Talk:ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medway Towns[edit]

Why arent the Medway Towns included?

The data is based on information supplied by the UK to the ESPON project. It isn't included in that which would suggest it doesn't meet the criteria. Maybe it's not contiguous? Koncorde (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Census[edit]

I'm quite new to all this editing stuff, and I don't know where to find, but it would be better to update all the information according to the 2011 UK Census. It would be nice if you directed me to, helped me find, or updated it yourself.

PantherBF3 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheltenham & Gloucester[edit]

Closer than Derby and Nottingham, Southampton and Portsmouth, Newport and Cardiff, Newcastle and Sunderland, and Blackburn and Burnley. So close there's a bank named after the two, yet not considered a metropolitan area. Weird that. 213.106.154.57 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow / Kilmarnock[edit]

Similar to the above comment in some ways, but I think the methodology for arriving at the figures in the table requires some elaboration. Kilmarnock really isn't anywhere near Glasgow, yet other places like Motherwell, for instance, aren't mentioned (despite being closer and highly integrated with the city). I'm sure these kinds of issues are present with a lot of the cities listed in the table. I couldn't really find much explanation in the source given - do we know how it was compiled? Bandanamerchant (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are few glaring errors if you look at the source. A notable one is how Hatfield/Welwyn is included in Scunthorpe I think they must have got Hatfield, Hertfordshire mixed up with Hatfield, South Yorkshire another oddity is how high the population of Rushden is and I cant see how the reached such a high figure unless they included the nearby and larger town of Wellingborough which is mentioned nowhere in the source. Also the Nuneaton Urban Area seems to be in two different metropolitan areas as Nuneaton comes under Birmingham but Hinckley under Leicester.
I think Motherwell and other towns like Paisley aren't on there because they come under Glasgow as they are part of Greater Glasgow. Eopsid (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 86.10.186.170[edit]

I was about to revert edits by 86.10.186.170 but Keith D beat me to it. I would add extra reasons in case that editor tries again:

  1. It's no use updating the first 5 table entries from a different source. The table becomes pointless unless all data is from the same source.
  2. It's not clear whether the source http://www.citypopulation.de/UK.html should be considered a reliable source.
  3. It's not at all clear that the website is using the definition of "metropolitan area" that this article is using. Neither this term nor the term "morphological urban area" is used anywhere in the UK section of the website.
  4. The totals for each metropolitan area seem to have been synthesised by adding up subtotals for what the site calls "agglomerations".

-- Dr Greg  talk  19:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update?[edit]

I think this should be updated to at least 2011 Cencus

--Ransewiki (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an equivalent source for this data covering the 2011 census as it is not from the ONS 2001 census data? Keith D (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of searching some big list from the internet, we should use wikipedia´s own pages. I think we sould use data from the respective wikipedia pages of each city, for example for London we should look at the metropolitan population found from the London page, or for Birmingham the metropolitan population found on the Birmingham page. We should use this rather than going to metropolitan pages of cities in wikipedia (like London metropolitan area), because most of the British metropolitan areas don´t have their own articles and I think we should use the same model for every metro are. Regards --Ransewiki (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Figures in this list all need to come from the same source (a reliable source about "metropolitan areas", which have a specific definition), otherwise the comparison is useless. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - does Tonbridge have the same metropolitan population as London? Koncorde (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, such collating of Wikipedia data, even if it was itself perfectly sourced, would constitute WP:original research. I don't know what the answer here is, but given the glaring mistakes mentioned above (Welwyn/Hatfield) and the clear inconsistencies (Gloucester/Cheltenham) it might be better to have no article than the one we've got at present. We need a reliable source, and it's a great pity the census people don't do this themselves.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff/Newport one is ridiculous[edit]

Monmouth? 35 miles to Cardiff, 20 to Newport, in the middle of the countryside. I can't see how it would meet the "density" criteria. The population density of Monmouthshire (the local authority, not the county) is 104/square km, nowhere near the 650 cited. If LAU2 in Wales are "communities", some of those between Newport and Monmouth are well below this too.

