Talk:Metropolitan borough

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not boroughs?[edit]

Are there in fact any metropolitan districts that aren't boroughs or cities? 80.229.39.194 08:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so, looking at this: [1] 81.156.111.149 08:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitals[edit]

I've got sick of Capitalizing "Metropolitan Borough" all over the place, just to find it revert back later. Anyone up to the job writing some code to auto-capitalize in correct gramatical English, Article Titles etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.158.182 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

but they're not proper nouns; county isn't a proper noun any more than town is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.149.241.58 (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "county" used alone isn't a proper noun, but the three-word phrase "County of Oxfordshire" is. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus at the end of the discussion seems to be not to move but to put in a wp:hatnote --PBS (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan borough → Metropolitan district — I would suggest moving this to metropolitan district (as this is their definition in law) and also creating a separate article for the County of London section, plus aknowledging that "metropolitan borough" was a term widely used for parliamentary constituencies in the London area prior to 1889.

This would make Metropolitan Borough a dab page with links to:

Metropolitan district
Metropolitan boroughs of London 1900 - 1965
Parliamentary constituencies of the Metropolis

Lozleader (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Sounds reasonable, and seems to be supported by the references in the article.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — as nominated. MRSC (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question — mapmark The term "Metropolitan Borough" is still widely used in the UK. The authorities in West Midlands, Greater Manchester and S Yorks are still using the term extensively. While "Metropolitan District" indeed receives 20% more hits on Google, and appears to have taken hold in the former West Yorks County, many of the results are the American use of the term and there are still over a million referalls to the (former) Met Borough status. I simply question whether or not such a re-naming is necessary considering the current usage and historical significance of the Met Borough as an urban area (as opposed to the older non-met districts etc). It's just not as simple as it appears. If it does get changed it would certainly be misleading NOT to have a DAB link to "Metropolitan Borough" because they did exist, were well known of as such in the major conurbations outside London and are still widely referred to as such.--Mapmark (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm. Not quite sure what the question is.... There is no question that "Metropolitan Borough" is a current term used in the majority of the 36 metropolitan districts (due to them having charters). All of them had become boroughs by 1975. It appears that the "Met District" tag is used in those W Yorks boroughs that have city status. Why they do this is anyone's guess. Could be they want to emphasise their "metropolitan-ness", the designation "metropolitan city" not really being very elegant or in agreement with their letters patent.
- The point I wanted to make was that there are three different meanings for the term "metropolitan borough", and one does not particularly deserve precedence over the others. One meaning is completely missing. For instance, a reader of The Times in 1885 will read that a number of new metropolitan boroughs were being created. On consulting Wikipedia he would discover they are "a type of local government district in England... created in 1974" or, as an afterthought, that the term "was previously used from 1900 to 1965, for the subdivisions of the County of London". Hardly illuminating.
- Perhaps Metropolitan borough should be a DAB page linked to three articles. The question then arises of what to call them! I take the point that Metropolitan District appears to be widely in use on the other side of the Atlantic, so perhaps Metropolitan districts of England? Lozleader (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with using the article name metropolitan district. I can't think of any non-metropolitan districts that refer to themselves, or are referred to, that way. We still rightly have the article located at non-metropolitan district. MRSC (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a merged article Metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts of England (similar to Metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties of England). The two kinds of districts are often defined in contrast to one another so perhaps a combined article would work? MRSC (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting but does not really lend much support to renaming the article (and effectively losing any mention of the Met Borough on WP. I still think the point is being missed that outside London in the six (former) met counties, the term Metropolitan Borough is still widespread so surely there is no need to rename the article? --Mapmark (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Mapmark[reply]

I'll freely admit that I may be being a bit dense, but I don't think anyone is trying to remove the term "Metropolitan Borough" from Wikipedia, simply to reflect that it has three distinct meanings depending on context. I think we have got a bit lazy on Wikipedia by referring to all the met districts as "metropolitan boroughs" without checking our sources, and perhaps thereby engaging in a little original research. There is, for instance, no "Metropolitan Borough of Birmingham". You will however find references to a "Metropolitan District of Birmingham" in statutory sources. Metropolitan District is the correct term, and we should reflect this at some point. They differ, for instance, from London Boroughs, which have that "borough" title under the legislation that created them. Anyway, as I see it, we can either 1.) improve this article and give proper coverage to the three entities or 2.) create a DAB page and link three articles one of which would cover the current Met Districts or 3.) restructure the current article so that it only covers the current met boroughs, and put a dablink at the top similar to:

I'm not keen on the first option as it would make for a clumsy lead and create an article about three completely different things that happen to share the same name. Option 2.) seems better to me, then option 3.) but I'm just one editor.Lozleader (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support per nom. Although also see logic in the dab-page mentioned above. --Jza84 | Talk 10:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem I have with this is that, outside West Yorkshire, nobody refers to them as Metropolitan Districts. Technically they are, but then technically even those that are Cities are also Metropolitan Boroughs and Metropolitan Districts. Both Manchester City Council and Salford City Council frequently refer to themselves, in appropriate circumstances, as one of the ten Metropolitan Boroughs in Greater Manchester. On balance, I think Option 3 is the better option, though I'd rephrase it slightly:

I would be careful about the argument that we should move them to Metropolitan District as that is their definition by law. Logic would then dictate that we move Municipal Boroughs to Urban Districts, as that is what they were defined as in the Local Government Act 1894. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems a reasonable way of dealing with it. I think we have to sit out the seven day period for discussion and we're only on six, but as the instigator I would go with that.Lozleader (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

effectively unitary authorities[edit]

Aren't they actually unitary authorities, the met boro status being a fond fiction like the met counties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5988:EC00:DD15:2186:E814:1DF6 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In practice they serve the same function as unitary authority areas, but legally they are metropolitan districts (all with borough status). -- Dr Greg talk 15:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]