Talk:List of English districts by population

Untitled

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

2006 figures

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

RE 2006 figures

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

Watcherzero 19/05/06

London boroughs

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

Why are the metropolitan areas of liverpool, leeds, manchester, etc. listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.204.7 (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Oppose They are completely different measures -- the urban areas as defined by the ONS are meaningful and distinct from districts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratarsed (talk • contribs)

C*Strong oppose Same reason as above. David 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. As mentioned above, Urban Areas and Sub-Area populations are defined by a Primary Source, the ONS. They are distinct from local authority areas. A merge of the two datasets would be impossible, one reason being that large towns such as West Bromwich and Huddersfield do not have like-named local authorities, and ranking by both datasets at the same time is also impossible. User:Captain scarlet (who is pushing the merge) has attempted to engage other editors on the talk page by the use of inflammatory language (such as "Sheffield data scandal") and has failed to this point. I firmly believe (as shown by the use of phrases such as "Sheffield ... is statistically always larger than Leeds, on paper and in spirit" and "the ONS which is biased") that User:Captain scarlet is simply trying to push a POV agenda to promote Sheffield as it is ranked 5th on List of largest urban sub-divisions in England by population, and (quite correctly) 3rd here. Fingerpuppet 09:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. Districts and Urban Areas are 2 different things, if they were the same then the Census would not produce 2 reports, one for urban areas and one for Local Authorities. The idea of merging the two is absolutely meaningless. --Statsfan 18:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. However some attention probably needs to be given to this and related articles to make sure the lingering problems brought about by User:EarlyBird's actions (unilateral page-moves including taking measures to prevent the page-moves being simply reversed, and other edits) are corrected.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the statement about work being required on the article, for the reasons that you give. Fingerpuppet 10:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Super extra strong oppose. They are completely different things, and Wikipedia needs to have both. Cheers, DWaterson 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. They are both useful, and quite different lists. They should be linked, but not merged. Andrewa 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential Review Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is precisely because these articles use a single source of reference that they present a unilateral point of view and as such require cleaning up under rules and conventions that regulate Wikipedia. The fact that you are persisting in preventing any other Wikipedian from contributing to this article is a serious situation, a situation you have brought upon yourself by not answering the worries of the Wikipedian that sough your aid on the article's talk page, myself included. Quoting you, how can you talk about local authorities since this article is about randomly vchosen areas that no one seems to agree on? What is it then; randomly chosen areas or LA limits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain_scarlet (talk • contribs)

This is absurd. Which other set of national census data would you like to use as a second source? That other census which is held every ten years? Oh, no wait... DWaterson 12:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What is absurd is the way the data collected by the ONS is interpreted and presented in these articles and how it conveys points of views, clearly, disagreements exist. I do however not see any wish on your side to avoid such situation. this isn't a rose garden, you cannot sit complainsant at the situation and think it'l die off. I saw a clear fault in the structure of the article and offered compromise, this was tossed aside and you are now in the situation where the entire community might be warned of the situation. I've offered Fingerpuppet a talk oportunity which he refused, this is the result; a diplomatic, Wikipedia sanctionned procedure. I offered to look at the situation in an adult and reasonable manner but by ignoring my request you're forcing me to show the community the situation by putting off guard and having to defend yourselves, it's regretable but without some compromise on your side it's unavoidable. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And where does all this end? You disagree with the ONS's figures for the Sheffield Urban Sub-Area, and wish to combine it with the data from other areas to demonstrate your own PoV rather than simply reporting the census figures. What next? By the same logic, perhaps you disagree that the figure for the Sheffield Local Authority area and feel that it must be combined with, say, Rotherham MBC's figure to give your "true" and "unbiased" figure? You have already stated that the reporting of the Leeds local authority data is somehow "biased against Sheffield". You have used phrases such as "Sheffield data scandal". Yet you agree completely with List of largest cities in England by population, which in no way represents cities, but a single report's agglomerations of local authorities (called Primary Urban Areas) that specifically state that they are NOT to be used outside that report? Somehow despite that being a single source that specifically states that the data is only to be used in a single context, then that's all right?

This article is about local authorities. The other one is about defined Urban Sub-Areas. They are different areas. Fingerpuppet 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In other news

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

Mid-2006 population figures now available

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

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

Eastbourne

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

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

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

The New 2009 Districts

This means some counties are going to become unitary authorities and districts.

Durham would become the 3rd largest district in England without working the rest out with a population of 504,000.

This needs to be worked out in time.

Cornwall and Wiltshire?!

