of cities and towns which are within a city district but distinct from it. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've updated the proposal to incorporate both examples and add 'outside their core urban area' to the first para. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the current proposed wording about Carnforth is confusing: the issue isn't whether or not Carnforth is a city (it isn't for the simple reason that its name isn't "Lancaster"), it's whether it is within the city of Lancaster. And that depends which definition of city you are using, the district (yes) or the settlement (no in this case). Surely the only settlement within the City of Lancaster district that can be called a "city" is Lancaster itself -- the names have to match. A suburb of Lancaster can be part of the city but that doesn't mean the suburb is a city. And whether or not places are considered suburbs of a larger settlement is no different whether the larger settlement is a town or a city. (By the way, in my opinion if a settlement becomes a city it doesn't cease to be a town, it is both a city and a town simultaneously, which means, for example, it's OK to say that a city is a "county town".) Are there any cities where the name of the core settlement that we are describing as a "city" is different from the name of the district that has legal city status? <b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494"> Dr Greg </b> talk 21:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case the issue is whether a settlement within a district with city status is a city, and the example is intended to show that simply being within such a district isn't enough to make a town a city. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that do we really have to have a reliable source to decide that? Isn't the fact that the names of the settlement and the legal city are different sufficient to decide this? Are there any exceptions to this rule? <b style="color:#FFF8C0;background:#494"> Dr Greg </b> talk 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case the Carnforth article wouldn't need citations to prove it isn't a city. The example is included in the guideline to make the point that reliable sources are necessary to prove somewhere is a city, and as no reliable sources refer to Carnforth as a city there would be nothing to cite. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the dilemma that has been bothering (and others) all along. If the Crown Office had only stuck to the proforma set out in "General Guidance for Warrants and Patents" (reproduced by me above, 19 July @16:31) where a named town becomes a city. Simple, straightforward, uncomplicated. But no, we now have the situation that places like Lancaster are de jure still towns but de facto are cities. To take the extreme example I've used earlier: Warrington, a very rural hamlet twelve miles from central MK, is in the City of Milton Keynes but no way is in a city. So we have no option but to rely on RSs that say that X is a city, even though that assertion has no legal basis. . 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But there is no truth is saying that Warrington (it would help if your example did not share its name with an unsuccessful applicant for city status) is not in a city. It is not urban, but neither is Wells.  And a claim of de facto citihood (citidom?) doesn't hold water, as the facta that make Colchester or MK (the urban areas) cities (as some would describe them) are no different than they were 15 months ago, when any attempt to call them such would have been corrected immediately.   The only thing that has changed is the jus, so de jure is everything.  If The Hythe can be a suburb within the city, then Wormingford can be a village within the city.  The problem is whether Colchester can be a city within the city.  Kevin McE (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Colchester is a city that's within a non metropolitan district that just so happens to call itself the City of Colchester. The Council reserves the right to describe its authority as such. It is generally accepted that Colchester- the original settlement of name is the area being defined as a city. It's not too hard to grasp, but yes we agree there's technicalities involved, but Wikipedia is not the law, it serves to give information based on reliable published sources. Goom80 (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Drop the patronising tone.
 * "It is generally accepted": that is another in a series of comments here that fail to reach the definition of OR by virtue of having no research behind it. If you mean "It is my assumption", say so.
 * The former borough does not "happen to call itself the City of Colchester": this is what it is, and it has no right to call itself the Borough, or anything else, of Colchester. If people want to raise the 'de facto' flag over anything, then this is the one fact that deserves it incontrovertibly. Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just Colchester though Kevin... you realise that York, Lancaster, Preston, Chelmsford, Doncaster and many more places use the term 'city' in the lead without issues. It's only until now this issue has been picked up. However, calling these places towns or settlements detracts from their perceived standing. Again, suggesting that Colchester is a town or settlement when the City centre is at its heart is confusing, is it not? Imagine trying to tell somebody that Colchester city centre is in the town of Colchester which is just part of a mostly rural area that is a city. Goom80 (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, Kevin's statement of the law is correct (this is not about Colchester, there are half a dozen cases). The challenge for us is to find a way to reflect the real world perception and indeed political intent that a town has been declared to be a city when in law some conferred it on the local authority.