The 10% of the workforce criterion- it wouldn't surprise me if this is met for Cardiff/Newport in some parts of the "Bristol" area and vice versa. There is something called the Severn Bridge that makes this possible. And a train service. Monmouth is 15 miles from a railway station. I notice that the Cheltenham-Gloucester area includes Cinderford, Newent and Mitcheldean, we're getting quite close to Monmouth here. Much closer than Cardiff is... But really how is the Wye Valley/Forest of Dean in a "metropolitan area" at all? Walshie79 (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is a joke. It's correct but the areas are drawn up by people with no geographical knowledge. Cls14 (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's very unlikely they have no geographical knowledge, it is after all their specialist subject. So much so so that they are entrusted to perform one of the most thorough studies of urbanisation in recent times.
Any large town in any given area is likely to draw from multiple pools, and in many cases two large towns often share their own collective pools too (likely at least 10% of Manchester works in the "Liverpool Metropolitan" area and vice versa). In the end studies such as this have to draw lines in sand somewhere. Koncorde (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Walshie79 is right. If you check the source most of the places mentioned in this article as part of the Cardiff/Newport metropolitan area aren't in the source. It's just made up and no one has checked the source. Actually most of this article seems to conflict with the source now that I read it. Im gonna clean it up. Eopsid (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned the whole article up now. It was filled with unsourced rubbish about a year ago and no one noticed, and none of you here on the talk page even checked the source to make sure the article wasn't filled with lies. That's one of the main problems with Wikipedia, very few check the sources people just assume wikipedia is right when often especially on these less busy articles people can just change figures and make stuff up and no one will notice. I apologise for my rudeness and ranting, I hope I haven't offended any of you on here, I dont want to discourage people from editing Wikipedia. Eopsid (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning it up! I remember I did have a look at the source at one point and saw there were many discrepancies. I meant to come back and have another look when I had more time to deal with it, but in a busy life that never happened. Are we now in full agreement with the source again? If so, is there some way we can mark the current revision as verified? I'm sure editors will come along in future wanting to change figures again to suit their POV. --Deskford (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked through the source whilst going through it and just did quickly again. It is in full agreement other than this article stopping at an arbitrary point in the source. Eopsid (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For being verified I guess this talk page can be used for that. There are time stamps on these messages so we know this time is when the article was accurate and not conflicting with the source. Eopsid (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IP changes (as far as I recall) just broke down the sub-units into their NUTs3 which created the chaos. Like Deskford, just have never got round to repairing what was done. I am still not sure if listing the "City" portion of the document is particularly relevant. For instance Norwich, which lists only itself at a lower population value ( which is where subsequent edits have tried to fill the gaps I am guessing). Koncorde (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eopsid Cls14 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bognor Regis[edit]

Bognor appears to be included in both South Hampshire and Brighton metropolitan areas (with slightly different populations!).

If it really has strong economic links to both, then that means they should be merged to a single huge metropolitan area. Otherwise it should be in one or the other, or neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnb20 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the article was filled with alternative facts. Eopsid (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Hampshire metropolitan area?[edit]

The Portsmouth article says that its population is 200,000. Where did the 500,000 come from? Is the total and thus place in the list equally nonsense? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The population figures given are for the FUA or MUA of the sub-regions. So Portsmouth has a population of 200,000, but the FUA/MUA of Portsmouth is larger. The explanation at the top explains the methodology, and is also in the main sources provided relating to the study. The methodology is also why certain towns or cities listed are also sometimes missing population (for instance Warrington, a population of their authority of 200k, but because they have areas that are not contiguous it is reflected her as a lower value). Koncorde (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted[edit]

as it is entirely lacking in citations. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 253 page study and document provided as the main source for all the statistics. Koncorde (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should, but it doesn't. The table as it stands is wildly unreliable. Despite the heading saying 2001, a number of entries have been revised with 2011 census and others even use later estimates (e.g, recent edits to Stoke-on-Trent). So either police it rigorously or at least delete the table. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

