• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

Talk:Colchester

Archives

1

The pronunciation in the opening sentence has been unchallenged for years. We suddenly have someone living in Canada determining that the first 'e' is pronounced 'as i in kit', which I have never heard in 20 years of living here. Nonsense. Kevin McE (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Chelmsford as a child, Kev, and we knew people in Colchester, whom we visited often enough. The fact that I now live in Canada does not change what I learnt back then. Kelisi (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is why i dislike chelmsfordines, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.52.72 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the undo: the first two sources I checked, JC Wells Longman Pronunciation Dictionary and [1]https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/colchester both have the i pronunciation, but I've just checked the OED and it uses ɛ. The second pronunciation in JC Wells is with a schwa (ə) which is probably closer to how I pronounce it, the third is with the e Piecesofuk (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in the pudding, Pieces, and the pudding in this case is the people who live in Colchester. Listen to them. They all say "/ˈkoʊltʃɪstər/", and never "/ˈkoʊltʃɛstər/". By the way, the pronunciation given in this article isn't the only bogus one for a place in Essex that I have ever come across. Check this out (it has since been corrected).

wrong, its more of a shorter version of ɛ

Also see Manchester (/ˈmæntʃɪstər, -tʃɛs-/) which has both pronunciations with the I appearing first as in JC Wells Piecesofuk (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My friends who live there pronounce it "kohl - chuh - stuh". Mr. Cholmondeley-Warner would pronounce it "kohl - cheh - stuh" A stereotypical tourist from Wisconsin would say (incorrectly) "coal - cheh - sturr". Ritchie333 15:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I thought Mr. Cholmondeley-Warner lived in Kent? But my general question is: do we show RP, or local pronunciation, or both (if they differ)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RP is pretty far removed from most people's regular speech in Britain - I don't even think the younger generations of the Royal Family use it nearly so much as the Queen does. You might be thinking of a standard British accent instead? I'd say one pronunciation for standard English, and the inclusion of another for local pronunciation, along with a link to the relevant regional accent. (I'd pronounce it "kohl-cheh-stuh" as well, but I don't have much of an accent, save for dropping the letter t like my life depends on it.) I cannot say I've ever heard anyone in the UK pronounce the 'e' as 'i as in kit', and I've lived here all my life.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mentioning that regional accents have definitely shifted a lot within the past century or so, in the sense that for a lot, they've somewhat generalised a little. It used to be that you could, no exaggeration, tell two not-too-large towns apart based on accent - so depending on when Kelisi lived near Colchester, the accent may have sounded like that at the time. I know I get more Northern if I'm on the phone to my grandad, who's in his 90s and has lived here all his life, and likely people locally spoke more northerly when he was my age, too.

British English linguistics are a tricky thing, as in certain words, a number of vowels are reduced to /ə/, and every single vowel has the potential to slip and slide into schwa territory - Tom Scott has a brilliant video on this very phenomenon. This leads to a variety of letters being pronounced roughly the same way, which may have caused the confusion. Shoving /ə/ in the place of a proper vowel is second-nature to us, but could have caused some confusion about what the vowel actually is. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I probably was thinking of Standard English, as opposed to Essex English. I've never seen Wills and Kate in Colchester, but I think Uncle Andrew occasionally visits Pizza Express. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

ba-dum tssh(!) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I've never heard any British place name ending in -ester being pronounced as anything other than -ɛstər and, frankly, would question the veracity of sources that differ on that. That said, as we all know, the Wikipedia mantra is "verifiability not truth". Ultimately, since there are multiple sources with several different pronunciations, and clearly some strong feelings on this issue, it might be prudent to include some alternative pronunciations in the lead, or maybe even a section on pronunciation (leaving the pronunciation out of the lead) if there is sufficient material to support it. However it does seem clear that this is a wider issue than for just this article - as others have mentioned, there are many place names ending in -ester and this same issue affects them all. WaggersTALK 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it pronounced colchister its col-chess-tuh thats how we say it, we don't call the game of chess chis! ask the locals before putting false pronunciations! this has annoyed me as an actual colcestrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.52.72 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD discussion has ended with the decision to merge info from Colchester Film Festival here. Personnally, I'm not sure anything beyond what we currently have is necessary or proportionate: it was never something that made a deep impression on the town, probably much less noticable than the Oyster Fayre or Medieval markets in Castle Park. The film festival website is just a link to a facebook account, which has only two identical entries in the last 5 years: invitations to submit films for 2020, but nothing about the event, or even a Covid cancellation announcement. I can find 2 2021 film events advertised, but not the same festival name, location, calendar spot or logo. So even what the article currently has (added, very probably by one of the organisers, in 2015) is probably anachronistic in being in the present tense. Do we need any more? Kevin McE (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources seem to be local newspapers, rather than anything in creative media. There are lots of events of similar calibre from other fields that go on in Colchester, as you suggest. And I can't see how much of the CFF article can be included into this one without dramatically unbalancing it. I have serious doubts about notability, and the consensus for merging seems tepid at best. Brammers (talk/c) 23:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Kevin. There really isn't much worth merging, so perhaps just a plain redirect will do? LibStar (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Hazhar Ebrahimi.I live in Iran now.I want to have new chance for nursing work in UK .please guide me how I can to get a work visa and I have new experience .I'm married and have a daughter .I have 15 years work experience 5.22.110.6 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikipedia does not give this kind of advice. Suggest you look here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As with Talk:Southend-on-Sea the town does not become a city until Letters patent are received. MRSC (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However that being said, it can start calling itself a city now, its just made official till then, I actually went up and asked the bbc Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The letters patent got gazetted today, dated as of 5 Sept. [2] Gecko G (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added it now DankJae 19:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the letters are not to be received until 23 November, and according to the BBC (publicly, rather than in some apparent response to Judeabasquelanguage), that is the defining event.[3] Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due our newly established city status we r not a town Any more. 2A02:C7F:3AA2:2600:F5E1:4B8F:588C:D88D (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do indeed have an official flag which flies from the town hall, i made a copy of it on reddit a while back. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Judeobasquelanguage. Please provide a source, either on this article (recommended as it's on this article), the coat of arms article or the image's description, and whether the image is actually a banner of arms (must be described as such if it is). In the description of the image, it states it is flown in the town centre, a commons image of this would greatly back up the flag. Many user-generated flags have been added to articles recently, please provide a source. I personally do not find evidence of this flag (not the coat of arms), and suggest the flag be removed from the article unless sourced. Many Thanks – DankJae (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here it being flown

