Talk:Colchester

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)

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)

@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 . 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Quick facts Colchester, Police ...

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

Close

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would argue that the unparished area is a poor definition for the focus of this article, and the focus should be the built up area, which therefore does include Myland and Stanway. The Office for National Statistics publishes data and maps for built up areas, which they periodically update to take into account urban growth. That sense of some officially recognised definition of the urban area has much more credibility to it than the unparished area, which simply means the bits which aren't in civil parishes. Reliable sources and data for the unparished area are much harder to find (the main source I'm aware of is a self-published source rather than anything official), and conceptually an unparished area is not a thing, rather it is the absence of other things. Myland parish was only created in 1999, and prior to that it was part of the unparished area - yes, Myland gained a parish / community council in 1999, but that doesn't mean it then ceased to be part of Colchester.

I agree that Myland or Stanway-focused material should be primarily on the pages for those parishes (as is always the case for articles about suburbs / parishes that form part of a larger urban area), but we should be very careful to avoid suggesting that the unparished area is somehow 'Colchester proper'. I'm uncomfortable with including the map that someone has produced with the unparished area prominently highlighted in red - it implies that this is some sort of official definition of Colchester, which is not the case. (I did delete it earlier today, but it's been reinstated, hence this comment here.) The unparished area effectively fossilises the pre-1974 borough boundary and therefore ignores the fact that the urban area has now grown beyond that boundary, notably into Stanway parish. We had a similar situation on the Worcester article a couple of years ago where some editors took the unparished area logic to the extreme and rewrote the article to pedantically only focus on the unparished area, adjusting the population figures accordingly, which was very misleading - the consensus was against that approach. Stortford (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

By your own admission, the definition of the area you suggest be the focus of the article is is unstable, and changes to it are not widely publicised. That means the article does not have reliable, widely recognisable, stable inclusion and exclusion criteria. The unparished area is the continuum of what was the town council area when such a thing existed: it is not defined merely by absence as you suggest.

This proposal undermines the sister articles (and they are sisters, not daughters): Stanway is no more part of Colchester than is West Mersea. Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Towns and cities are inherently dynamic, so stability is a poor criterion; we do our readers a disservice if we prioritise stability over giving an up-to-date understanding of the topic. Built up areas are published with official statistics; unparished areas are not. Stanway and West Mersea are alike in that they're both parishes within the wider local government district of Colchester, but they are fundamentally different relative to how much you'd expect them to be mentioned in this article, as Stanway is officially classed as part of the built up area of Colchester, but West Mersea is not. When describing settlements, explaining how they relate to parishes / unparished areas is one aspect to cover, but cannot be an absolute and inalienable definition - the real world is messier than that.

Whilst I would prefer to delete the unparished area map, in a spirit of compromise I have instead just amended its caption in the hope of clarifying what it actually represents. I have also reinstated one sentence you'd trimmed where I'd clarified Stanway's relationship to both the pre-1974 borough and the modern built up area - hopefully you can accept these changes. Stortford (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There seems to be 5 definitions of "Colchester", 3 refer to the settlement and 2 refer to administrative divisions. They are 130,248, BUA, 143,330, urban area, 162,364, agglomeration, 192,715, district and 108,396, unparished area. As far as the 3 settlement definitions go they can all be used and discussed as they are all valid definitions of the settlement. As far as the district definition goes it is also a valid definition of Colchester but as standard we have a separate article at City of Colchester so although it can be discussed in this article it shouldn't be the main focus as unlike Worcester the district is clearly much larger than the settlement and unparished area. As far as the unparished area definition goes, although it doesn't have any administrative functions and doesn't appear to be legally defined it is in this case easy to define as it was only formed from 1 pre 1974 district, no bordering parishes have been abolished (meaning there isn't any debate about them being separate unparished areas or not) and there are no detached areas of the former district. As standard apart from unparished areas that are the same as a district like Fareham the normal rule is for the unparished area to be part of the scope of the settlement article like we do with parishes but we do still need to be careful about how we describe them. I would say (as the person who added the map a few weeks ago) that the map seems acceptable to include given its not in the lead, if it was I agree that would be a problem. As far as the point goes about if Stanway is anymore part of Colchester than West Mersea, Stanway is part of all 3 of the settlement definitions but West Mersea isn't. Unparished area, parishes or even district boundaries aren't determinative as to settlement boundaries they are only administrative definitions (or lack of). Consider some examples like Northampton where the parish only covers just over half of the population of the settlement, Sudbury where the parish doesn't include Great Cornard and Chilton which are part of the BUA or Ipswich where the district doesn't include places like Pinewood. In these cases it is still the case that these places are in the settlement even if they are not in the administrative division, the same goes with Stanway, it is part of the settlement of Colchester even though it is not in the unparished area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