I have tagged this article as disputed because it is not accurate. The information in the tables are sourced inconsistently: some records are per 2001 census, some on 2011 and some on recent local authority estimates. If we can't do it properly then it is better that we don't do it at all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia works. If you have identified where people have incorrectly updated figures, then re-done the them? This is not a one man operation. Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, this is how wikipedia works. The article as it stands today is a complete mess and we need a big health warning flag up front to say so, lest visitors be misled. The tag exists for precisely this sort of case. Nevertheless, I agree that having to do so is an admission of failure: "all article" tags are a last resort, section tags are better, just fixing the problem is best of all. But the amount of work needed to fix this article is a great deal more than I for one am willing to give it. I suggest the only way to save it is to delete the tables entirely and instead list (in text) the top five or ten as determined by an external reliable source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, that isn't how Wikipedia works. If you have identified an error, fix it. Or highlight it. Or somehow make it clear. Throwing tags at the top of a page isn't much of a solution (as you say, it's the last resort, but it appears to have so far been your only resort) if you then neglect to try and tidy it or are not specific about the errors at hand. And if you have checked each value in the source in order to confidently assess its inaccuracy, then what is the issue with then correcting it back to the source that you are checking?
You either know something is wrong, in which case the onus is upon you as much as anyone else to fix it as an unsourced change (or make it clear what it is so it can be fixed), or you don't know anything is wrong and don't have the time to check, or fix it in any case, and don't want to suggest any alternatives other than burning down an article you don't like? And you admit yourself that this is apparently more work than you are "willing to give". Okay. So why are you here? Is it to be helpful?
Shortening the list to the top 10 in and of itself is not a bad idea, but this is specifically an article for a list - which is often a place to be exhaustive.
Or maybe there is a new / alternative source to be used or that can be used?
Might I suggest you RFC any options you can think of. Koncorde (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could have just walked away and ignored it. You are not wrong to challenge me as being unconstructive but at some level it needed to be said that article needs serious work. That is why I invited wikiproject UK Geography to have a look to see if it can be salvaged. Result below.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have resynchronised the main two tables with the ESPON source. There weren't all that many errors in the numbers, but some of the area names didn't match the source, so I have corrected them. What I have not done is check whether the wikilinked articles are the most appropriate. Nor have I checked the text in the introductory sections. It should be noted that there's a typographical problem in the source: some of the rows of the table don't line up correctly so it may give the illusion that some of the numbers are wrong. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Greg: Thank you for responding. Appreciated. So is the base date still 2001? 2011? something else? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I used the same source as always for this article, dated 2001. -- Dr Greg  talk  12:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Highly) dubious data[edit]

The data given for two settlements that I know about and can easily be checked, Northampton and Milton Keynes, are both wildly wrong.

