Template talk:Largest cities of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Counties column

Good job with the template.

However, one or two small issues spring to mind. The "county" column is problematical, as some cities are listed as "unitary authority" (like Southampton), yet others are listed within the ceremonial county (like Nottingham).

There is also the issue that some cities have spread outside their ceremonial county, or unitary authority (such as Nottingham again, or Wolverhampton).

I'd be in favour of using the ceremonial county that the majority of the city area (or the city centre) falls within. Fingerpuppet (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)#

That sounds fine to me. Could I get your opinion on the problem I had with Belfast? The city lies on 2 counties so I put "County Antrim & Down", would you say that is ok? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Scottish cities aren't in counties as such, but council or Lieutenancy areas. If we were to use "unitary authority" we need to swap this to the aforementioned territories. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  01:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so we'll solve this by using Traditional Counties... ;-) As for Belfast, yes, I'd say that was reasonable as it is right on the county boundary. Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears some users have decided that counties do not apply and they have changed it to show the constituent country. I think it looks a mess as almost all the cities are in England, opinions? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the countries of Britain do make this template look messy. I am currently looking into what counties are being used for this template, because there are cities with "unitary authority." This template is to tell what the name of the area is, not the government. So I will get to work on that. — NuclearVacuum 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's just to indicate that the city is within the Administrative County of the same name - so Nottingham is within the County of Nottingham, Stoke-on-Trent is within the County of Stoke-on-Trent and so on. Of course, just how helpful that is is open to debate. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We could use Lieutenancy area; that's something the UK has in common. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just reverted out the use of "counties", rationale being that Scotland doesn't have counties. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland does have counties. See Counties of Scotland. — NuclearVacuum 17:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm... re-read the article. The use of past tense should be a clue. The counties of Scotland were abolished by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering if we could split the English cities into regions? i.e. NW England, NE England, W Mids etc? Currently it looks a mess with England repeated several times. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We would need a suitably succinct heading. The Regions of Scotland were also abolished, annoyingly. Whilst Wales and NI have never had any. I still say use the Lieutenancy areas. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Do they all still exist? I see the Scottish ones are all exactly the same as their city names though. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they still exist - for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, they are the counties, whilst for Scotland, they are (in simplified English terms) counties and unitary authorities. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I suspect we're going to need to obtain a consensus on what images should be displayed in this template. I'm fairly sure we want to stick with London, but what about the other(s)? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it's probably best to avoid both Birmingham and Manchester due to endless edit wars - how about the four constituent country capitals? Fingerpuppet (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The current Manchester image is good because it shows a city and is square, the Birmingham image was long and looked a right mess. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For these templates, the images goes first largest city, then second largest city. It is very unorthodox for them to be in random order, so please refrain from altering my edit. — NuclearVacuum 00:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Fingerpuppet on this one actually. How about the first and last city... so, London and Southampton? --Jza84 |  Talk  09:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well so long as the image of a single building, which is not even a landmark, in Birmingham does not stay. The image should be of a cityscape, something the Manchester image is perfect for.
Looking at the Southampton article there is no cityscape images as it doesn't really have much of a skyline with a lack of tall buildings.