https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g190735-d8639207-i153076443-Colchester_Town_Hall-Colchester_Essex_England.html Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to take a photo of it being used? Its currently up there, and you could be alot nicer and less insulting thanks Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Judeobasquelanguage, thank you for your links. Happy to see this flag has some verifiability, due to a recent discussion over various other unsourced flags. Therefore I thank you for your upload and links to evidence of the flag. If I have insulted you I apologise, I meant no disrespect. I am just critical over the sudden addition of unsourced flags on UK cities (including my own which had a incorrect design uploaded), and queried this article's flag. If possible, it would be great if you can also link them in the image's description. Once again thanks for your upload. Many Thanks – DankJae (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it meaningfully a flag, rather than just a copy of the arms on a cloth flown from a roof. If the town's arms were printed on a mug, would that be an official mug? Kevin McE (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kevin McE, it seems to me, it fits more the definition of a banner of arms, a strictly heraldic flag which so far as I know is only used on council buildings and has little references for wider public use (but happy to be proven otherwise). There is an argument to be made whether banners of arms are or are not technically "flags" in the wide usage sense, and whether they should be described as the "flag of [place]" (as the CoA may be for the council of the area rather than strictly for the settlement within that area; for Colchester this council source describes it as the "borough arms" and for its own use only, not public use) or should be used in the infobox. However that discussion will likely involve multiple articles which have (especially recently) had their local council's banner of arms added. – DankJae 09:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, per the source given in my reply above, which describes them as the "borough arms", would the "flag" and coat of arms used in this article be more suitable for the Borough of Colchester article? Should it be removed from here and placed there? Happy to be proven otherwise if there is evidence it is also awarded to the town or whether that coat of arms for local authorities are also acceptable in their county town articles on Wikipedia? Many Thanks – DankJae 19:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester Borough council does not use that falg on its website (uses a logo based on simplified profile pic of a roman soldier), nor does it use the red and yellow colourscheme. Colchester Town council does not seem to have an online presence. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes there is little online presence of the "flag" as far as I know, and councils usually use a logo rather than a flag for their services, although some do use a coat of arms, but not Colchester Borough Council. However as linked above another user did send photo evidence that it is flown outside Colchester Borough Council's building, likely indicating it is a "banner of arms". Aside that picture I cannot find usage of the flag (not CoA; there is wide usage of that), and due to little usage of the flag you could dispute it is a "flag" of the place and remove it from the article (would not oppose its removal). I think Colchester Town Council was replaced with the borough council long ago (found few references to a "town council" but no date, likely dissolved at least 40 years ago when the existing council was formed). However I do think these symbols are more connected to the borough than the town, therefore should I move them (at least the coat of arms) to the borough article? DankJae 18:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pub known as the Berechurch Arms that uses the same arms as its pub sign. Now a pub sign is not a Reliable Source, but is this an indication that it is not so much the emblem of Colchester as of a smaller parish subsumed into the town? Kevin McE (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this old photo of the pub, I do not see the CoA visible, however it is not high quality and could be within or on the building rather than the sign, but it seems making the CoA a very visible part of the pub's brand is a recent change, so yeah not really reliable. Happy to be disproven though. DankJae 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Colchester is now a City, this requires updating. 80.79.222.89 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Reason: There is no proof of the town being a city. NameIsShaheer (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It was announced it would become city, but legally not a city yet. A local source has said 12 September 2022 is the apparent date it will legally become a city. So wait till then. It remains a town right now. DankJae 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct for the motto to be "Utrinqe Paratus" when on the town arms the motto is "No Cross, No Crown"? 86.11.38.74 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and removed: couldn't find anything on Google that was not primarily concerned with parachute reg. Kevin McE (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that city status pertains to the borough of Colchester, is it either meaningful or accurate to describe the area that is the subject of this article (what we would until recently have uncontroversially called the town) as a city? Is it a town within the borough-city? Is it a city within the borough city? Or does this actually illustrate that it is not tenable to try to have separate articles when there is no separate defining authority for the central settlement? Kevin McE (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I'd suggest the latter. You've been putting in a sterling effort to retain the distinction over the years, but I think (both through current events and popular practice) it's worth treating them as one and the same unless new justification arises. Brammers (talk/c) 12:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The settlement and the district are not the same thing, so I am adamant that the two articles should remain separate, just as they do for other districts that are named after settlements. Whether the settlement of Colchester (as opposed to the district) should be referred to as a city or a town is really down to how reliable sources refer to it. That might change over time, particularly given the district's recent change in status, but if the city council themselves still refer to the settlement as a town, it might be best sticking with that for now. WaggersTALK 10:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE, @Waggers, @Brammers, so should my recent attempt using town be added? With the borough described as the city? At least for now. DankJae 12:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. WaggersTALK 12:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I had re-written the intro to identify this as the settlement within the city (the city and the subject matter of this article are not co-terminous), but @DankJae: has now re-written that as a city in a city district. It's very difficult to get a proper phrasing when political ambition leads to a legal status terminology that is semantically ridiculous, but that is the challenge that we have. Where do we go with this, and what can be considered to be sourced, true and compatible with any normal application of the words? Kevin McE (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE, the council for some reason uses "town", in this source The city of Colchester covers an area of 324 square kilometres in North East Essex. [...] At its centre is the town of Colchester, surrounded by villages and smaller towns of distinct and complementary character. I would personally describe Colchester a city, but the city and borough are conflated since last year, so the council is one of the few that makes a distinction. Although emailing them for clarity may help. But prefer this article and City of Colchester merged and Colchester as a "city" rather than "town" or "main settlement".

Considering many other articles, where the status was awarded to another entity, and yet they're described as a "city", I assumed this legal peculiarity is generally overlooked. And ideally, if we are to read the letters patent word by word, then many other settlements like York, Wakefield and Salford should stop being a "city". So best for a wider discussion at such as WP:UKGEO, I had brought up a similar situation there, but it resulted in the settlement even if not legally, being described as a "city", do not mind either way. Initially had a paragraph here supporting "city" here until I stumbled on the council stating city and town separately. DankJae 01:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Edit: DankJae 01:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although the source seems faulty, and if you deem it so, best to revert to city and discuss at the Wikiproject, rather than point Colchester out. No opinion either way, this is indeed the unfortunate challenge. DankJae 01:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of undermining my own preference, the source that DankJae links to was part of the bid for city status publicity, so 'town' was the only term available at the time.

Of the other English non-metropolitan boroughs with city status, 8 (Cambridge, Exeter, Gloucester,Lincoln, Norwich, Oxford, Winchester and Worcester) have articles that do not distinguish between the city-borough and the urban settlement (thus dodging the question of what the status of that centre is), while the other 5 (Canterbury, Chelmsford, Lancaster, Preston, St Alban's) have a separate article for the main settlement, similar to this one, describing it in the opening sentence as a city or cathedral city. All but Preston could use the cathedral issue to justify the more restrictive application of the term. However, I do not believe that these wiki precedents are good precedents: they apply what is in the UK a legal designation restricted by royal gift to entities that have not been granted that right. They might fit the definition in our article city, but in that case we may as well include the word in the opening sentence of our articles on Middlesborough, Bournemouth, Reading and Luton. I suspect that it is not an accident that in the Chelmsford and Lancaster infoboxes, city status is not asserted.

I suspect that the intention is that the town is considered to be a city, and the borough is only intended to carry the name of the town/city: I also suspect that that intention is impossible to fulfill when there is no town-specific level of governance.

I have written to the city council at the customer service emil account: I am not very optimistic of a meaningful reply, and know that such an email would not be considered a reliable source, but it might give some insight. I'll update here when/if I get a reply. Kevin McE (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that the Letters Patent themselves (itself?) is in the public realm, but the official announcement of it/them states unequivocally that "the Borough of Colchester shall have the status of a City" (not the urbanised part of it). Kevin McE (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still that applies to many other settlements in the UK so at minimum a wider discussion would be needed. Those I mentioned above are in the same situation as well as many of the 2022 bunch. Best this brought up elsewhere as it does not only apply to Colchester’s situation.

Thanks for sending the council a email. Agree the source I found is a bit on the bid not perfect DankJae 14:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The council also states this: What area will be included in the city? - All of the area which currently comprises the Borough of Colchester will become part of the City of Colchester. This includes the rural areas as well as the centre of Colchester. DankJae 15:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Letters Patents of both Brighton & Hove and Wolverhampton declare that the 'town' and 'towns' named shall have status of a city, and this status was extended to include the former borough/district areas of those places. It can be assumed that this was taken into account when later Letters Patents were granted to places like Chelmsford, and now Colchester, Doncaster and Milton Keynes etc. In the case of Colchester, the urban area which some define as being the 'town' in this case is the main settlement that will, in time, carry the name City of Colchester and be the 'City' centre. It hasn't happened yet, but new signs will eventually point this out. The status includes the ancient settlement, or 'town' which was once regarded as a city anyway. For statistical purposes, the Government would have asked that the Letters Patent and the 'city' status be extended to the entire borough and non-metropolitan district of Colchester, rather than just the urban area that is being defined by some as the 'town'. There is no longer a 'town' or 'borough' of Colchester, and this was highlighted in the formal presentation on the 23rd November, 2023 with several references made to the former 'town' now being a 'city'. As i say, in time this will be clarified, so It would be fair to say that the word 'city' in relation to Colchester urban area and former borough boundaries is correct. Goom80 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer seems to be based on suposition of what eventually will come to pass: that is quite specifically not grounds for content in Wikipedia. There is a common definition of 'town' which the area that is the subject of this article meets: 'city', on the other hand, is in the UK only meaningful as a legal designation, and the subject area of this article does not meet it. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but my point being is that Colchester the 'town' was effectively already a city as established by the Romans, and later referenced as such in the Domesday Book of 1086. Part of the reason the Queen granted Colchester city status on advice of the Government was partly due to its ancient lost city status. In instead of granting the status to just the urban portion referred to as the 'town' it was extended to the entire borough, covering the 'town' part as well. The changing of signs is not supposed; it will take place in the near future as the council phase out the older signs, and those currently within the 'town' boundaries will be changed to reflect the new 'city' ones. The status covers areas even beyond these boundaries. The city of Colchester lies within the city and district of Colchester. As mentioned, the City of Wolverhampton was formed (as written by Letters Patent) from the previous Town of Wolverhampton, and yet the entire City of Wolverhampton now includes the boundaries of the former borough. In Colchester the same is true, but reversed, whereas the Patent states 'borough shall have the status of city' it actually also includes Colchester the 'town part' itself as being a city. Goom80 (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the text of the Letters patetent? That might be definitive. I don't think that the queen delivered a commentary on the thinking behind "her" decisions, so I wonder whence you get to know the reasoning. Kevin McE (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can read it, there's a photograph of the letters patent here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-63741872 WaggersTALK 08:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

…...Elizabeth The Second......

by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories

Queen Head of the Commonwealth Defender of the Faith

To all whom these Presents shall come Greeting Whereas We for our divers good and considerations Us thereunto moving are graciously pleased to confer on the Borough of Colchester in Our County of Essex the status of a City Now therefore know Ye that We of Our especial grace and favour and mere motion do by these Presents ordain declare and direct that the Borough of Colchester shall henceforth have the status of a City and shall have all such rank liberties and privileges and immunities as are incident to a City In Witness whereof We have caused Our Letters to be made Patent Witness Ourself at Westminster the fifth day of September in the seventy-first year of Our Reign

…...By Warrant Under The Queen's Sign Manual......

