`(edit conflict) This is not a problem confimed solely to the UK, it seems this discussion on talk:Tokyo seems to be about a very similar issue. The point of direct relevance I want to re-mention here is that I think the problem is obscured by some poor choice of naming convention that isn't even applied consistently across wikipedia. I have done an exhaustive survey so far, but if one looks at List of cities in the United Kingdom, we have the following partial table for cities in England and Wales:  {| class=``wikitable`` |+ Type of areas that are cities with various statistics |- !Type of Area !! ``City`` is part ofarticle name, orname of a redirect !! Number |- ! Unparished area | Yes || 1 |- ! Unparished area | No  || 1 |- ! Settlement | Yes || 1 |- ! Settlement | No  || 2 |- ! Settlements(jointly) | Yes || 1 |- ! Settlements(jointly) | No  || 0 |- ! Civil parish(or equivalent) | Yes || 2 |- ! Civil parish(or equivalent) | No  || 7 |- ! Local Government District | Yes ||  |- ! Local Government District | No  || |}  There is no consistency in always having ``City of X`` even when it is present only as a redirect. The situation may be that all of the local government districts may be either ``City of X`` or have a redirect to that, but that would not remove the inconsistency. I suggest that this problem has arisen solely because at this level of ``analysis``, local government areas and settlements begin to become entangled so that some local government areas are coterminous with settlements, and some are not (some areas contain more than one settlement, and some settlements contain more than one area). It is inherently messy given the way things have evolved in local government in this country. The vagaries of how the queen or her advisors have chosen to bestow the title of ``city`` merely adds more confusion. It would be much much better to merely use the type of local government area as a disambiguator where necessary, and always have ``City of X`` as a redirect to the appropriate article (with the appropriate disambiguator as required.) The problem is that this is a wider issue than just this article, and I think it needs some attention.If the compromise solution doesn't have a consensus, and I don't think it does from what I am seeing, then my position falls back to this one, because I proposed it as a way of moving fowards, that is all. My position is really this: that the local government areas are conceptually different things to settlements, and that they should be dealt with separately. People are invoking commonname, but if that dominates technical correctness, then we probably still would have Schizophrenia being about multiple personality disorder rather than the ``splitting away from reality`` (which is what the ``schizo`` refers to here) technically correct definition. We don't do that for Schizophrenia, and so I don't think we should do that for this situation. We need to handle the entanglement between the conceptual schemes of (a) local administrative areas and (b) types of settlements in a way that clearly distinguishes between them, because they are conceptually different, and in matters like this, the ordinary man-in-the-street's opinion (as in COMMONNAME) may count for less than that of the ``experts`` (though I know that wikipedia, to my unease, seems sometimes too ready to dismiss the experts.)     `