If the data is seriously wrong in two cases that I know, I can only infer that it equally unreliable in many other cases. I have to ask again - if we can't have an article that is even approaching accuracy, why do we have it all?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no. You don't get to put "dubious" next to a cross government official EU study which both establishes and writes the definition of what the measurements are and then reports them. You are committing an absolute cardinal sin by comparing one methodology against another distinct methodology.
Can you please just read the actual study and it's definitions because you are making utterly absurd assertions. The PUA / FUA and MUA are all functionally different from the "Built Up Area" which is reported on Wikipedia at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom, and will report back different figures on the basis of the definitions and methodology used within. Koncorde (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Population trend of Borough and Urban Area 1801–2011
I accept your analysis and thus my error but the name of the article is "list of Metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom", not "list of ESPON-defined metro areas". So a reader has to understand the entire background before using (or, more practically, not using) the data here. I accept we have wp:verifiability not truth but the figures given are nonsensical. Take a look at this chart. The last time Milton Keynes had a population anything like 136,000 was in 1991.
The source itself says that the methodology produces serious difficulties for the UK (and no doubt The Netherlands, Ruhr Valley, Po Valley, anywhere that has significant numbers of overlapping catchments) and so writes: However, ESPON 1.1.1 data seem to be very inaccurate. The report generally strongly underestimates the population of the FUAs, which are often even less than the MUA only and possibly limited to a central administrative unit of the latter. Many MUAs aren’t either identified by ESPON 1.1.1 (even those with more than 100 thousand inhabitants, or secondary centres inside bigger FUAs, or those with their own labour pool). This serious health warning needs to be given clearly (in bold!) in the lead and advice readers that the List of Urban Areas is likely to more useful to a generalist reader. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is only, in a definitive sense, one specific definition of the PUA, FUA, MUA etc. The methodology runs into some issues in the list provided specifically when urban and metropolitan areas overlap, and the criticism is present exactly for the purpose that it needs to be (and is present for every country in some fashion); that creating harmonised statistics is very difficult when each country and even regions within a country are known to be massively different (be that due to geographical reasons, or post war urban redevelopment etc).
The presence of criticism does not invalidate or somehow call into question the information provided, it exists to explain the limitations of the data for when any decisions may be taken in the future based upon assumptions. In effect, the criticism is there to say "before we use this data to award X funds to all regions that meet this criteria, we should probably be aware that there is something that the data will not convey". In actual fact, page 8 goes into some detail the steps they took when using the MUA to extrapolate the data required (in effect th criticism is them responding to themselves about what they tried to do and what limitation it had before they did their part). Koncorde (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with regards to the specifics of Milton Keynes, what falls under "Milton Keynes" by one definition (such as the borough council) is not necessarily the same as the MK ward population (i.e. parliamentary population), which is not the same as the MK urban area, which is not the same as the metropolitan area. These sort of things can be subject to dramatic change, particularly when smaller towns are subsumed into a larger entity. For urban areas in particular this becomes particularly relevant when a piece of greenbelt is developed that links a satellite town to its main regional entity. Koncorde (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MK is an edge case that would cause any generic model to struggle: even the ONS gets it wrong with an England&Wales-only model. So I wouldn't for a moment suggest that the article is inherently wrong because it fails on this anomaly. No, my key point is that a visitor to the page who is unfamiliar with the background will be misled – because the page title suggest a generic meaning but the content is highly specialised – and will not be disabused of that misconception by any statement in the lead. The number of reverted edits should is clear evidence of this assertion. But compare, for example, NUTS statistical regions of the United Kingdom which makes it evident from the start that this is a technical article with technical terminology (though in practice it seems to map well to real-world places). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not buying any argument about specialisation or not being an issue. It's the literal definition of a Metropolitan Area by the European Union via a harmonised study. NUTS regions are used as part of the ESPON, but as this study is about something far more esoteric by nature it is going to be occasionally difficult for people to understand. For instance, you own POV above regarding MK.
The number of reverted edits usually reflects one of three things;
1. A user with a particular POV, usually trying to push a particular region up the chart.
2. People using incorrect data, or different measurements, to change the table.
3. People updating partial information, often ignoring underlying data, causing corruption of the table.
Adding any clarifications to the lede is fine, but currently there is signficant information included already and I am not sure what might be added to add further clarity. Koncorde (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:assume good faith. Apart from the occasional vandal just passing through, all of the edits you complain about were made in good faith, by people who genuinely believed that they were correcting erroneous data. #1 is a consequence of such a "correction", not the motivation for it. #2 is people (like me) who failed to realise that the article is simply a copy of the primary source with names that mean something other than in general use, and so cannot be changed. #3 is a variant of #2.
Obviously I think that changing the name of the article would solve the problem, as per proposal. But if that doesn't gain consensus, I will volunteer a suitable sentence or two. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John, I have been tidying this article for 5 years. I know what I am talking about. AGF is fine, but some such as the persistent edits are, and have been blatant, others who change descriptions, ordering etc for no purpose other than to marginalise or emphasise a particular component is very common. Koncorde (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith on your part too. But I remain convinced that the vast majority of the edits have been made in good faith, in the honest belief that data, which appears to directly contradict the ONS figures, is wrong and that some previous editors must have fiddled with it to move their home town up the league table. I hold my hand up to having done exactly that and on more than one occasion. Had there been a clear hat note (with hidden comments to confirm) or better still a clear title like I suggest below, I am convinced that there would be far fewer such interventions and you would not have had to spend so much time on recovery work. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from putting a hat note in every single entry, that isn't likely to work. Neither is putting ESPON at the beginning going to clear up the fact people can't read (or don't want to, or make terrible assumptions, or have a POV or agenda to push). People can't even get PFA Player of the Year vs Player of the Season awards right in football, and to this day are arguing over the birth date of celebrities who have never made them public. I very much doubt that they are going to get technical definitions of regional populations correct without some strenuous hand-holding. Koncorde (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pretend that it will stop all invalid changes but it will certainly stop most of them. It is easy to prove or disprove my theory: make the changes I suggested and watch the effect. I am trying to work with you to improve the accessibility and reliability of the article without the need for 24/7 supervision. I don't understand why you are being so resistant? Do you actually like firefighting? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What resistance? Don't take my replies to be anything other than responding to your blanket assertions by questioning their underlying logic. I have no "resistance" to improvements to an article.
This article is also far from a firefight. Barring single IP's or single users occasionally making a change, the article has been relatively static until last month when Dr Greg. Koncorde (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have misunderstood but I have the impression that you are reluctant to agree to having a hat note or similar to explain what the numbers are (and what they are not). So maybe it will help if I give my proposed text:
This article reports the UK element of a trans-European study in 2007, designed to produce an internationally consistent data structure and thus permit valid inter-state comparisons. In this case, its source data is the ward-level counts for the UK's 2001 census but the figures reported are for a different type of analysis than was used by the Office of National Statistics for its Urban Areas in the 2001 Census report or its Built-up Areas in the 2011 Census report. Readers are cautioned to ensure that they choose the data model that is the most appropriate of these for their purposes.
In addition, hidden comments at various points to say that the figures given have been verified against the source. Please do not substitute figures from any other source.
But if you are really saying that the only fires you have had to fight in the past few months have been those inadvertently lit by me, I shall ask for my coat! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change name of this article?[edit]