Romeo Goom80 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather pertaining to the Letters Patent is that the wording itself is reflective of the authority that applied for, and succeeded in, the award of city status. If Colchester authority had been 'Town of Colchester' or simply 'Colchester', then the wording would reflect that. There is no Colchester Town Council, so the word town has no relevance in the awarding of city status.

As I pointed out, the Council will (and they have publicly and privately stated this) upgrade all signs entering Colchester, including those directing motorists and pedestrians etc to the 'City Centre', and its also likely there will be new signs that read: "Welcome to the City of... Twinned With" style style signs to replace the outdated 'Oldest recorded town' signs and compliment the 'Britain's 1st City' ones that already sit at the boundaries of the urban area.

I do appreciate what people are saying on here, and I understand the confusion this is causing, but I'd rather not be pedantic. Colchester, whether referring to the ancient core (within the walls), the expanded modern urban area, or the former borough is one and the same thing. London, for example, is regarded as a city for the whole area, even though it doesn't have that status. Most people wouldn't argue that it was, and most probably don't care. So, if we're being realistic (legalities and technicalities aside), the majority of people when referring to Colchester as a city will be thinking of the built-up urban area and its commercial core as the 'City Centre'. They may not even be aware that the City of Colchester includes swathes of rural and coastal area, as well as several towns and villages. Therefore, to say that the City of Colchester has the town of Colchester at its heart is confusing, since what is being referred to as the 'town' in this case is the built-up area that people associate as the city. I'm confident once the signs have changed to reflect this, it will no longer cause confusion, and future generations will understand it.

For you're own interest, I will add the text of the Letters Patent. 2A00:23C6:7117:B701:711B:5053:5C71:318D (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather pertaining to the Letters Patent is that the wording itself is reflective of the authority that applied for, and succeeded in, the award of city status. If Colchester authority had been 'Town of Colchester' or simply 'Colchester', then the wording would reflect that. There is no Colchester Town Council, so the word town has no relevance in the awarding of city status.

As I pointed out, the Council will (and they have publicly and privately stated this) upgrade all signs entering Colchester, including those directing motorists and pedestrians etc to the 'City Centre', and its also likely there will be new signs that read: "Welcome to the City of... Twinned With" style style signs to replace the outdated 'Oldest recorded town' signs and compliment the 'Britain's 1st City' ones that already sit at the boundaries of the urban area.

I do appreciate what people are saying on here, and I understand the confusion this is causing, but I'd rather not be pedantic. Colchester, whether referring to the ancient core (within the walls), the expanded modern urban area, or the former borough is one and the same thing. London, for example, is regarded as a city for the whole area, even though it doesn't have that status. Most people wouldn't argue that it was, and most probably don't care. So, if we're being realistic (legalities and technicalities aside), the majority of people when referring to Colchester as a city will be thinking of the built-up urban area and its commercial core as the 'City Centre'. They may not even be aware that the City of Colchester includes swathes of rural and coastal area, as well as several towns and villages. Therefore, to say that the City of Colchester has the town of Colchester at its heart is confusing, since what is being referred to as the 'town' in this case is the built-up area that people associate as the city. I'm confident once the signs have changed to reflect this, it will no longer cause confusion, and future generations will understand it.

For you're own interest, I will add the text of the Letters Patent. Goom80 (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that the late Queen herself merely rubber stamps a ministerial decision, and that the written document wording is a template used for centuries, so I'm sure the Queen had little thinking to do on the matter. I'm sure that the decision of which area the city covers is largely handled by the Government, since they enact boundaries etc. I will use my contacts and see if I can get a clearer definition to try and clarify some of these points. Goom80 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Sir Bob Russell who is the High Steward of Colchester and former MP (1997-2015). This is what he had to say about this discussion:

"The whole of the local government area of Colchester is officially the “City of Colchester”.

From 1st April 1974 the Borough of Colchester was created by the merger of the former historic borough with villages in the adjoining Lexden & Winstree Rural District Council area and the two small Urban District Council areas of (a) Wivenhoe and (b) West Mersea.

There is nothing to dispute. The fact is that the whole of the post-1974 borough is now the City of Colchester.

Same rationale applies to the City of Chelmsford which embraces more than urban Chelmsford, including South Woodham Ferrers.

Hope this is of assistance."

I conclude that the City of Colchester is one entity, and there is not a separate town or urban area as pointed out, and Sir Bob agreed with this. Wivenhoe, for example, is a town within the City of Colchester because it has a Town Council, whereas Colchester doesn't. The UK Government doesn't recognize a 'town' of Colchester. The Letters Patent wording used the word 'town' up until recently when the word for most English authorities was changed to 'borough'. Goom80 (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" Colchester, whether referring to the ancient core (within the walls), the expanded modern urban area, or the former borough is one and the same thing." That is the crux of the issue. They are not. There is local authority distinction within the former borough, now city, only at parish council level (or unparished areas), but being the same authority does not mean that they are the same thing. There is an article for the City of Colchester (formerly at Borough of Colchester), but that deals with a different, wider, area. That is the city (which is all that Russell is asserting, and I don't believe anyone was doubting it), this therefore is not: there were not two cities of Colchester decreed. This is an urban area within this non-traditionally defined (all though in UK circumstances, long-standing) city.

Once again, Wilipedia is not built upon what might happen in the future, in regard to roadsigns etc (which are far from authoritative anyway). Kevin McE (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that some don't find Wikipefia to be a totally reliable source, as i have been informed when trying to answer this question. Signs may not be authoritative, but they clearly help define the area in terms of when you're entering the 'city'. In fact, several bus stops in Colchester have already changed wording to say city. My point is that the whole thing stinks of confusion. Try telling someone that Colchester City Centre is at the heart of Colchester Town which is in the City of Colchester... People are already referring to Colchester urban area as a city, except a fee die hard locals who don't accept it. Perhaps I could contact the Crown Office and see what they have to say? Goom80 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - but Kevin and I are saying much the same thing)

As far as Wikipedia concerned, there is a distinction between the settlement (this article Colchester) and the district (City of Colchester). They are separate articles because they are different things. This is the same way it works for City districts across the whole country - Winchester and City of Winchester, Salford and City of Salford, etc. To say they are one and the same is erroneous.

However, in the cases of Winchester and Salford, the main settlements have always been regarded as cities, regardless of the status of the local government district they happen to find themselves in. The same could be said of Rochester, which is not in a city district - Medway does not have city status, but Rochester is very much regarded as a city, owing to its cathedral.

The distinction is that legal city status is only ever conferred on local government districts. The status of a settlement has no legal definition. Historically settlements with a cathedral or university are regarded as cities - so you could argue Colchester became a city when the University of Colchester opened. Yet at that point everyone still called it a town.

The letters patent clearly only apply to the district; the settlement is unchanged.

In Wikipedia policy, the guideline that most closely applies for the city status of settlements is along the lines of WP:COMMONNAME. Since there's no legal city status for settlements, the question is simply, what do the reliable sources say? Currently mostly they refer to the settlement of Colchester as a town. That might (and probably will) change now that the district has city status, but it hasn't done so yet. WaggersTALK 08:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the University of Essex, obvs :D WaggersTALK 08:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Bob Russell doesn't agree, but I may have to find other sources. Not saying I don't understand, but as i said, in most people's mind the urban area is the 'city' in terms of perception. So, if the conclusion is that Colchester is a town, why do separate articles for Chelmsford, Preston, Doncaster, Milton Keynes, Wolverhampton etc all list the main settlement as 'city'? I'd still argue that Colchester the settlement was a city since Time Immemorial, its status was just forgotten about over time. After all, it was the first colonia and capital before London or even ancient cities like York, Lincoln, Chester etc, yet all of those have always been considered cities. Goom80 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is guesswork, therefore not a suggestion for the article but for moving the conversation forward. Local media, probably encouraged by the local authority, are beginning to refer to the High Street and its immediate surrounds as 'the city centre', but I do not see that as being extended such that the whole built up area is becoming known as the city (in a way that the villages and towns beyond are not).