 * (Btw, Kevin, Wells is urban, just not large scale or high rise. I've been there. And it is a cathedral city, which is a special case.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is where I have to disagree with @Kevin McE and say that, when it comes to establishing whether a settlement within a district with city status should also be called a city, de facto is everything. If reliable sources are calling Colchester a city then we should follow suit, although the de jure situation should always be covered in the article body and in the relevant district article. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would question that any source exists that describes the area in the article Colchester as a city in any way that is different from the rest of the city-borough. There are references to the centre as a city centre, but the article is not about the High Street and a couple of other roads around it. I don't believe anyone has yet shown anything that I would regard as a RS that is specific about the whole 'town' area as a city, and my challenge to show that Mersea Road, Colchester is in a city in a way that Colchester Rd, Mersea is still unmet.  'De facto' is a claim anyone can make about anything, and there has been no shortage of claims here that it is (presumably 'de facto') the town area that was intended in city status bids, or that it was the area of a previous local government area that was the true recipient.  City status is (in the UK) a legal construct and nothing else: de jure is all there is. Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, that is what is happening in the real world out there. We have to find some way of responding to that reality without losing sight of the formal legal status. We can't ignore either perspective. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is it happening? Where are all these 'reliable sources' that claim the cottages along the Colne in Middleborough are in a city but those in White's Colne are not?  Reliable sources don't exist just because people say they do.  I would challenge whether what you are calling reality is any more than assumption. Kevin McE (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be too early for such articles to have emerged about Colchester, but you can see the distinction in articles about other large city-districts. Compare this article about Canterbury, for example, which is clearly about the urban area and refers to it (not the district) as a city, and this one about Whitstable which focusses on the town's seaside charms and doesn't mention that it's within a city at all.
 * I think the issue is that the proof in these sorts of cases is a lot of minor references to a place as a city, town, or village in sources which are often about something completely different, so they can be difficult to marshal and organise coherently. Bear in mind also that we're not proposing to ignore the legal status of Colchester district, it will still be referred to as a city and all the settlements in the district should mention that they're in the City of Colchester. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But Canterbury was given city status at a time when the award was given to towns: it has been shown in this thread that the citation was changed in the last few years. The Guardian's previous three "Let's move to" articles didn't mention (in the text, it was in the headline for one of them) what local authority area they are in, so quite what that example was meant to prove I have no idea.
 * I have no fear about the other articles in the City of Colchester area. I just do not see anything beyond assumption that the 'town area' is being treated as being in the City area in a different way.  There is not a separate city within the city, because nobody with authority to declare that there is one has done so.  If reliable sources cannot be marshalled, that may very well be because there is not a case to be made for it.  How is it that in passing from the Colchester suburb of Stanway to the Colchester suburb of Lexden is entering the city of Colchester while remaining in the City of Colchester? Kevin McE (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The examples prove that the urban area of Canterbury is considered a city despite the district being the area which currently holds city status, and that other settlements within the district are still considered towns despite being within the city district.
 * Reliable sources can be marshalled, I'm just not sure you'd find them acceptable because they would mostly take the form of passing references rather than explicit statements that a particular settlement is a city within a city district. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You could argue then that originally city status was held by Colchester from Roman times. Its even recorded in Domesday 1086 as being a civitas - a city. It has been mentioned, and I will find the source if need be, that Colchester's city status was simply being reinstated. Yes, i know that the borough is named in the Letters Patent, but that's Government guidelines. I also maintain, If a district can take the name of a core settlement, then the status of that district is backward compatible, and therefore gives its status also to the core settlement from which its name is derived. I also arhue that the area being regarded, in this case, the 'town' which covers 12 sq miles is the ancient decreed borough of 1189, and therefore the use of the word 'borough' in the Letters Patent could be reflective of this core settlement. I'm aware the ancient borough boundary was expanded in 1974, but by ancient charter that core small borough is effectively still there. This was a stance taken by Sir Bob Russell - High Steward of Colchester. Not a reliable source, i know, but another view point. Goom80 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * And,, I have been to Wells too, and really doubt that anyone not swayed by its legal status would dream of describing it as urban. But I could as easily have cited St David's or St Asaph.  Such cases are the proof that de jure is what matters. Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "Of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or happening or located in, a city or town; of, pertaining to, or characteristic of life in such a place, especially when contrasted with the countryside." So not at all like Warrington, Buckinghamshire. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thought experiment: let's suppose this had happened to Aylesbury five years ago. So, rather than confer it in the town, city status would instead have been conferred on Aylesbury Vale District Council. Then in 2020, AVDC got abolished with all powers going to the new Buckinghamshire Council. So two possibilities: city status is lost like Rochester or all of south and mid Bucks is one megacity. Planning ahead? What's that? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In that case city status would almost certainly have been preserved by transferring it to the civil parish council or, if Aylesbury were unparished, to charter trustees (as happened with Durham, Chester, Carlisle, etc.) Incidentally, a settlement doesn't need to be a city to appoint trustees — Bournemouth and some other towns have them to preserve their mayorality and other traditions. Cases like Rochester are so rare that the guideline can't reasonably cover it, and the same goes for your hypothetical megacity. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So not a Judge Dredd fan, then? [don't answer that!]. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it would improve Bucks if Milton Keynes began annexing the rest of it, but those concrete cows are very nice A.D.Hope (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The case of Rochester was unfortunate. The council at the time chose not to preserve its city status, for whatever reason, we'll probably never know. I'm not sure that Medway will ever succeed in becoming a city.