Following from the discussion above, I invite comment on this proposed name change: ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom. I suggest that this name is better reflective of its specialist content and is consistent with the naming of articles like NUTS statistical regions of the United Kingdom and clearly different from generalist content articles like List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. The only alternative that I can see is to have a long explanation in the lead that says what it is not as well as what it is. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no replies to this proposal and silence signifies assent, I shall go ahead with this move. I see from #Medway Towns above that people are still getting confused. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I live outside UK & I would like to know populations by Major Urban Area. Just to answer the question, which are the biigest cities in UK. Is this the article for that and are any upto date sources available? J mareeswaran (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of urban areas in the United Kingdom is what you are after. Koncorde (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but no, I think :(( I came here from that page by clicking on the metropolitan area column. I would think Nottingham-Derby should be a single Metropolitan area but that article uses built up area which is confusing to me. The questions I have are similar to the ones raise in this page below:

You can say that London is definitely the UK's biggest city, and no one will challenge you. You can say that Manchester is bigger than Newcastle, and be on pretty safe ground. But is Manchester bigger than Birmingham? What's the UK's 7th biggest city? These are questions with no answers.[1]

J mareeswaran (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link I gave you is to the exact figures provided by the Census etc for the Built Up / Urban Areas, which is exactly what you requested ("Major Urban Area")? If you just want the population figures for the city component, then you need List of cities and towns in the United Kingdom by population. Koncorde (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After digging around, I think the confusion I have might be because of the existence of Green Belt. Maybe this is why Nottingham & Derby are showing up as different built-up areas. I added a few maps from census which shows major and minor conurbations pictorially. That helps to figure out how the conurbation/metropolitan areas are distributed/located physically/geographically
I got the answer to my question. City_region_(United_Kingdom)#Created has population values which I feel answers my question. Of course, it is not a complete list as it is based on political/administrative merger actions and will keep changing in future

References

  1. ^ "Where are the largest cities in Britain?".


Merge from Metropolitan Economies in UK[edit]

the List of metropolitan economies in the United Kingdom article lists updated population figures from 2012 as provided by Brookings Institution. Can we merge these two wiki pages. Maybe have 2 columns one for 2001 & another for 2012 population figures ? J mareeswaran (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how Brookings verified their population figures, as by the 2011 census they had stopped using the Espon Metropolitan methodology. I have no objection to it being included as a separate table, with the separate sourcing theoretically for the economic values, but looking at their interactive map no actual population figures have ever been provided. As such it probably needs to stand alone as its own study. Koncorde (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose such a merger. This (ESPON) article snapshots a particular study at a moment in time, based on 2001 census data, that has corresponding data for other countries in Europe. The Brookings study uses a different methodology based on a later census so chalk/cheese. A see also or template:for at the beginning is the best option. People (including in the past, me) misread these articles as providing a generic urban area population report and try to "correct" them or play with the methodology to promote their home town. We walk straight into WP:OR if we try to establish our own methodology. For generic stats, let's stick to the only wp:RS, the Office of National Statistics. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken out my response above because on more detailed reading, I see that the Brookings list of metropolitan economies in the United Kingdom (note that I have renamed it for consistency with this article) is relies on the ESPON database and methodology, albeit with updated material from Oxford Economics. So right now I can't see a case to either support or oppose a merge. I am happy to be led by Koncorde on this one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a merge because they are two distinct items. Merging them would require an element of WP:SYNTH, and there is nothing about the Brookings analysis that makes them the go-to rationale (I can't find a reference to them from the UK). I would have no opposition to mentioning the Brookings analysis and linking to it. Koncorde (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tees Valley (Teesside) Metro area[edit]