Nor do I see how it logically can be, if there is only one city and its boundaries lie far further afield. And even if that were the case, this article is not about the whole built-up area: it is about the unparished area and therefore excludes, for example, Stanway and Myland. If there is not a meaningful way in which a propery in, for example, the Hythe is defined as being in the city in a different way than a property in Dedham, then the area under discussion here cannot be described as a city. Kevin McE (talk) 07:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The area being defined or described is the logical 'City Centre' as it serves as the commercial heart, and is the headquarters of the City Council, not to mention the area that was considered to be the first recorded city. Its only being pedantic if one says that people don't consider the urban area as a city. Its like saying London is not percieved as being one city, which in most cases it is. Wikipedia article states that London is the capital city of England and the UK, for example. If we want to be technical and correct it, then that's not correct as a) London itself is not a city, and b) the City of Westminster is home to the UK Government, not London. It all becomes a bit confusing. So, if i said to somebody that Colchester City Centre is in Colchester town which is in Colchester city, you can see why the average person would not understand this. Therefore, i can only guess this is strictly about formalities. The Crown itself probably doesn't care which part of Colchester calls itself a city, since the Crown only approved the application, the Monarch does not decide who wins, that is the Government. The discussion is interesting, no less. The only solution really is to contact the Council to see what their stance is, or Cabinet Office. Goom80 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it is equally illogical to say to the same 'average person' that if one drives in from Mersea, which is part of the city, towards the city centre, that at some point around Berechurch one enters the city. Kevin McE (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True perhaps, but most people wouldn't perceive Mersea as being part of the city, even though legally it is. I'm not disputing the point of this argument, but at the end of the day, its all technicality. Most people consider Colchester a city - all of the built up area together. So, what's the conclusion... use city, or town. Wikipedia won't change the perception or stop signs declaring City of Colchester entering the urban area. There will be clarity soon - i have made several enquiries to Cabinet Office and Colchester Councillor's. Goom80 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You enter the city when you drive into the district boundaries and you're still in the city up until the point you get to the actual City centre. I have been informed there is no such thing as the town of Colchester by Sir Bob Russell. The former borough of 1974 up until 2023 was the definition of Colchester proper. The district has grown wider since 1974, and if it were to be expanded again in the future, the city status will cover that area too. That's one thought on it, but there will be more to come. And please feel free to contact the High Steward of Colchester yourself if you disagree. Goom80 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new topic to move the discussion on... CITY IS THE BOROUGH OF OLD Goom80 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have already told you that WP:RHOTIC applies to all articles regardless of whether you like it or not. We use accent-neutral transcriptions, even if the cited pronunciation is rarely used in the town. Why do you keep insisting on violating the Manual of Style? Summer 08:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Kevin McE:. Summer, it's a good idea to ping people when you are trying to communicate with them on a talk page that's not their own. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that a link to the user's userpage and a signature in the same edit is sufficient for a ping. Summer 12:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say it seems a bit petty to squabble, and edit war, over a single character. That said, attention to detail and consistency are important. It isn't just a local thing, standard British pronunciation of almost any word, and certainly any placename, ending in -er doesn't put any emphasis on the "r". So in a way @Kevin McE is right, but as @SummerKrut points out, that is already covered in WP:RHOTIC:

Indeed, the Help:IPA/English key, designed for readers who are unfamiliar with the IPA, simply defines the sequence /ər/ as the sound at the end of letter, and warns that it may not be distinct from /ə/ for many people.

The MOS is clear that "broad transcriptions should be used; these are intended to provide a correct interpretation regardless of the reader's accent" and on that basis I don't think there's any justification here for using /ə/ instead of /ər/. The pronunciation is not there to illustrate how locals pronounce the name (unless there's some particular significance about that - which there isn't for Colchester), but how it is pronounced more generally.

Therefore I'm going to revert Kevin's change and would encourage him to discuss it here rather than engage in an edit war. WaggersTALK 10:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there cannot be agreement (maybe more so over the second vowel than the final one), and clearly cannot be accent-free citation, of the pronounciation, I propose that it be removed, as it seems to be no more than grounds for pointless argument, and uninformative for visitors, who will either know how to say it, or be able to make a reasonable approximation based on basic knowledge of the linguistic norms. Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to remove it. Pronunciation respelling is just a much simpler version of IPA to understand. Considering WP:RHOTIC and the fact that we have the final r in the IPA transcription, I don't see a reason to not put it into the respelling. Summer 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the second syllable, I'll repeat what I said earlier - I've never heard it pronounced /ɪ/ and I have many friends and family from Colchester. Re the last syllable, if we wanted a proper broad Essex accent pronunciation of it, it would be /stɑː/ - although to be fair that's more Estuary English than north Essex, which is generally more similar to southern Suffolk than the south of the county.

I guess the general point is, as soon as you try to illustrate specific local pronunciations as opposed to general broad transcriptions, you open a can of worms, which is why the manual of style says what it says. WaggersTALK 15:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are population figures for Colchester still using 2011 data. Just out of interest? Have figures not been given for 2021 census, or are Government figures only available for the whole city and district area? Goom80 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the ONS and city council website it seems figures only reflect the entire city district area which totals approx 192,000 in population. I can’t see a separate total anywhere for just the city excluding the wider district unless it can be calculated manually. If not, is it worth referencing the city district area total as at least it is more up to date? Magpie069 (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To point out that the City status was indeed granted to the borough both old and new as defined by Charter and Government act 1974 Goom80 (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go... i have hopefully reached a settlement, as has been explained to me, and i shall set out what i have been told. Please feel free to contact relevant bodies should you disagrer...

The ancient borough of Colchester before its expansion in 1974 IS the area being referred to in the main debated article as 'main settlement', or 'urban area'. The former Borough boundaries even before its expansion covered 17 sq miles. This area even though a borough by Charter was informally regarded as the 'town'. Therefore the granting of City status upon the Borough of Colchester covers both the ancient borough area and the expanded one of 1974 upto the 5th of September, 2022 when the Crown Office issued Letters Patent byAntonia Romeo, head of the Crown Office.

All of the above was explained to me, and one can assume that the status will also cover any future expansion, too. Not sure if this applies to Lancaster, Chelmsford or others etc. I conclude that the City of Colchester is one part of a wider Government district that happens to call itself City of Colchester. The the term Borough as stated on the Letters Patent is correct, since Colchester has been a borough for hundreds of years.

There may be disagreement, but there is more info to come and feel free to contact relevant authority or people to get the same information. Goom80 (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputes that the borough, as formed in 1974 if that is the case, is the area that has city status. The city extends from Tiptree to Wivenhoe and from Mersea to Dedham (and possibly a bit farther in some directions). Unchallenged. That is precisely why it is not straightforward to call the area dealt with in this article a city.

An encyclopaedia cannot be based on assumed interpretations and personal conclusions: it is founded upon established facts, formal incontrovertible definition, and published material from reliable sources. You have provided nothing to suggest that the subject area of this article is any more the city than the surrounding villages, and therefore nothing to substantiate that this is, in and of itself, a city. The question asked more than six months ago ("Is it either meaningful or accurate to describe the area that is the subject of this article as a city? Is it a town within the borough-city? Is it a city within the borough city?") remains unresolved.

In terms of how the article is presented until that is authoritatively answered, the sensible thing to me would seem to either avoid either term (I previously had "the main settlement within the City of Colchester"), or to retain the old description as a town, which has a wide definition that is met (the word city also has a wide definition, but that is not applicable in the UK, or it would have been equally true 2 years agoo, which nobody is claiming we should have done). To describe this area, in and of itself, is unsourced (and, I believe, unsourceable), and therefore, in terms of Wikipedia, simply not allowable. Kevin McE (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, the Borough is the main settlement. It was made a Borough in 1189, and had various charters thereafter... only in 1974 it was expanded and merged with other areas. There is no dispute really, since the Letters Patent is correct that the 'borough' shall have city status. The former borough boundaries is the central area and all wards that made up Colchester. This borough area has grown to include more areas outside of Colchester, but since Colchester was the borough area of original charter, it takes the dugnity now of city, and that status is also extended to the 1974 borough. Its so easy to grasp, Wikipedia cannot deny Colchester its historic borough status or new city status. Goom80 (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already out there, even the City of Colchester article explains about the former borough boundaries which were 17 sq miles, slightly bigger than the area described for the main settlement which states 12 sq miles. As it has been explained to me, the Borough became a city (former and newer). Ps, and I have been informed the signs will be updated to reflect this in the future, so maybe until then use whatever word you feel appropriate, but the explanation as given above is talking about a legal definition of an area. Goom80 (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think that is patent nonsense. If your contention is that the Letters Patent of 2022 use the word 'borough' to refer to an area that has not had any standing since 1974, then that is unevidenced and unfounded. The borough (now called a city) includes places like Great Wigborough and Mount Bures: how can the main settlement of the whole city-borough be the city-borough including small villages like that. Now you seem to be calling on an unsupportable understanding of 'main settlement' as well as a 48-year redundant demarcation of 'borough'. Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The borough status of the main settlement was never revoked, only expanded to include other areas. On the Wiki map of Colchester, the area in red is the actual historic borough of Colchester and this area was awarded city status. The wider borough is an extension of the city. Goom80 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Kevin, but you are misunderstood. I have had three people confirmed this including an email today from Colchester City Council officer who knows the definition.

