Talk:List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population

Wigan

I looked the 2011–12 Premier League and Wigan Athletic's location is Wigan. Then I looked Wigan and it has the population as 81,203 or #90 on this list. Well, it isn't here at all! Are you saying Wigan is not settlement? With over 80,000 of population? List of UK urban areas though has Wigan as own entry... 85.217.40.33 (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wigan is now on this list. This list is missing quite a few settlements. Eopsid (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, at least Gillingham, Rochdale and Bury are missing. With a population of 99,773, 95,796 and 60,718 respectively. They all fit the list criteria of at least 50,000 residents. 82.141.94.98 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And these were noticed by checking the English League teams. Who knows how many there are still left of those which are not affiliated with the League. 82.141.119.146 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable figures, preferably based on census

People seem to be updating figures willy nilly, without giving any citations. What are the provenances of these numbers? We should revert any uncited changes, but the article is full of them. As soon as the census figures come out, we should fix the table, with no changes allowed without citation from a reliable source - such as the local Council's formal estimates. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The lead says the figures relate to the 2001 census. We should provide a reference to a source in the lead and keep the table data consistent with that. Whether it's worth doing that now for the 2001 data, or we should wait for the 2011 census, depends on whether or not anyone is enthusiastic to take on that role. --Deskford (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of people just put the population figures from the settlements articles on here and some of them are consistent with the 2001 census. But some others are later estimates or just the figure for something else which has the settlements name attached eg saying the population for a settlement is the same as the borough or district which it lends its name to. Eopsid (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to have all entries using the same source and year of publication rather than the present state where some are from the 2001 census and others later estimated figures. Once the 2011 census figures are published, probably early 2012, we can go through and fix all of the entries. Keith D (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

One option would be to provide two figures for each settlement (a) the figure as at the most recent census and (b) the council estimate with citation. My reason for suggesting this is that some settlements are growing quickly and census figures become increasingly irrelevant. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The current table is based on the references listed under "References", i.e.:

• Office for National Statistics Key Statistics for Urban Areas Table KS01
• General Register Office for Scotland Key Statistics for Settlements and Localities Scotland Table KS01
• Northern Ireland Census 2001 Key Statistics for Settlements Table KS01

I have now added links to those sources in the opening paragraph, for clarity. I also believe, quite strongly, that we should retain those sources as the only ones used in this list. To do otherwise would be to risk unnecessary confusion. The ONS definitions of "urban areas" are not perfect and present some anomalies, but they are consistent - they use standard definitions throughout, which (I believe) are broadly in line with those used in Scotland and NI as well. We should in my view most definitely not use estimates by local authorities in this table - they would inevitably be inconsistent with each other and not based on the "contiguous urban area" definition used here. What we certainly should do is to update the list when the ONS produce 2011 census figures for urban areas - but that is likely to be a year or two away, as KeithD says. Please, let's keep to a consistent approach here, while making sure it is properly explained for readers, and updated only when new consistent figures become available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Link rot has affected all of those sources except the one for Northern Ireland. Eopsid (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I found anohter one for the england and wales info http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/census-2001-key-statistics/urban-areas-in-england-and-wales/index.html it inlcudes some interesting maps. Eopsid (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I found the one for scotland as well KS01 Usual resident population, Key Statistics for Settlements and Localities Scotland General Register Office for Scotland there was a working reference to it on the UK Urban Areas article. If these references were put in place then the link rot would be solved. Im just gonna see if these references i've suggested to replace the dead links are accepted by users on here.Eopsid (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and when updated, why not put the same figures in the city/settlement articles, so they would accurate also? 85.217.43.40 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Would also be good to get the article and {{25 largest settlements in the UK by urban core population}} in step again as they are now out of step. Keith D (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the figures for Scottish settlements to those in the GRO document KS01 that is now used as a reference.

• 629,501 Glasgow
• 430,082 Edinburgh
• 184,788 Aberdeen
• 154,674 Dundee
• 74,170 Paisley
• 73,796 East Kilbride
• 50,826 Livingston
• 40,949 Inverness

I note that, according to GRO KS01, Cumbernauld, Hamilton, Kirkcaldy, Ayr, Greenock, Kilmarnock, Perth and Coatbridge all have populations greater than that of Inverness, though these don't seem to be in our list. Much work still to be done, I think. --Deskford (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that 50,000 is supposed to be the threshold for inclusion, so none of those places I listed above qualifies, and neither does Inverness at its 2001 census population, so I have removed it. --Deskford (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Highland Council [1] thinks Inverness has a population of 74,265, which surely should warrant inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.152.60 (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

All figures used are currently based on figures from the 2001 census (three seperate sources one for england and wales, one for scotland and another for northern ireland) once the figures from the 2011 census are released Inverness will be included if the sources from the 2011 census show it to have a population of over 50,000. Later (later than 2001) estimates, usually from councils, arent used in this article for the purposes of consistency. Eopsid (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Leicester

In the Leicester entry, it says that the city's population figure also includes the surrounding villages of Glenfield, Scraptoft, Thurmaston and Thurnby. Where did this information come from? It seems to make sense but it is unreferenced and I've found nothing outside of Wikipedia supporting it. Outrune (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is a joke as the list given here doesn't equal other lists on the net or even figures from the cities own councils, especially Glasgow. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. I'm guessing a lot of editors are waiting until the 2011 census is released before revamping it all. Outrune (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

See "Reliable figures, preferably based on census" above for discussion on topic. Keith D (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Salford

Just made a rather extensive edit that I'm not sure about. Before my edit, the article listed Salford's population as 221,300, i.e. the population of the City of Salford district, even though the article explicitly states at the top that it does not include populations of local government districts/city councils. Salford as a settlement is quite distinct from the City of Salford, with a population of only 72,750. Which is the correct usage for this article? Outrune (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

According to this report, which the table is (or should be) based on, 72,750. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thought as much, thanks. Outrune (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

City photos

I've noticed User:Kww has been wantonly reverting the good faith edits of two Scottish editors with what appears to be zero reason or rationale whatsoever.

Care to explain? Outrune (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed this too. There seemed to be no particular reason for reverting these edits, but equally there seemed no particular reason beyond personal preference for the other editors to change the photos. An explanation of rationale on an edit summary would have helped. --Deskford (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Winchester

Winchester is also missing from the list. Is it the largest city not to appear on the list? I believe the population is 108,000. Andrew (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion is a population of 50,000 at the time of the 2001 census. Winchester at 41,420 falls below this threshold. --Deskford (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew it seems your confusing the population of the Winchester (district) with that of the city. Eopsid (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)