My suggestion on a comprimise would be to decrease the sizes of the images so it can hold three, one of London, one of Manchester and one of Birmingham. The United Kingdom's three largest conurbations, before people start harping on about city proper populations it is generally recognised that Brum and Manc are the only real contenders for second city. City proper doesn't mean much, especially in Manchester as we're generally a very close city region. Also the creator of the Mexican template, the one I copied from, has said there is no standardisation and each template can look however we want it to. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 13:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is no rule on standardization. But people (no matter what culture) like to order cities by population, not randomly placing cities in a chart. Even Supaman89 has the idea to keep the city pictures in order. Also, Manchester isn't even in the top five (let alone top three). This template is to show population status on the cities and should not be confused with List of conurbations in the United Kingdom. I placed a square panoramic pic of the second largest city of Britain. Please refrain from altering this again. — NuclearVacuum 15:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't about asking people to refrain, really - the template is open to anyone for editting. What we should be focussing on is a sustainable consensus. If it is to be London and Birmingham, fine (I note the UK article has an image of Manchester Town Hall which might be a compromise) but I do note that three people have suggested it isn't their preference. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does it have to have London on it at all? The vast majority of the images on the current UK article are of London. NuclearVacuum does not have any policy to stand on when saying it has to be the two largest cities. It can be based on consensus and there is no consensus that LDN and Brum should even be used. Superman89 doesn't own the template so even if he says it should be the two largest it doesn't matter. Please do not tell others to refrain from editing and please read WP:OWN or try to establish a consensus. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, how about a condition: If Manchester or Birmingham features on the template, then Birmingham/Manchester should also feature respectively. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Nuclear is trying to cause some trouble I think. His history on this template is not great and his talk page is full of warnings about edit warring. He's deciding that only his opinion counts and doesn't seem to understand that unless there is strict policy stating otherwise then a consensus must be formed. I don't really know what you are trying to suggest Jza, also feature in what? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've left a message for NuclearVac here. Certainly I don't think its conductive to the good of the project to enforce a preference that three others have concerns about.
Joshii, I was basically endorssing your "3 image" version: I believe if Manchester features, then so should Birmingham, and vice versa. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
--Actually it seems this has been a problem before, elsewhere ([1]). --Jza84 |  Talk  14:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well the three image version is what I changed it to but Nuclear keeps reverting. I even put Birmingham second to avoid someone swapping the order. He's from the US according to his userpage so, although he has just as much right to edit, he can't really understand the scale of Manc vs Brum. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It goes by population of the most recent census!!!!!!! Manchester is the NINTH largest city (not second, not first, not third, not fourth, not fifth, not sixth, not seventh, not eight, NINTH). I don't mean to be so detailed, but this has to stop. All the users who want to have Manchester on the imagery list not because of how it is called "Britain's second city" (in knowledge, not size), it's because THEY ALL LIVE IN MANCHESTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I live in Tampa, but you don't see me going out of my way to find other Tampans and convince them to put Tampa on on as a picture on the US' template here. Just because Manchester is your hometown or if Manchester is a great city in the UK, that isn't enough reason for it to have it's own picture on this template. Another example would be Washington, DC here in the US. We call it the "First City" because the President lives here and is an important city for Americans. But it's the 23 largest city here, and not even on the US' template. But we don't just move New York City's image and replace it with a picture of DC. Secondly, these template use two images and keeping the images with the first largest city and then the second largest city. Manchester is the ninth and shouldn't even have a picture in this equation. Please consider this and go to common sense. — NuclearVacuum 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear, assume good faith please. I believe Joshii is from Rochdale, Fingerpuppet is from the West Midlands, and I'm from Oldham; none of us are from Manchester and I think we each have been here long enough not to push a certain city without reason. Your preference doesn't encompass the dynamics of British geography; if you want to get technical, the City of London is one of the smallest cities in the world. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as a point to make these things clear: I have lived in Manchester in the past, although I have not done so for some years. I have never lived in Birmingham - though I was always brought up with Birmingham being called "the second city". I am, however, thoroughly bored of the constant edit wars between supporters of those two cities and feel that if either Birmingham or Manchester appear on the template, then an edit war to replace it with the other will inevitably ensure, whatever the reasoning used for it. If both are used, then there are wars over the order that they appear. It will be a lot less hassle for all concerned if both are avoided, but if one is on there, then so should the other. Fingerpuppet (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Your tone and aggression is reminiscent of a Professor Rob Right, doubt that's you though. What applies in the USA does not have to apply in the United Kingdom, just because that's your ideology doesn't mean everyone has to bow down and agree with you. Just because you type something in caps doesn't make it right either. I don't understand why you seem to think you set all the rules for this style of template as you have be warring on them all. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If you must insist on having Manchester here, at least make it two images instead of three. — NuclearVacuum 14:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No more edit warring for now please guys. Remember, the three revert rule applies. Let's talk this out first. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to make sure nobody is hiding anything, Nuclear has reported this at WP:AN#Template:United Kingdom cities. I have commented there that it is the wrong place for this and WP:DISPUTE would be the right place if he felt so strongly. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I already stated that if you keep two images on the template, I will be OK with Manchester being on it. — NuclearVacuum 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what is wrong with having three images? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 14:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I doubt that will be a sustained change though; it'll be a regular target for Birmingham's second city claimants. Is there any reason why you feel two images is OK, but not three? What is your logic? --Jza84 |  Talk  14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to put in an extra voice, it strikes me that the best idea (fairest, most logical) is to include the largest on the list from each nation of the UK. At the moment, there's three pictures from England, which seems... unreasonable. To note, I'm English, from London, and have lived in the NW (the region containing Manchester and Liverpool) for 8 years, so my suggestion is hardly biased ;). This, of course, depends on suitable images being available. It's also worth noting that the layout could be tweaked in a number of ways to accomodate this, it certainly looks fine with 3 pictures. SamBC(talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable yes. Are you suggesting London, Glasgow, Cardiff? We would need suitably licenced and suitably befitting images of these cities though. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What about poor Belfast? There are no images of Northern Ireland or Wales on the article at the moment. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, we need more high quality cityscape images. Flickr might be able to help. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Two images works better in the case of quality. I already discussed this with other users and they agree that it is better on the eyes if two larger images were on the template then three smaller images. Secondly, (as I mentioned earlier) this template is to show fact and population, not how much one city is better then the other. Making it the two largest cities works better in this equation and is a logical choice. Washington isn't better then NYC just as much as Manchester isn't better then Birmingham. These templates are for facts and standards, not popularity and glamor. — NuclearVacuum 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The templates are, surely, for ease of reading, greater presentation and for adding value to content. Regardless, it appears you don't hold a consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I do have a consensus. I already said that I was willing to work with this template. But all this time you have been just throwing garbage and lies at me. I have read your argument over and over again, and I still am trying to work with it, but I can still disagree with it. I am looking from the readers point of view and I am trying to make it very easy for them to read and understand. I understand your argument, but I still think we need to keep some standards on these templates. — NuclearVacuum 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggesting I'm "throwing garbage and lies" at you is not only a serious allegation, but is precluded in our policy of civility at all times. Please let that be a warning that incivility won't be tolerated.
Right... where is your consensus Nuclear? And what are these "garbage and lies"? I count, 1, 2, 3, 4 who've made suggestions contrary to your preference; you're the only editor here who seeks two images and you're opinion doesn't count for six users! Take a moment to relax please, there's no need to get personal. It is a fact, not "garbage and lies" however that you hold no consensus. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
For images of Glasgow or Cardiff, it might be worth looking at Commons:Category:Cardiff and Commons:Category:Glasgow Views. Seems some likely candidates there. SamBC(talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The Glasgow ones are good. The Cardiff ones are... less good, but I'll have a hunt on Flickr. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd replace the Birmingham one with a Glasgow one, but I don't actually know how to use commons images... and the three-city version has just been reverted again (to two images), with a misleading edit summary... SamBC(talk) 11:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. I reverted it per the same observation. I've asked for greater input to help home in on a consensus. I believe we should use London and Glasgow at the stage, but have an open mind. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that London, Glasgow, Cardiff, and maybe Belfast would be appropriate logically; in terms of availability of decent images, that leaves London and Glasgow, and possibly making a note that we want to consider adding the other two if and when there's an appropriate image for them; the template could be rearranged to look fine with 4 images, such as 2 on the left, 2 on the right, or even 4 in a row at the bottom. SamBC(talk) 11:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's some candidates. First, Glasgow:

And then Belfast... it's a bit sketchy, this one, because it isn't a big city, but:

For Cardiff I can't find citiscapes, but here's two views of an iconic building:

London we've got a fine one, I suppose. SamBC(talk) 13:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So, a test-of-concept is in this edit, although it'd want tweaking (not having the template of links in both top corners, for starters) and the images sorting a little. I think that 4 pictures is a good idea, conceptually, and that's one way it makes sense to do it, afaict. SamBC(talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standards

I have already mentioned that there are "some" standards here. Not that there is a rule for it, but most users agree with these. Just look through the other templates like this and you will see a common interest for this style (especially India's template). Keeping some standards helps prevent conflicts like theses and others. [2] [3] [4] [5] — NuclearVacuum 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They're all conflicts you've facilitated. Why have you restored a version of this template that is aligned to your preference with a misleading or absent edit summary? There have been four other users who do not want it displayed that way. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
People have explained why, if you include Birmingham, Manchester had better be included. It's sad but true. How about working with people towards the logical alternative discussed above, that takes into account UK-ish peculiarities (like the constituent nations)? SamBC(talk) 12:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I do have an idea. Because three pictures requires the images to be small and unpolished, why not just have it be London and Manchester. I find that to be OK, yes? I find that all the templates to have two images works better. I am trying my best to work with you guys, so please don't give me a hard time. All it takes is a matter of time and you will see that we are not so different. — NuclearVacuum 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, neither London & Manchester without Birmingham nor London & Birmingham without Manchester are really acceptable. At the risk of appearing out of touch, what is this template actually for? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's to appear on the United Kingdom page, as the previous text-on-the-page way of doing things was constantly both vandalised and changed by well-meaning editors who misunderstood the data. Fingerpuppet (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Just on the back of that last point, I'm a bit worried that we're using the word "Cities" when, strictly, London and Bradford don't have city status. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Fingerpuppet: that boils down to "make Wikipedia harder to edit". I'm not sure that is the way forward. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalisms

I wish to inform you that I am not preforming vandalism. Please refrain from calling my work here vandalism. That is a major rule here and it can lead to serious problems. Secondly, there is no reason to be reverting my edits here. I have a say in this just as much as you do (its not just yours). Secondly, there needs to be more of an agreement here. I say that there needs to be only two images of the first populous city and then the second populous city and not to include others. Manchester is not the second, third, or fourth largest city in the United Kingdom.

This style is being used and protected in all templates of this stature. — NuclearVacuum 17:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "templates of this stature". SamBC(talk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Waiting a few days to revert the template back to how you like it is not helpful and is vandalism. It should not be changed again until there is agreement on how we want this template to look. There is no guideline for the template and it does not have to comply with anything, it can look how we want it to and not just how you want. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