"Thank you for your email.

The Letters Patent confers City status on the former borough of Colchester. By consequence the former borough (which included the Town Centre) has as a consequence become a city. Accordingly, the city comprises both urban and rural areas just the same as the former borough did."

Contact Andrew Weavers, officer at Colchester City Council if you need the same clarification. Sir Bob Russell also disagrees with this dispute. Goom80 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are stating what nobody denies: the former borough, from Tiptree to Wivenhoe and from Dedham to Mersea, is the city.

What you have by no means established is that the urban area can be described as a city, rather than as a built up area within a city.

Andrew Weavers' comments confirm this: there is one city, and it is not limited to the area that this article is about. Your repeated assertion that a region that has not had any statutory status since 1974 was the specific recipient of a title in 2022 is unfounded and untenable.

Please cite a source for these claims, that accounts for the fact that the spokesman for the city council explicitly contradicts it "he city comprises both urban and rural areas".

Your repeated claims of what people have told you, or of what might happen in the future, has no probative value and such unsourced and unrecorded rumour is not a reliable source. Kevin McE (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to disagree. Please contact the relevant authority yourself and explain to them why you don't agree. The Borough is ancient since 1189, that is the area that became a city and its expanded area also gets the right to use the term. As i said, look at the Wiki map of Colchester. The red area is the borough of Colchester from 1189 to 1974. After 1974 it was expanded, but the historic borough boundary remained until the 5th September 2022. I would recommend you contact Sir Bob Russell yourself and Andrew Weaver. He has made it clear that the area of Colchester proper made up of wards is the city area, and the status is also expanded to include the post-1974 borough. Its not that hard to grasp, but you obviously know more than the High Steward, Crown Office and Council etc. Keep the debate going, but i maintain that the description of Colchester as a city should be relevant. Goom80 (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the former borough was only made up of the Town centre and several wards, it was this size from 1189 to 1974, just to clarify. This is the former borough being spoken of, and not the one with Wivenhoe, Mersea etc. Goom80 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you claim that Weaver is talking about the pre-1974 borough? He has not specified that he is talking about a delimitation that ceased to exist 49 years ago, and there is absolutely no grounds to assume that he is doing so. I am absolutely certain that when he states, "The Letters Patent confers City status on the former borough of Colchester," that he refers to the borough as it existed immediately before city status was conferred. No body representing the pre-1974 borough (exclusively) existed in 2022 to apply for, or to be the recipient of, the designation.

"the historic borough boundary remained until the 5th September 2022" In what way? what were the administrative differences either side of that border? And where is the verifiable evidence of such a border and its dissolution in 2022? Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We just keep going round in circles... you can contact the relevant people and make your point if you think it will change anything. I will refer to Colchester as a city urban part and wider. Goom80 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you never substantiate anything in a verifiable way, and only verifiable evidence is grounds for changing the encyclopeaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'm not interested in editing the page. It was merely to add to the discussion, but obviously the dispute is concluded. As anyone can edit Wiki, no doubt someone will change it back. However i am onto the Council contacts i have to clarify it so that a source can be published in the near future. Until then, we are were we are. Goom80 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source of "truth" in wikipedia is reliable, published sources, not emails or conversations you've had from former MPs and current councillors. None of this is about "contacting the relevant authorities" - the relevant authorities are publications we can all read; if they're not published, they don't count.

As Kevin has said multiple times, nobody disputes that the City of Colchester district council has city status. Your argument now seems to be that we shouldn't have an article on the settlement itself (Colchester) as distinct from the wider local government district. If that is your position, requests for deletion is where you want to be, or perhaps WP:MERGE if you'd like to propose a merger as opposed to straight deletion. If that's not your position, then logically you accept that the district and the settlement are two distinct things, and that a change in status of one does not automatically apply to the other. WaggersTALK 10:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that the main settlement is the Borough, and its alluded to in the Wiki page referring to the borough that covered 17.7 sq miles. The current one or district is just an extension. It can be extended or minimised by Government, but the borough as decreed in 1189 will always exist, or at least did until 2022 when it was decreed a city. That is information i was given, but i don't have to change anything as the issue of wording is being looked into. Goom80 (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once a valid source is published i will then link to change the wording to reflect it. The same way that Doncaster is s city within the larger City of Doncaster District, or Chelmsford etc etc. Goom80 (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A local authority area is not a settlement. You could have an uninhabited local authority area with no settlements inside it. There are lots of local government areas that contain multiple settlements - and the City of Colchester district is one of those.

But, like I said, if you think they should be one and the same thing then I suggest requesting a formal merge or taking this article to AfD. In either case I think we all know how that would end. WaggersTALK 10:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only calling it the main settlement because that's what is was being referred to. The area that is being regarded as such is the Borough of origin, decreed in 1189. It is a Borough, or was until it became a city. The wider Borough/District was just an extension of the borough made in 1974. The original borough's charter still stood active until 2022. This was the point I've been trying to make, that the word borough in the Letters Patent pertains to that original area. The wider City District is named that by the Council, they could what to call it, not the Crown or Government. I'm not looking to merge anything, but the reason I'm here was to debate the change as it was pointed out to me, someone who worked on the city bids in 2011 and 2021. The word city has already been reinstated, not by me, i might add. Wikipedias own article for Colchester refers to the pre-1974 borough that was 17.7 sq miles... this is the actual decreed Borough of Colchester, the area seen in red on wiki map. Goom80 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the borough/city district as defined by government/royal decrees is City of Colchester.

This is the talk page for article on the settlement / urban area, Colchester, which does not include the surrounding countryside nor the other hamlets, villages and towns, and is defined simply by where the built up area physically stops and the countryside begins, regardless of official boundaries.

They are not the same thing. Do you accept that, yes or no? WaggersTALK 09:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can we wipe the slate clean? Its obvious that we are not going to agree, and there's no point flogging the horse when its already starting to decay. Leaving the debate of formalities behind for a moment... If I am to agree or accept that the urban/main area of Colchester is a separate entity, are you at least willing to agree that the general perception is that the urban area of Colchester is a city? Let's be honest here, what do you perceive a city to be? Most people in general when they think of a city, they will think of an urban, built-up area with landmarks, museums, amenities, services, retail, transport interchange etc. That perception aligns with a description of Colchester, the main area. You could argue that the Hythe and University area also aligns since they're both dense and have the urban character that ties in with the perception of a city.

Sometimes, perception it seems overrides technicalities and legalities... please go with me on this one. One very good example of what i'm talking about is London. The general perception of most people is that London is a city and the capital of England and the UK. The Wikipedia entry for London states within the opening paragraphs that London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom... most people wouldn't argue with that statement. However, legally, London is a) not a city and b) not the capital of England or the UK. The City of London, which forms a very small part is a city, but it in itself is not the capital. Another city called Westminster is effectively the capital since it is where the UK Parliament is based and the head Office of the Monarchy, and Embassies etc etc.

The point i'm trying to make is whether Wikipedia really needs such formalities? If so, then the London entry needs changing with immediate effect. Would you also be willing to correct the Preston page which states that Preston is a city within the wider City of Preston; or Sunderland, Chelmsford, Doncaster etc for that matter.

Does emitting the word city from an article stop the perception of it being such? Its all about perception and opinions. Yourself and Kevin disagree with everything I've said, just as I, members of the Council and the High Steward disagree with you.

If you really must refer to Colchester as being the main settlement/urban area, then go with it.

As I mentioned earlier, and its not rumours as I have found a reliable published source, which I will link, is that the road signs will be rebranded to reflect Colchester's city status. This is publicly stated by the Council on their website, although It doesn't specifically say what. I can assure you the branding will be the same exercise that every other place given city status has undertaken, which is to omit the word 'Town Centre' from sign posts and replace with 'City Centre', and also eventually new entry signs saying: 'Welcome to the City of Colchester... Twinned With' style signs. This will further add to the perception, and I see no reason why it shouldn't.

If you can't at least see my point, then let's leave the debate here... I do not buy the Wikipedia needs reliable sources because if that's true, then most of its pages would have been re-edited or wiped by now. I just want sensible debate, and not having to go round in circles about legalities, which are unfortunately disputed in this case. Goom80 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a wall of text when a yes/no answer was all that was needed. It looks like the answer is yes, you're willing to acknowledge that the built up area and the local authority area are not identical, which is good progress.

There's no doubt that the latter has city status, the question is then purely about wither the built-up area is or isn't a city.

You talk about perception, but we don't build an encyclopaedia on perception. Our criteria for the inclusion of any information is verifiability. My personal view on whether Colchester is or isn't a city is irrelevant; the only thing that matter is what the majority of reliable sources say. This is Wikipedia policy. Please take a few minutes to read it.