Does anybody have any idea where the population figures for Darlington and Hartlepool have been plucked from? There is no data of which I can find which gives the populations as under 60,000. Even when you follow the link on each town to their article it gives you the correct population figure. It appears someone has plucked those figures out of thin air. Darlington has around 100,000 in its urban area and Hartlepool around 80,000.and since when has Teesside be known as Middlesbrough? Middlesbrough's pop. Is 174,000 Teesside is 374,000. Again where has this 389,000 figure been generated? Yorkteessider (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from the study data by ESPON in 2001 built around their rationale. Effectively what it is saying is that while Darlington has a population of 100k, the "morphological urban area" is only 57k. This indicates that a lot of the population live in non-contiguous rural, or suburban areas, or satellite towns that do not share Middlesborough as its commuter hub. Koncorde (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yorkteesider: The data is nearly 20 years old and the analysis about 15. How did you get to this article? it really is just of historic interest, as any links to it should make clear.
NOMIS has a map of the Darlington Built-up area here as at the 2011 census (nearly 10 years ago), with a population of 92k. The map and population for Teesside is here. Middlesbrough (sic!) is a sub-division of a larger built-up area and also a local authority, so you need to specify what exactly you are counting. (Go to https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/ , scan down the page to Local Area Report and enter the name. Be careful of the risk of confusing actual built-up area with the remit of the local council. Let me know if you need any help. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many cities / towns infoboxes link to this page via the "Metro" heading just as they link to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom via the Urban criteria; so Yorkteesider may have followed that path. Koncorde (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True... So maybe it is time to replace it, though with what I don't know. The Centre for Cities has its list but is careful not to define them too clearly (that I've ever found anyway). I suspect it would be WP:SYN if someone just added up all the adjacent built-up areas in a given area (West Midlands, for example) and declared that to be the metro population. I do think that this list is long past its use-by date and when the 2021 census figures come out, it will be a laughing stock and us with it for letting it stand. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing we can really do until someone defines a "metro area" (or MUA) and does the population figures again. Even when the new figures are done however, this article theoretically still stands on its own as a distinct study because of its theoretical background. Koncorde (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESPON UK metropolitan areas[edit]

Barlow95 posted this on my talk page after I reverted their attachment of the article Birmingham metropolitan area to the ESPON "Birmingham metropolitan area". Theirs is certainly a valid challenge so I think it would be better to open it up to wider discussion and seek consensus on how best to handle it.

Surely you can't include the link to the London metropolitan area either then if you want to remove the Birmingham metropolitan area link by those definitions? I think there is value in having the Birmingham metro area link on the list, despite ESPON having specific definitions, as it offers the reader opportunity to further look into it. It is still the Birmingham metropolitan area Wikipedia page at the end of the day, a valid reason for there to be a link to it on the table Barlow95 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your reasoning is logical, but I disagree because I think it is a WP:EGG violation: ESPON's BMA is not the same as the ONS's BMA. So yes, I would disconnect the London metro area too. ESPON's definitions were a bit closer to our "travel to work area" but I don't know if their methodology is around any more. @Koncorde:, what do you think? Is anyone else still watching this 20-year-old article? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is functionally nonsense at this point but without a reliable source it's all we have. :As a legacy article referring to outdated versions of entities or using different criteria linking to current articles makes for a degree of internal inconsistency. I would be inclined not to link. Perhaps a better disclaimer required if a link is provided. Koncorde (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester Cheltenham metropolitan area[edit]

about 5 mins drive between the two on a quiet day, and functionally contiguous through Churchdown, Innsworth, Brockworth - as previous comment mentions, should be considered a metropolitan area of at least 250,000. Not sure why this is never acknowledged as for those who live there it is obvious. There is a degree of planning and housebuilding coordination between the two councils as well as Tewkesbury, as far as I remember. Pbell99 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The EPSON report was based on the 2001 census and didn't say that, end of. Look on it as you would the Domesday book, a snapshot of a moment in time.
The relevant article for modern data is List of urban areas in the United Kingdom but see my reply to your post at Talk:List of urban areas in the United Kingdom#Gloucester and Cheltenham. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ESPON_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1196279510"