 * I don't disagree with @Kevin McEbut it seems to have been an issue with Colchester. If it was such an issue, why not raise it for all settlements that deem themselves cities? Of course, this discussion is now where we are at. I personally maintain that Colchester is a city that is the core of a district that happens to take the name. If reliable sources support this perception, it shouldn't be an issue. Goom80 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I live in Colchester and have an interest in the place I live. Is that unreasonable?  Why would I know what errors and misjudgements are in articles I have never read?Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So do I, and i am not saying it is unreasonable as that's your feeling. But... referring to Colchester as a town on Wikipedia seems like an attempt to hang onto that status, when the reality is that most people regard Colchester as a city now. Sources online can easily be found that supports this view. London is not legally a city, nor the seat of Government which is based in Westminster. However, the majority view is that London is regarded as being a city and the capital. Offline and online sources support this view, even when legally its incorrect. Legalities are for a court of law, not Wikipedia. I see no reason to object to calling Colchester a city, because it certainly fits the description of what most people define. The sky is not really blue, but the majority perceive it to be such. Goom80 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The city article does cover that informal use of the term city.
 * However, let's beware that that majority can have historic misunderstandings that continue to persist, a lot of people still think a cathedral is needed to have city status, time and time yet again news articles are having to correct this. The Equalizer (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I could ask the same question: what reliable sources post city status award refer to it as a town? It seems that for Wikipedia that pre-award sources are irrelevant now, and as each day passes, more sources are using the word city when describing urban Colchester. @Kevin McE we may never agree on this, and Its not about whose right or wrong. If the majority of articles on Wikipedia use the term and a vast majority are happy to use the term (legalities aside), where is the issue? If the Law have any issue, then let them take it up and settle it. Going forward, Colchester's perception as a city will only get stronger as reliable sources are published. That's as much as i can say on the matter as we're just going round in circles. I appreciate you'll disagree buf that's your prerogative. Goom80 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't been proposing 'town' for the Colchester article: my proposal is the incontrovertible 'main settlement'.
 * Once again "more sources are using the word city when describing urban Colchester": where? If these sources are clear as to what area they refer to, and beyond challenge, post them.
 * "Colchester's perception as a city will only get stronger as reliable sources are published": pretty much a textbook example of WP:Crystal ball, and if it comes to pass, then there will be sources that might actually be cited rather than obliquely claimed.
 * "If the Law have any issue, then let them take it up and settle it": I really don't know if you expect that to be taken seriously. Of course nobody is claiming that it is illegal to state that an area is a city.  But the fact, and boundaries, of a city are legally determined, not by hearsay. Kevin McE (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm, there are many, maybe you should read several articles. All deemed reliable sources. You're interpretation does not match up with the majority. You clearly have an issue with the sources, or will keep pushing the legal definition. If it works fine for other articles, it works fine for Colchester. Nobody disputes that the Letters Patent names the borough, but I'd like to see reliable sources that otherwise suggest that the main settlement cannot call itself a city. Goom80 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me saying, the interactions between you and @Kevin McE are becoming increasingly negative and not advancing the discussion. It might be good for the pair of you to take a break from each other. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, although i do not feel any negativity towards Kevin. I understand his position clearly, but there's only so many times we can go round. If Wikipedia does not allow various news articles as reliable sources, then why hasn't this been made clear? Thats the part of the issue, is it not, what is definitely considered a reliable source? Goom80 (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are these many? There is one in the article, which is,as I have said, a feel good local news article, and which makes a material error of fact in the most relevant comment "Colchester was named one of eight towns to be made cities to mark the Queen's Platinum Jubilee": simply not true, 8 local authority areas were. It is also notable that the article includes the zoo, which is located outside the area you would consider to be the city boundaries,in the celebrations.