Right now, probably because the district's city status is relatively new, the majority of reliable sources still talk about the urban area as a town. That might change over time, and when it does, Wikipedia can follow suit.

The job of this project is to reflect what the majority of published reliable sources currently say - regardless of officialdom, perceptions, or any of those arguments. When the consensus among reliable sources is that the urban area of Colchester is a city, then - and only then - do we change the article to reflect that change.

Again, this is not a matter of opinion or perception, nor whatever Bob Russell happens to think - the core Wikipedia policies and the published reliable sources are there for all to see and read. WaggersTALK 08:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the policy, but am wondering why other cities are using the term without issues? But perhaps in time any changes will reflect its status as you say. We will leave it here then, until a source can otherwise support a change. Goom80 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. The answer to the "other cities" question is simply that reliable sources support them being referred to as such. In time I'm sure that'll be the case for Colchester too. I'm glad we've come to an agreement. WaggersTALK 08:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we reached some agreement. But i have noticed some changes starting already, e.g bus stop signs pointing to City railway station etc, buses City Centre. Also campaign to change station name to City. Not sure if that will ever happen but it probably will cause confusion since the main station is north of the centre. Goom80 (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great but those aren't published reliable sources, that's original research.

However, there are now a substantial number of sources that are referring to the settlement/town (not the borough) as a city:

• "Oldest town becomes newest city" (BBC News)
• Colchester City Centre (Visit Colchester)
• "Reimagining Colchester City Centre" (council)
• "Colchester youth gang terrorising city centre businesses (Colchester Gazette)

To be clear, I think the current wording in the lead is optimal ("the main built up area within the City of Colchester district") since it steers clear of the debate altogether. Also, references to "town" for periods of history when that was the settlement's status is consistent with other articles (see History of Southampton for example) so in terms of actual changes to this article, it would be good to see what's specifically being proposed. WaggersTALK 08:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree, i was just making observations. I think it best, as you say, to wait some time until signs have been changed etc so there will be published sources. Maybe then we can have a discussion about the article wording going forward. Goom80 (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRandomGuy1:, @PamD:, @Kevin McE:, @DragonofBatley:, @A.D.Hope:, @Goom80:, @Crouch, Swale:, @John Maynard Friedman: We need not overcomplicate matters: if Milton Keynes, Leeds and Salford are cities, then so is Colchester. While it would be helpful if LA boundaries made sense, they don't and we just have to live with it. We can argue our whole lives over whether the City of Colchester district, the Colchester BUA or the historic boundaries of Colchester should be considered to be the "correct" boundary of Colchester, but ultimately, this is just legal jargon that the average reader likely hardly cares about. What I'm sure we can all agree on is that there was intent to make Colchester, the place (regardless of its "boundary"), a city, and yes, there are reliable sources which refer to Colchester as a city [4]. The Colchester article is the main article which deals with most of the nooks and crannies of Colchester which are relevant to the average reader, and thus it should reflect that Colchester is now regarded as a city. People who are interested in the legal jargon (e.g. BUA vs city district) can look at the City of Colchester article. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its standard from what I'm aware to refer to the individual settlement as a city. I'd say put something like "Colchester is a city and unparished area in the Colchester district, in the county of Essex, England." Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

or perhaps better, Colchester is a city and the largest settlement in the City of Colchester district in the county etc. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put: Colchester is a city and the administrative centre of the larger City of Colchester district in the county of Essex...

Similar to what Preston, Chelmsford and Doncaster use in their entries. Goom80 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonymous MK2006 I don't know whether the short description should be 'city" or "town", but to call it a "settlement" demeans it: sounds like a hamlet.PamD 17:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be "city". It is no longer a "town". Yes, the Letter Patent was awarded to the Council because only a body corporate can receive it. But it does so on behalf of the people of the city. Yes, the remit of the City Council covers a rural area as well the urban area, but that is just local government. A city in the real world is a built-up area, not countryside. To argue that Colchester is really still a town is just silly. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JMF. To state that Colchester is still a town would be severely misleading, and would undermine the whole purpose of Colchester's city status bid. Even if the Colchester built-up-area forms a constituent part of the wider district which holds the formal "city" status, by convention, the core settlement is virtually universally referred to as a city. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also get rid of that dreadful village and smaller towns rubbish which is unsourced in brackets which also steals a quote from an news site/council website? DragonofBatley (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it is "unsourced", and yet you know exactly whence it "steals a quote" ??? The source is right there, and you refer to it. Please explain by what definition a quote is theft. Kevin McE (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD The opening words of the Wikipedia article 'City' : "A city is a human settlement of a notable size" Kevin McE (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had discussion at large. I did cite a reliable source as instructed but it was but my edit was reversed. My argument remains that Colchester itself is a city, but as pointed out, only a legal entity can apply, hence the wording of the Letters Patent. If other pages can use the word city to describe their built up area, i can't see why Colchester can't. Surely we can all come to some agreement on this? Goom80 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the source for the assertion that the area covered by this article is in and of itself a city is what? Kevin McE (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try this:

• "Platinum Jubilee Civic Honours". National Association of Civic Officers. 9 June 2022. Our congratulations to the eight towns elevated to city status, by Her Majesty, as part of the Platinum Jubilee celebrations.
• "What makes a city?". House of Commons Library. 14 November 2022. In May 2022, eight places were awarded city status. These were Bangor (Northern Ireland), Colchester, Doncaster, Dunfermline, Milton Keynes, and Wrexham: and also Douglas (Isle of Man) and Stanley (in the Falkland Islands). Southampton was awarded a lord mayoralty.