  • These templates work equally well with two pictures, in fact better because with three images you can barely see them. The reason only London and Birmingham should only be included is because they are the only two "mega cities", by far more important than the other cities. If you were to make a list like this for all the populous cities of the European Union, London would be the first and Birmingham would be the sixteenth. There is no reason to show the others in this template.
    • Describing London and Birmingham as being "far more important" than other cities in the UK is, frankly, ridiculous. As the capital and largest city, and largest conurbation, an argument can be made as such for London, but Birmingham has no distinction beyond population, and there are many cities more important in terms of government, industry, and commerce. Not least Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, with the Scottish Parliament, Welsh National Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly, and in terms of commerce it's very varied and the top few would include Leeds and Newcastle! SamBC(talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Manchester is only the "second city" in nicknames and culture of the people, not by census of population. An example would be Washington, DC in the United States of America. The nickname commonly used for the city is the "First City" (because the President lives here and is an important city for Americans). But it's the 23 largest city by census and in this case should not have a picture in the template (let alone having a spot on the template). I understand that many of the user in favor of having Manchester on the template are either residents or within the Greater Manchester area. If you are patriotic for your city/area, that is fine with me. But we need to think about facts and not by speculation in this case.
  • It is pretty redundant to write out the whole "United Kingdom Census 2001." Simply to write out "2001 census" will be understood quite well.
— NuclearVacuum 18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppor NuclearVacuum's editions, I think it improves the template's image and makes it look more organized. Supaman89 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've retitled this subsection, as that doesn't describe any consensus I've seen. It has been explained on this talk page why having either Manchester or Birmingham, without the other, is a can of worms. The suggestion that has had most acceptance seems to have been to include a picture of the most populous city of each of the nations of the UK, as described above. Consensus was certainly reached among all who were discussing it except NuclearVacuum to leave the three for now, and NV seemed to accept this by making the change to shorted the wording of the census without removing the third image. Now, days later, NV removes it again and claims this has consensus?? SamBC(talk) 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This template should only be discussing the United Kingdom as a whole. If you are interested on making a seperate template for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; go right ahead. But this template should be all about "Britain" and nothing else. We are not trying to say one subdivision is better then an other, we art talking about the UK as a whole. Also, I never agreed with the way it was all this time. I was giving a WP:DISENGAGE possess so as not to form an uncontrollable issue. — NuclearVacuum 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, from the point of view of the nature of the United Kingdom, discussing it as a whole and failing to depict any nation except England is a little odd. However, I must again object to your description of your opinion as "consensus", when you know that others disagree. SamBC(talk) 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a population template, I found it odd that there is any argument over this at all. I support having 2 pictures with the top 2 populous cities, or 3 pictures with top 3 populous cities. Listing Manchester just to avoid an edit war is unfounded, we can ask an admin lock this template. --Voidvector (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's several logical ways of looking at it. Edit wars can be avoid through protection, but controversy and arguments can't. For that matter, those suggesting the two-picture form have ignored the point that UK is made up of 4 nations, and there's certainly an argument to represent them all. Of course there's an argument to go by population, but even the populations are actually arbitrary, as in almost all cases the conurbations are much larger than the city. It's just overly simplistic to point to population as the be-all and end-all. SamBC(talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that locking this template is the right way to go about this. There's no evidence of vandalism. Certainly though, distruptive reverts that enforce preference without discussion need to halt. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The template is about population, If you want to have a picture template about the historical geopolitical breakdown of the country, go create it, don't enforce it on a template listing current population. Oh, I am also supporting listing no images at all. --Voidvector (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that's looking at this too much in terms of "Black and White". Sure the table is about population figures, but there are more variables that can inform editorial decisions: "What article is this transcluded on? What is useful to our readers? What adds value to the template? What images are of a suitable composition? What images are of a befitting quality?"... there are more aspects to consider. I think using 2 images takes value away from our readers, and using London and Birmingham only doesn't encompass the dynamics and realities of British geography. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and by listing Birmingham and Manchester, it will be dismissing numbers of other major cities in the UK, including those in Wales and Scotland. Black and white is not a bad position to take when there is no clear optimal within the shades of gray. --Voidvector (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
What's the second city of the United Kingdom? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a hard one. It would have to be either London or Birmingham. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
lol. Very true. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad you guys picked up on this too! I also think Oldham's the capital :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the capital, of "racial tension" :-* ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 00:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That must've been a brilliant piece of Googling on your part! --Jza84 |  Talk  00:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the fourth result on a search for Oldham is the capital. Not a title I think it deserves however as it really isn't that bad! ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't just request protection because you don't agree with others. There is not just one person who does not want two images on the template and it does not breach any policy. You should not try to establish a consensus by asking people you know agree with you to comment (per this and this). My views are not based on bias as I feel strongly there is nothing wrong with having three images in the template and there is no reason why those should be the three largest city proper populations. In fact this template does not even adhere to that as the population of London is 7,800 so it is the smallest. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:votestacking is not how we determine consensus. Prior to the canvassing by NuclearVacuum (talk · contribs) which expanded the debate here, the only real discussion seems to have been at Template talk:Russian cities, between Miyokan (talk · contribs) and NuclearVacuum. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not seeing a strong argument for why 2 cities is "better" than 3. Whilst also, population of urban area as the single criteria doesn't encompass a great many editorial options to us. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I am an Asian American and I have never been to Europe, so I have no personal stake in this. Nevertheless, my position is entirely based upon on the numbers (census data) and principle (it's a population template). Feel free to reference census data supporting your view to change my position. --Voidvector (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Voidvector: the short answer is that debate over the relative importance of Manchester and Birmingham arouses great passion, and has done for many years. Best to head it off at the pass. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NuclearVacuum clearly has no regard for the consensus process and has canvassed a large group of people he knows share his opinion. See (this this this this this this this and this). It is hard to have a proper discussion about the template when some users are trying to force their POV by cherry picking users to comment. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is fine as long as it's "Limited posting" AND "Neutral" AND "Nonpartisan" AND "Open". It was Neutral and Nonpartisan because I had no clue what the argument and positions were about until I read this talk page. It's arguable whether this was a "limited" and "open" canvassing. --Voidvector (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I am one of the people NuclearVacuum canvassed, and I don't believe he could know for certain what my position on this would be. In fact, we have disagreed on several matters relating to these templates in the past. As it happens, I do agree with the position he and Voidvector have advanced in this case.
  • A template with two pictures, each relatively visible, constitutes superior design to a template with three pictures, all relatively obscure.
  • The logic of the template's data, which focuses on population and ranks the cities accordingly, demands that the images be those of the cities with the highest population. Most other selection procedures are not logically supported and thus encourage irresolvable debates ultimately based on personal opinions about "importance."
That said, the concept of picturing the largest cities of each constituent country is logical. In the design where all the images are stacked in one column to the right of the data field, this would obviously produce four uselessly tiny images of London, Glasgow, Cardiff, and Belfast. However, SamBC has come up with a defensible solution, employing two image columns, one to the left and one to the right of the data field, which he presented in this test edit: [6]. There is an issue of cross-article consistency here, but the unusual political makeup of the United Kingdom may logically weigh more heavily than that concern.
In sum, the template should either be restored to the last version edited by NuclearVacuum ([7]) or to the version tested by SamBC (tweaked, as he suggests, to avoid having the template of links in both top corners). The present version is both illogical and of relatively inferior design.—DCGeist (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that there is general agreement for this, aside from the dogmatic insistence of NuclearVacuum. I've restored the last DCGeist version. This seems especially valid as NV's reverts are not accompanied by any explanation, either in the edit summaries or here on the talk page. SamBC(talk) 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No images