 * There won't be sources to say that it can't be called a city,in the same way that there are not sources to state that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not a lizard disguised in human form; that us bot a reasonable expectation.
 * I cannot "have a problem with the sources" beyond that one, as you have not, despite numerous requests, provided them. Simply posting something that refers to Colchester being a city, unless it is clearly specific to the unparished area,proves nothing. Kevin McE (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again Kevin, its not about trying to prove anything. We need common ground so that Colchester can match up with every other Wikipedia article for consistency. That's all i have yo say on the matter, I'm not going through this with you anymore. Goom80 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources, which you keep claiming exist in abundance and yet of which you have provided but one, are all about proving something. If you cannot prove your case, then indeed you have nothing to say on the matter. Kevin McE (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Will the pair of you (@Goom80) please stop having a go at each other when it's clear you're not going to agree, and also not drag this argument into the new thread on the main talk page. I responded to your first comment in that discussion because it raised some new points, Kevin, but its primary purpose is to get fresh, outside input. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it unreasonable to ask someone who claims that there are many sources provides more than one, highly flawed, one? If so, please explain how, within the context of Wikipedia being based on Reliable Sources. Kevin McE (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't unreasonable to ask once or twice, but at this point it's pretty clear that you're not going to get the answer you're seeking and that persisting in asking serves no purpose. I've said my piece and really do think both of you should step away for a while, but this isn't my conversation so I won't intervene any further. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Moving to main talk
The discussion here now seems to be going around in circles with little progress being made, so I've opened a new discussion at the main project talk page with the aim of broadening participation, getting some new opinions, and hopefully reaching a wide consensus. The discussion covers:
 * The guideline
 * Reliable sources
 * Whether urban areas within city districts should be considered cities.

In my opinion we should exercise restraint when participating in the new discussion, as the point is to encourage input from other editors rather than repeat the debate here. Thank you all for your input and let's see how things play out! A.D.Hope (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Population Statistics Souces
The bottom of this article ('Resources' section) has outdated links to population statistics, and I am unsure/unable to fix this.

Almost all of the current links to population resources here, either go to 404 pages or 2001 Census data. This is unideal. My recommendation would be to link to 'censusdata.uk' instead. This is not an official source, but the site seems to have pulled official data from the 2021 Census and displayed it nicely. I checked by pulling data from 'www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/TS001/editions/2021/versions/3' and comparing.

An alterative, more official source would be 'www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/customprofiles/draw/'. However, this is more fiddly to use.

When I try to edit the section, the only thing in it is '{../Resources}'. This seems to be an external file/page. Adding /Resources onto the end of the URL doesn't locate this page. I therefore cannot figure out how to update/remove this section with better information.

JayYellSee (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The status of censusdata.uk is unclear. It looks to be a predatory commercial site: the first thing it asks for is my personal information.
 * The reliable source for UK census data is the ONS via its portal,  https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/.
 * http://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/ is tolerable though it gets confused by BUASDs that the ONS in its wisdom has named the same as their parent BUAs.
 * If you really want to retrieve 2001 data and the page is dead, try searching archive.org. (When you find it, please update the citation with url-status=dead and add the archive-url= info. Tyvm.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to use City Population. Yes there are concerns about reliability but I have more concerns about NOMIS, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive 22. It would be good if we could semi-automatically add census data.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the ONS is the source of all the data. Nomis is the ONS under another name. I don't know where else CP.DE gets its figures from.
 * It seems to me that the area where we get most problems is the definition of a settlement because the real boundaries are essentially subjective. Two issues arise:
 * indistinguishably continuous built-up area but local people insist that there are two (or more) discrete settlements (e.g., Bournemouth and Poole)
 * "gappy" settlements, where the built-up area is not physically contiguous, locals see the gaps as insignificant but the ONS disagrees [though inconsistently!] (e.g., Milton Keynes).
 * I wonder if the ONS decision for C2021 to rely on contiguous hard surfaces and to ignore administrative boundaries will help or hinder?
 * Of course this is a bit incidental to 's original question, except to as a word of caution not to assume that an area with a given name in C2001 is necessarily (or even likely) to be the same as the same name in C2021 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the page you are trying to find is WikiProject UK geography/Resources --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and the 2001 figures are archived at the national archives website. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Cornwall
Can a mention of WP:CORNWALLGUIDELINE be added to #Lead? So Constituent county. (+UK, for Cornwall) or something?  Dank Jae  13:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)