So when a road sign exists between Stanway and Colchester stating "Welcome to Colchester" (on London Road, slightly east of King Coel Road: there is a corresponding sign stating "Stanway" when travelling in the other direction), they mean "You're already in Colchester, but we've decided to leave it a couple of miles before welcoming you"? Kevin McE (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Road signs are often put at administrative boundaries as opposed to settlement boundaries. What these signs are meaning is you are entering Colchester unparished area rather than the settlement of Colchester. As a child, before I was interested in places I remember noticing that when you drive into Ipswich you don't see the sign streight away and that is because the district (and unparished area) don't cover all of the town. This shows that the unparished area of Colchester is used on the ground but it doesn't say that it is the only definition or the best one namely being "Colchester proper" but it does suggest as far as the 2 administrative definitions go it is the best, from a political point of view I agree the unparished area would be "Colchester proper" but not as far as the settlement in general goes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying we ignore the parish boundaries / road signs - but to give a comprehensive overview of what the unqualified "Colchester" of the article title is, you can't start from the assumption that every reader will intuitively expect that the unparished area is the definition being used to the exclusion of all others. Where another primary definition in official use differs, as the built up area does with regard to Myland and Stanway, it's more informative to readers to explain those differences. Stortford (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

In which case the honest name for the article would be Colchester, Stanway and Myland, or Colchester BUI. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No, because then you'd be making up names that aren't used in reliable sources. Do have a read of the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES - we are supposed to be mindful of ambiguities and uncertainties in definition for any given settlement. Cases where suburbs extend into different administrative areas are specifically cited as something that should be mentioned on a settlement's article. Stortford (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

No because of it being standard to discuss settlement and parish/unparished area in 1 article. It is quite common for articles to cover multiple definitions such as Essex that deals with both the ceremonial county (including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock) as well as the administrative county that doesn't or Isle of Wight that deals with the island as well as the ceremonial county and unitary district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

So the implicit proposal is to have this as an article for the built up area, an area that administratively is split in three (unparished, Stanway, Myland). There are to be articles for two of these three constituent parts, but not for the largest, most populous, most economically relevant, and most recognisable of the three. To my mind, that is utterly nonsensical. Kevin McE (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the article needs changing from where it is now. This article covers "Colchester", which can be interpreted in a number of ways, notably including the built up area and the unparished area. The key point I'm trying to make is that neither of these definition can be absolute, and there are always ambiguities about definitions of settlements. That being the case, don't be so hasty to strip out the occasional reference to Stanway / Myland or whatever (the urban area's starting to grow into Ardleigh parish to the north-east too, and that's in Tendring). Stand back and consider whether such references to places that may be beyond the rigid boundary you have adopted nevertheless actually add something helpful to readers for a fuller understanding of the place on some other definition. This is far from being nonsensical, it is a sound and rational approach, encouraged by policy. Stortford (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes that's how things are done. Before the ONS changed the way BUAs are defined there were BUASDs which seem to now be similar to BUAs we sometimes have separate articles on the wider BUAs but the BUASD would still be in the same article as the parish/unparished area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a huge risk in trying to over-define something that strays into original research territory. The way to approach it is not to set a geographical boundary and say "that is Colchester, everything outside it is not" because that's not how human geography works.

Instead, the Wikipedia approach is to ask a couple of questions. According to reliable sources, does somewhere called Colchester exist? (Yes, obviously). If so, what do those reliable sources say about this place called Colchester - noting that different sources will define it in different ways but they're all talking about roughly the same thing.

We see the same conversation repeated on just about every geography article in the project. It's not for us to judge whether the discrepancies between reliable sources makes sense or not, but merely to assimilate that information into an article that adequately informs the reader about the subject based on whatever the reliable sources say.

Some will include Stanway and Myland, others won't. That's not a problem, and it's not for us to judge between them. WaggersTALK 11:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I would have thought that it is absolutely the task of an encyclopaedia to be accurate and precise, and if some sources are wrong, we provide a correcting influence. Of course it is for editors to judge whether discrepancies make sense: that is what an editorial decision is. Kevin McE (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the way Wikipedia works. See WP:TRUTH. We do strive for accuracy and precision where relevant, but not at the expense of verifiability. And since there is no single verifiable definition of Colchester's boundaries, that's what the article reflects. WaggersTALK 10:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

So in the case of Sudbury, Suffolk cited above, the article both encompasses Cornard and Great Chilton and lists them as neighbouring areas. Essentially the same is being suggested here.

An article that cannot be internal consistent and coherent cannot lay any claim to academic nor encyclopaedic quality. Kevin McE (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes this is normal per UKCITIES, see also my essay at Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

So Wikipedia's intention is to be inaccurate and unreliable? Some encyclopeadia! Kevin McE (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. It's about accurately and reliably reflecting what reliable sources say. Again, see verifiability, not truth. WaggersTALK 08:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

To expand on that, life - and geography - are not black and white. There are many grey areas and disputed definitions, particularly around boundaries, borders and definitions. If we want accuracy and reliability, it would be inaccurate and unreliable to pretend those grey areas don't exist and instead double-down on a single definition of any given entity. The role of an encyclopaedia is to reflect the messy and sometimes chaotic universe around us, not to pretend everything can always be packaged into neatly defined boxes. WaggersTALK 09:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)