That took a one two minute search. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC) added another 21:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which verify that Colchester became a city (which nobody challenges), but indicate nothing of the status of this more restricted area. Kevin McE (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've already been through this, but I followed your advice to find two reliable sources which where added to an edit, which was a day or so later reverted. I do agree that the intention was for Colchester proper eg 'town' to be considered the city, but only a legal entity can apply, hence the borough is named. It was also pointed out that Wiki is not a court of law, and relies on sources. There are now various sources out there referring to the town becoming a city. I can link them if required for this discussion, but I think it does undermine Colchester's standing if Wiki cannot refer to its standing as a city. It hasn't stopped Chelmsford, Preston, Leeds, Doncaster or Sunderland etc. Goom80 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't undermine Colchester in the slightest. This area does not rely on Wikipedia's article in any way at all for its purpose or identity. But it does undermine Wikipedia's claim to be a resource based on verifiable facts if it applies a designation given to an area of 129 square miles in a specific and exclusive way to a 12 squ mile section of that, without reliable sources specifically and clearly doing that. The argument for this area to be considered a city seems to be an assumption that that was the intention. It is not expressed as such in the bid for city status, so if this supposition is anything other than WP:Original Research, it is only in that it lacks research. Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it is when people outside of the area may rely on Wikipedia for information or general interest. Yes there are more sources online now that mention Colchester 'town' becoming a city, or the fact that local politicians snd businesses leaders are trying to get Colchester Town station renamed to Colchester City. There is a source for that info, too. Most people I speak to when thinking of Colchester as a city refer to its built up area. That's a common sense view... and reliable sources support this view. Changing the article back even when there are reliable sources to support the use of the word 'city' shows that there is a lack of acknowledgement for Colchester's standing in the present and future. Goom80 (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "largest settlement in the City of Colchester district" wording (a) avoids this issue, (b) is far more accurate, and (c) had consensus and was pretty stable. I'm not sure why there's a need to push the city thing when "largest settlement" is perfectly adequate. WaggersTALK 08:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not just me pushing it, although I feel as if some are trying to use Wikipedia to mislead those wanting to find information about Colchester by erasing any mention of it being a city. As established, thd main settlement was the area intented to be the city, since it was the historic significance of that area that helped it get the recognition. Other Wikipedia articles use the term perfectly fine without any issue. Colchester is no different. Goom80 (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the phrase "the largest settlement in the City of Colchester" is just pedantic and makes Wikipedia look silly. If the BBC and other RSs are happy to describe Colchester as a city, then so should we. That the strict letter of the law says that the award is to the entire Borough, rural as well as urban, is just a legal nicety. Add a footnote if you want to assert that the RSs are wrong, but you will need to cite another RS to support that statement. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And there are hundreds of RSs that say that a city is a built-up area. That HMG chooses to create a definition of "city" that includes a substantially larger rural area doesn't make it a valid one. In the real world, it is false. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that reckoning, there would have been nothing wrong with having this 'city' label on Colchester (and many other areas) years ago, and nothing wrong with having, for example, Reading, marked as a city now? Is that your contention? If not, what does this comment mean? Kevin McE (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, necessary but not sufficient. All cities are urban, not all urban areas are cities. Outside the UK, city status is conferred by custom and practice: in the UK the process is formal. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"All cities are urban"? St Asaph? St David's? Kevin McE (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in the real world, yes. These are historical anomalies. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia to just want to change definitions as it goes along? The alternative, for all the (delightful ?) quirks of UK laws it throws up, is to use an indisputable factual legal definition, and reference to city status in the UK as a way of educating readers who are surprised by the uncovering of their ignorance. Kevin McE (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a miscategorisation. It is the UK usage that is the odd one out and Wikipedia is written for a worldwide audience. St David's, St Asaph and Ely are cathedral cities but they are villages not cities in the common understanding of the word – the parish church happens to be (or have been) the seat of a bishop. We have a convention here that we will not call places like Reading a city until they get a Letter Patent: likewise we will continue to refer to these three villages as cities because that is their legal status. But we will certainly refer to Greater London as a city because so many RSs say it is, despite it having no such legal status. Reading may have many of the characteristics of a city but no RSs say that it is a city – indeed many affirm that it is not a city – so Wikipedia will not do so either. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not false: it is accurate within the context of UK status of settlements. There are definitions: a town is not just a large village, a village is not just a large hamlet. City status in Belgium or in the US (there are 190 cities in Wisconsin: most would come nowhere near your preconceived fixed notion) is different again. The defined status of any place depends on the authority that defines it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:Wikipedia is not a court of law. If a consensus of reliable sources describe a place as a city, then so does Wikipedia. Otherwise, otherwise. Yes, the body of the article can explain the precise legal status, it can even (if supported by citation) say that the common understanding is legally incorrect. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make up sections of policy that do not exist. WP:Wikipedia is not a place to present assumptions as fact. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not "make Wikipedia look silly": it makes it look like a resource that values accuracy and precision. Is that not what we are aiming for? Kevin McE (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or as Brammers called it, pernickity. When the preponderance of sources say X, then Wikipedia must reflect that. Just like dictionaries report actual usage, right or wrong (for example the phrase "eke out a living" means to stretch a pension or stipend to the end of the month, but widespread usage has reframed it to mean scratching for food). We can (and indeed should) declare the legal status but when the law is an ass, we are not obliged to collude. (Example: Warrington, Buckinghamshire is in a legal city but it is certainly not in an actual city, let alone a city itself.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an abundantly clear fact that the local authority, Colchester Borough (now City) Council, was the body which received the Letters Patent for city status, and thus on a technicality, that designation applies to the whole local authority area, which includes the market towns and rural hinterland outside of Colchester's built-up-area [5]. However, as Goom80 correctly points out, the intent was to give city status to the area which the vast majority of people associate with "Colchester", that is the core built-up-area centred largely around the Roman city of Camulodunum, which is why Colchester claims to be Britain's first city. In summary, even if on paper city status applies to a significantly larger area than the Colchester BUA (due to the size of Colchester's administrative boundary), in practice intent was to have the Colchester BUA referred to as the "city." Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. The problem is, if any changes are made, will the edits be reverted again, even if there are reliable sources cited? Goom80 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And whence do you source this "clear intent"? It is nowhere in the application documents. We cannot base an encyclopaedia on your assumption of someone else's intentions. Kevin McE (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was the intention. I played a small part in the 2011 and recent application. I know those who worked tirelessly for decades who have pushed for this. The idea was always to get Colchester's ancient status restored to the area defined as the town. As pointed out, only the legal authority can apply, since there is no authority called Colchester Town, and so only the borough could apply. The main settlement area as described is the area intended to be the city, whilst the wider district takes its name only. Goom80 (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the City of Colchester district article covers the full area granted city status, and that the other settlements within the city district should mention their location in their lead sentence (if they don't already), so we won't be erasing the fact that the district holds city status.

You could compare the situation to Lancaster, where the settlement is referred to as a city but there is also an article about the larger City of Lancaster district and the articles for towns like Morecambe and villages like Wray mention that they are within the city district in their lead sentences. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of them do include that they are part of the wider district of Colchester. Would need to check though. Goom80 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a quick look, it seems most if not all will need updating from 'Colchester' or 'Borough of Colchester' to 'City of Colchester'. I'll get cracking! A.D.Hope (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping in here as an interested observer who hasn't had the beans to get involved so far: good grief. Pernicketiness like "which part of the city is a city" is why I genuinely can't be bothered to try pushing this article to GA/FA (and we all know it could be done... Colchester could be a whole featured topic with the sheer amount of stuff going on). Apart from it behing exhausting just to watch, it will also make the article fall foul of stability requirements for GA. Can we please call the city a city and stop sweating the small stuff? I'm with Goom80 et al. Let's follow the practice established by other UK city articles. Brammers (talk/c) 13:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you as well. It's starting to appear as if some do not want to accept Colchester is now considered a city. Calling it a town or main settlement is misleading. Goom80 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't. City status is conferred on local government districts, not settlements. This is an encyclopaedia and we strive for accuracy. WaggersTALK 08:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And as we discussed, if sources refer to it as such, then there is good reason to refer to it as such on Wikipedia. As pointed out by others, it is usually the intention for the settlement to become a city, but only the authority can apply, hence the borough is granted the status, but there is no rule i can find that states the main settlement can't call itself a city, especially since the status was awarded in recognition of the history of the main settlement itself. Goom80 (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what "Reliable source" describes the town area as a city? At the moment the claim for this area to be a city is dependent on a bit of feelgood BBC local reportage. The very same sentence includes a citation to the Crown Office's Gazette, which makes clear that the Borough is the recipient. Which do you consider a more legally competent source? Kevin McE (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Which part of a city is a city"? All of it. But many people want to make the unsubstantiated claim that this part is more a city than the rest of it. And that is not correct. Kevin McE (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The status of Colchester is just like that of Lancaster, York and Milton Keynes. The problem has arisen because some <expletive deleted> in the Crown Office decided to change the established wording (see HoCL citation). So we (and others) are having to clean up the consequent mess. I already asked you to contribute at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, where we can come up with a policy to preempt these fruitless debates.

There is really no point in continuing to argue the point here as the WP:CONSENSUS is clear: you are a single voice opposed. Meanwhile the world has moved on. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways: you cannot agree that the situation changed because of a change in the Letters Patent, and say it is the same as York.

Is city status in the UK a legally defined principle or not? If it is, then there is no excuse for an encyclopaedia to pretend that it is not.

I am not a single voice on this: if you have cannot even give enough respect to the discussion here to notice that, then you certainly have no grounds for claiming the right to shut it down. Kevin McE (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no suggestion that we pretend anything of the sort. We say that the city status was legally assigned to the Borough as a whole but that the principal settlement has acquired that status by common usage. So Lancaster is a city and Morecambe is still a town, despite both being in the City of Lancaster, to which the Letters Patent were addressed. Milton Keynes is a city and Warrington, Buckinghamshire (a hamlet) is not, despite both etc etc. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, since when was Wikipedia a court of law? The Oxford Dictionary for many years described a City as a large town with a cathedral, which could be deemed inaccurate. The main Wikipedia article for London refers to it as a city, and as the capital, when only the City of London is technically a city and Westminster is technically the capital. Perception overides thise inaccuracies and commmon sense. Show me a reliable source that states a City can only use the word for its whole area and not the main settlement for which the wider area takes its name only? By your assessment, all cities in the UK where the status covers a wider area, but where the main settlement regards itself a city should cease to do so because of a technicality. I'm sure Sunderland, Preston, Chelmsford, York, Lancastee, Doncaster etc would be more than willing to change their perceived status because it upsets some people on Wikipedia. Goom80 (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it another way, there is more than one way to define what is a city. Yes there's an official definition, where "city status" is conferred upon an entity - usually a local authority these days - by the Crown or their government; but if multiple current reliable sources say a place is a city, even if the government says otherwise or is silent on the matter, then that's what Wikipedia should reflect. WaggersTALK 14:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most people do perceive the main urban core as a city. Few, if many refer to Tiptree as being part of a city, even though it is. You don't have to take my word for it, and you likely won't. There are many variable sources referring to Colchester as being a city, more specifically the area defined as Britain's first City or Camulodunum... this historic area is largely one of the reasons the status was restored. I'm not going to attach every source i have found. If you disagree, that's your prerogative. As it has been explained so clearly, the intention is always for the core settlement that holds the name of origin to become the city. However, the Government will only allow the council entity to apply, hence it was granted to the whole area. The use of the word city to describe the core area is interchangeable as many have done so without facing legal action. Goom80 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the citations that have been supplied and the number of editors who support the conclusion therefrom that Colchester, the built up area, is indeed a city, can those who have opposed it up to now accept that this is indeed the "broad consensus"? Does it really need the time and trouble of holding a formal RFC whose outcome is obvious? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to citing the source and try and re-edit. Hopefully it won't be reverted back. It is becoming petty to try and hold onto an otherwise outdated perception. Colchester is not a town, nor just a settlement as discussed and backed up. Goom80 (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what citations you are referring to here? I see nothing authoritative or formal. Kevin McE (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"UK's oldest town officially becomes newest city". BBC News. 23 November 2022. for example. Just one of many. Yes, we know that the legal status is more complicated. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And

