Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/City status in the United Kingdom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

City status in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Self nomination. This isn't just a list of cities, it contains background info about the peculiar definition of cities in the UK, the various statuses the cities have, etc. Morwen - Talk 21:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Good article, but a list is an almanac article while the prose in that article is encyclopedic (only one part of the article is a list!). I suggest renaming the article to City status in the United Kingdom so that readers know to expect to find an article on the topic instead of just a list (if and when the list on that page gets too long, then it can be spun off onto its own page). The lead section needs some expansion as well as the 'City councils' section. Also, the article on the whole also seems a bit short. So until then, I regretfully oppose. --mav 01:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I *strongly* agree with Mav's suggestion. →Raul654 06:03, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Moved it, started to expand bits. Not really suitable yet. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • How does it look now? Morwen - Talk 22:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a really good article; my only comment would be that there's a very cursory mention to the title "Rt Hon", yet it doesn't say anything about whether or not these titleholders are members of the Privy Council and, if so, whether or not it is ex officio, by virtue of being the Lord Mayor of the relevant city (which I guess in some cases it is). I don't think fixing that is necessarily a prerequisite for FA status, though. — OwenBlacker 11:04, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. I think I will add a bit about the former cities of the UK too - ie the ones now in the Republic of Ireland. Morwen - Talk 13:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose In re "The Right Honourable"; I would like to ask that the sentence Six of these Lord Mayors and two of the Lord Provosts are styled "The Right Honourable" instead of "The Right Worshipful" - though they are not members of the Privy Council which this style usually indicates be rephrased, as it is now rather confusing. The new passage could indicate:
    That Lord Mayors generally use "The Right Worshipful,"
    That some Lord Mayors use "The Right Honourable" though not Privy Counsellors,
    That either style is applied to the office, not to the personal name (as in "The Right Honourable The Lord Mayor of X" rather than "The Right Honourable John Smith," etc.),
    That only Privy Counsellors use the form "The Right Honourable John Smith."
  • Furthermore, the table needs to be, in my opinion, reformatted. The blank cells could be filled by non-breaking spaces; furthermore, "Right Hon. the Lord Mayor" should, IMHO, be replaced by "The Right Hon. The Lord Mayor," or, better still, "The Rt Hon. The Lord Mayor." In addition, perhaps the key could indicate that a hyphen indicates city status since time immemorial. Finally, it would be nice to have the now-Republic of Ireland's cities listed in the table, rather than at the end. -- Emsworth 15:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok - shall do those. With respect to the last suggestion, I think would be a bit political, not to mention confusing, to have the Irish cities treated in the same way as the cities in the remaining parts of the UK. Morwen - Talk 15:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, for the Irish cities, I was hoping for a table of the same format as the British cities: one column for "City," one for "Mayor," one for "Since," and one for "Cathedral" (we need not have a "Gov." column. -- Emsworth 16:26, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
        • Ah, ok. Done. Morwen - Talk 17:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Objections withdrawn. -- Emsworth 20:16, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. Too many red links. The lists should be spun off, as they have very little to do with "city status of the UK". Article should be clarified to better discuss what "city status" means in an NPOV way. anthony (see warning)
    • I don't agree with splitting out the list. I think a list of entities with city status in the United Kingdom has a lot do with city status in the United Kingdom. Would any third parties like to comment? Morwen - Talk 12:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's just the title. How about cities in the United Kingdom? This would probably address the problem of explaining what "city status" means, also, by not using that term at all. anthony (see warning)
        • Have renamed and fixed redirs. Morwen - Talk 13:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • The red links alone aren't enough for me to object. Looks acceptable as of now. anthony (see warning) 13:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The Rochester thing: "lost this status as a result of an administrative error" — what the hey? This got me really intrigued; how can you de"city" a city through an administative error? It'd be great to flesh this paragraph out a little more, as it seems to be an interesting (and embarrassing) episode in the context. 2) Lead section needs to mention the historic relation to cathedrals, and the "informal" usage explaining, e.g., why London is / isn't a city. 3) Given the title of the article, should we consider adding a list of "unofficial" cities — settlements that might be classed as a "city" if they weren't in the UK? This would also help NPOV because "some have doubted the right of the Crown to define the word 'city' in the English language.". — Matt 17:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • All done. Morwen - Talk 17:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I've been musing on the name, a bit; I do think that the name was better as "City status in the United Kingdom, (or City designation, or Appointed cities or some such), because otherwise the article assumes too much that the "official" version of city is correct — it's quite odd to have an article called "Cities in the United Kingdom" where London isn't part of the main list.) — Matt 18:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I can't possibly satisfy all the name objections at once ;) Nobody gets upset about the government claiming the right to define cities, really. it just gets ignored. Perhaps a difference could be made between 'city' and 'City' - but that isn't in general use either. Does this count as uncontested again? Morwen - Talk 18:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I, too, think City status was a better title. Difficult to call, though :-) James F. (talk) 19:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • "City status" is a better title. The Lord Chancellor's site, for example, refers to the "City status" contests so the phrase cannot be dismissed as never being used, etc. [1]. -- Emsworth 00:33, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
            • If the name gets changed to either city status in the United Kingdom or city status (United Kingdom), then I'll change my (now) mild oppose to accept. The 'cities' name is not really correct (as noted above) and also does not conform to our pluralization naming convention. --mav 08:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support as is, name and all. Bmills 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. 1) The first photo is not great; pretty blurred, for one — could we do better? 2) In the table, the meaning of the "Gov." column heading is not very clear, and the numbering system for that column is used in the main UK table, but not the RoI table. 3) What's the history of this "Royal charter" thing? When were they first given out, and to whom? — Matt 16:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) Shall we just move the image of York Minster up there? I think that may be the best option. 3) done. Morwen - Talk 18:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Makes more sense, and the blurriness of the Lord Mayor pic doesn't seem to have such an impact there. — Matt 19:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. — Matt 19:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- mav 03:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom/archive1&oldid=219935496"