I propose removing all the images from the template. It's a solution that everyone hates and thus one I hope everyone can live with. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can live with it! I'd prefer images to be there, but this seems to be a sensible way out of all the hassle. Fingerpuppet (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would not oppose having no images but the current version with 4 images seems to be working fine for everyone except one person who seems to think he WP:OWNs all the city templates. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Except I see arguments about which cities, which images, etc. among a few users (very slowly but still). I think this way is better, and consensus can change. Besides, the article itself looks fine without them. This is not really a stand-alone template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree. This template is only used on the UK article, which already has over thirty images (I stopped counting) and doesn't need any more. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I see this as an acceptable way out of the current dispute, although given NV's stated reasoning for his preferred version I am not optimistic. Joshii, apparently the 4-image version exceeds the normal page width on some user's displays. If this were actually a proper template, it might be different, but as it is I'm not clear why it's even a template at all. SamBC(talk) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I support no image as I have mentioned in the section above. --Voidvector (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Core city

The term core city refers to the central city or the city proper of a metropolitan area (as such, New York City is, obviously and evidently, the core city/city proper of the New York Metropolitan Area). Since this is a table of UK cities, and since the population figures refer to those of cities and not to those of metropolitan areas, it doesn't make sense to have the second column labeled as "core city", instead of simply "city". I suggest that it be changed accordingly. --the Dúnadan 16:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Inarguably correct. I'll make the change.—DCGeist (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's an issue with that - London and Bradford don't have city status (that would be the City of London and City of Bradford - which have different population totals. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)