Cornwall and Wiltshire are not districts! Yes they are now unitary authorities, but they are not districts. This article needs renaming if it's going to include the county unitaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.85.19 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

City of Manchester

Wait, quick question...so the City of Manchester went from 392,819 in 2001 to 503,127 in the 2011 Census? Manchester added over 100,000 new residents without its borders having been redefined? Just want to be sure I'm not reading that incorrectly. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is laughable. The city population inside the city of Manchester's borders is just above Leicester. What they are doing is adding some peripheral boroughs that Manchester council has some partial control. The same for Leeds, Sheffield, etc. Leeds city is over 700,000? This is a joke and totally misleading. The fourth largest "city" is Liverpool, below London, Birmingham and Glasgow.78.105.238.158 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, why are all of the numbers rounded (to the nearest hundred, no less) when there is clearly census data available? Some of these are rounded quite a bit. I've never seen another population page for any other country that uses rounded numbers, when exact census data is available. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The 2001 census badly underestimated the population of Manchester, so that is not a real growth. The only debatable addition to Manchester is Ringway, which has a small population. For e.g. Leeds the figures given are for the metropolitan borough, which has city status; this will be more than the settlement of Leeds. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"The 2001 census badly underestimated the population of Manchester". Huh? Censuses do not estimate, they count every resident of given place. If it (under)estimates anything, it is not actually much of a census then. 85.76.47.149 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so. There is some more information at 2004 Local Authority studies: Analysis of data and evidence for Manchester. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

estimates vs census

There reads: reported as the 2011 mid-year estimates
There is no sense of using "2011 mid-year estimates", since United Kingdom Census 2011 took place on March 27. Either use the census figures, or more recent estimates. Though it seems to be the current way of doing those, as I see after checking a few of these articles. 82.141.94.229 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That'd be my opinion, too. Either use the actual Census numbers or the most recent estimates. In fact, if anyone wanted to put in the time, both could be added, which could show the estimated growth since the Census. But, yeah, using the mid-year estimates for a Census year is ridiculous. --Criticalthinker (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Which ever is used we should be consistent and not use a mixture between articles. Keith D (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

LUZs and Historic Counties

A list for LUZ and historic counties seems impertinent to me as they don't correspond with local authority districts, LUZs would at best be based on figures different to 2011 figures and an LUZ figure spans a number of local authorities, therefore for the West Yorkshire LUZ you would need to put the same figure in Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees etc. Likewise Historic Counties hardly correspond to modern day local authorities, for example take South Lakeland in Cumbria, this would be in the Historic Counties of Lancashire, Yorkshire and Westmorland, unless all three are placed there in that particular example then that column would be erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.247.3.178 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it has been a year since I last updated this page and several others in relation to the latest mid-year population estimates. I probably asked this very same question last year as I can see I did update the references but I have forgotten how. So I am basically querying, how do I update the reference's? Many thanks, Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greensl7 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2018 data is available

It is available here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead Asteroid Miner (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

2020 data is available

The one have released the 2020 mid year stats (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland); also the 7 districts of Northamptonshire were replaced earlier this year by two unitary districts West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire

2021 Census out

The data is available for the 2021 census and has been for ages. Presumably because this page has been made so impossible for anyone to edit it hasn't been. Some stupid nerdly code has made it impossible for even veteran editors to update. Get rid of it please Sirhissofloxley (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That's because the statistics aren't stored on this page, they are at {{English district population}} which can then be shared across all Wikipedia articles.  Dr Greg  talk  21:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

All of the entries need updating at the same time, not just an indiidual one of interest to you. Keith D (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Greg: so where at {{English district population}} is there any information about (a) where the data is stored or (b) how to replace it. I have already raised this question at Template talk:English district population#2021 estimates available (based on 2021 Census) without response. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Sorry, I'm only aware of that template's existence and haven't been involved in its implementation.  Dr Greg  talk  23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So we are over a week after the biggest release of UK demographic info for ten years and because of some stupid way of doing things no-one knows how to update anything. Great. Whoever made it this way needs to fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.252.209 (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The people who can respond to this might not be watching this page. You might get a response by joining the discussion at Template talk:English district population#2021 estimates available (based on 2021 Census).  Dr Greg  talk  15:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Northants

Northants is currently missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.166.137 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Also needs Somerset, N Yorks, Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness Mapper2345 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Northamptonshire is no longer a legal district, it has been split. Just a ceremonial county now. But your point still stand re NN and WN: someone has added a hatnote but nothing in the body, perhaps because there is no data yet?--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)