• Sandford, Mark (14 November 2022). "What makes a city?". House of Commons Library. In May 2022, eight places were awarded city status. These were Bangor (Northern Ireland), Colchester, Doncaster, Dunfermline, Milton Keynes, and Wrexham: and also Douglas (Isle of Man) and Stanley (in the Falkland Islands). Southampton was awarded a lord mayoralty.

though the word "place" is arguably ambiguous. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place is absolutely ambiguous: if he had wanted to say towns, he could have. But he didn't, and he would know that it would be inaccurate to do so. What he does say in that same piece is "Although any of these [population, cathedral, university] might be used to justify the popular use of the term ‘city’, in formal terms UK city status is granted by the monarch, on the advice of ministers." An encyclopaedia depends on formal fact, not popular perception.Kevin McE (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Local news feelgood article. Not remotely technically accurate. Legal status is the only thing that makes anything a city, so it is not just to be brushed off as "more complicated": it is the only possible grounds of a factual assertion. Kevin McE (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a spade is made of gold, is it technically still a spade, or is it just gold imitating a spade? Technically its still gold, but for all intents and purposes, its a spade. This is where we are. Most people think of an urban area as a city, formalities aside. By your ligic, Colchester 'city centre', (which is referred to by multiple sources) is a city centre within the town of Colchester within the City of Colchester which is largely rural... it's obvious this doesn't wash with most people. Wikipedia is not the law, nor does it need to enforce one's view, but since there are reliable sources that support the view of a vast majority, it is perfectly legitimate to use thd word 'city' in description of the core built-up area. Goom80 (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is very disappointing that editors, despite claiming that there are many sources that describe this area as a city in a way that the whole former borough is not, continue to post only one, the BBC local news story which is fundamentally wrong in its claim that "Colchester was named one of eight towns to be made cities to mark the Queen's Platinum Jubilee": no towns were thus elevated, and I believe that the editors posting the reference are well aware of that fact. Kevin McE (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is putting words in our mouths. First, no one is saying that the whole former borough is not legally a city [it clearly is, see London Gazette citation], but just that a large area of countryside containing hamlets, villages (and even, in the case of Milton Keynes, an entire 'free-standing' town), but only that this is a new definition of a "city" that nowhere else in the world has come across before. Secondly, yes, we are well aware of the fact that the legal status and the common understanding are different, so (as discussed at Wikiproject UK Geography) it is important to record that fact in the article. But it is equally important that the article reflects the common understanding.

Wikipedia convention requires multiple citations for controversial statements (which this one clearly is), so more should be found and contributed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the recognition of the former borough as a city is not challenged: I have never suggested that anyone was denying it (apart from Goom's entirely unsustained suggestion that it was conferred on the area of the 1974 boundary), and have several times acknowledged that. But I do not accept that I am putting words in anyone's mouth: there have been several claims of the existence of multiple sources. Kevin McE (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF Though it should be pointed out that there are instances in other countries of the official city limits extending beyond the core built-up area. For example, the city of Chongqing in China is the world's largest city by land area, but only because in China, like the UK, many cities administer large swathes of countryside outside their core built-up area. It's a strange phenomenon and it does make me wonder to what extent the rural residents of the "cities" feel attached to the cities that administer them.Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mentioning that any reliable sources that refer to the settlement as a city have to be balanced against reliable sources, published or updated after city status was conferred, that still refer to the settlement of Colchester as a town. As has previously been pointed out, that includes this gem on the city council website:

The city of Colchester covers an area of 324 square kilometres in North East Essex. It borders Suffolk in the north, along with three Essex districts – Tendring in the east, Braintree in the west and Maldon in the south west.

At its centre is the town of Colchester, surrounded by villages and smaller towns of distinct and complementary character. Some are in the Dedham Vale, a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.[6]

This really isn't as simple and clear-cut as a lot of people here would like to make out. WaggersTALK 08:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... Did you miss the bit in the url where it reads /city-status-bid/? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes I did. As you were :) WaggersTALK 13:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article is using template:infobox settlement (which is maybe appropriate for City of Colchester). The consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography is that urban areas should use template:Infobox UK place. So I propose this as the new infobox. (Right now, something wrong with "location within", if somebody else doesn't fix it first, I'll try again tomorrow to resolve.) The main difference is that it leaves most of the politics to the City of Colchester article and doesn't claim the arms or flag of the Borough.

OK, this version appears to work:

Colchester
City
From top, left to right: the High Street onto Museum Street, the castle, the town hall, St Botolph's Church, the visual arts centre and St Botolph's Priory
Colchester Location within Essex
Area	31.52 km (12.17 sq mi)
Population	122,000 (2021 Census)
• Density	3,871/km (10,030/sq mi)
Founded	1st century BC
OS grid reference	TL998254
• London	56 mi (90 km) SW
District	City of Colchester
Shire county	Essex
Region	East
Country	England
Sovereign state	United Kingdom
Post town	COLCHESTER
Postcode district	CO1–4
Dialling code	01206
Police	Essex
Fire	Essex
Ambulance	East of England
UK Parliament	Colchester
Website	www.colchester.gov.uk
List of places UK England Essex 51°53′30″N 0°54′11″E / 51.8917°N 0.903°E / 51.8917; 0.903

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC) The model for this is Chelmsford (where the map caption is correct so maybe the infobox doesn't work properly on talk pages? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I subbed the infobox for Chelsmsford here and on preview and it worked fine. There appears to be a conflict between one of the extra parameters and the LUA module that displays the map. I'll have a go at stripping the box right down and then add each parameter in turn and see if I can find which one breaks it. I'm willing to bet it is a non-obvious typo! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49: My attempt to "fix" the problem using pushpin is irrelevant and a misdirection, so discount that one straight off. According to the template doc, If you wish to include an additional custom {{location map}} (typically for the local area), use pushpin_map=location map name where location map name is the name of the location map. So (once we get the main map sorted!), it might be used to add "Colchester within the City of Colchester district" map (Map_of_Colchester_City.png). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is going to have be added as an extra image, the map title is not recognised as a pushpin-map by the infobox syntax, and image-map doesn't appear to be recognised either. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seem to have sorted the main problems, if not exactly sure how! I'll have a think about adding the Colchester within the City of Colchester district map but can't see an obvious way of doing it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the new infobox live. The image collage is as it was before, it probably needs a review but best if local editors reach consensus on its content. (BTW, six images is the maximum allowed and even that much is considered appropriate only for the larger cities (> 250k). Three or max four seems about right here.) Discussion in next section. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester
City
The Dutch Quarter, Town Hall, and Colchester Castle
Police
Fire
Ambulance
List of places United Kingdom

In general I think six-image collages are quite indistinct, so what about trimming it down to three? I've mocked up an example, although it needn't use exactly these images — there are certainly better ones of the Dutch Quarter, I just didn't bother to crop them for this example.

In general I think six-image collages are quite indistinct, so what about trimming it down to three? I've mocked up an example, although it needn't use exactly these images — there are certainly better ones of the Dutch Quarter, I just didn't bother to crop them for this example.

The one image I would push for is the castle, as it's probably Colchester's most distinctive building. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'D keep St Botolphs Priory because it is part of the city history. I feel the town hall could be replaced or the Dutch Quarter/Castle though DragonofBatley (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I think only one explicitly 'historic' image is needed and that the castle is the more prominent of the two landmarks. An image of St Botolph's could always replace the one of the castle in the 'Medieval and Tudor' section of 'History', though. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Town Hall is very representative of Colchester's civic history, it is a symbol as much as the Castle. Perhaps an image of the High Street with the Town Hall and Jumvo water tower together? Definitely the Castle and maybe St Botolph's Priory. Goom80 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the tennis 21:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CD00:E497:FC1D:107C:6F83:7110 (talk)

In the media section is written "from the Sudbury TV transmitter". I believe there's a new transmitter at Wivenhoe Park near Essex University now. I'll verify this before editing. James Pain (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wrong. Wivenhoe Park seems to be a repeater. Sudbury is still the main transmitter. Never mind. James Pain (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the scope of this article? I would suggest that it is the unparished area per this map: Myland and Stanway have their own levels of autonomy distinct from this. If not that, then where would a demarcation line be? Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a longstanding source of ambiguity and contention, and I think everyone would win if we could clear it up. Is it worth asking for third-party input, such as from the UK Geography wikiproject? Brammers (talk/c) 19:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]