984:. You said "they don't create an urban area only for the SCC to invent another one". SCC specify towns (e.g. Biddulph pop. 18307) which are usually NOT the same as the ONS-defined urban area (Biddulph pop. 17241). Other examples (town/urban area): Burntwood(27361/29205), Burton-upon-Trent(64449/43784), Cheadle(11460/10797), Kidsgrove(22145/28724), Leek(17745/18768), Lichfield(27900/28435), Newcastle-under-Lyme(73944/74427), Penkridge(7836/7181), Rugeley(22989/22724), Stafford(60493/63681), Tamworth(74531/71650). Maybe Cannock is an exception (like Wombourne) and at least one of the maps is inaccurate and the boundaries (within Cannock Chase District) should be identical, but unless we are absolutely sure this is the case any statement that assumes this is so should be avoided - which is what I tried to do with my words 'covers a similar area' (but maybe there's a better wording). Hednesford and Heath Hayes articles should state what they are part of. Is Cannock an ancient town with defined borders? Do they include Chadsmoor? Cannock's population (28,435) does NOT contribute approximately one third towards the 65,022... (28435/65022 = 43.73...% which is closer to one half than one third). (Your sentence also needs other rewording or splitting into two.)
999:
Urban Area defined by ONS that are part of other districts or even other counties? The information is split by districts have you considered that some parts may be overlapping? I did ask whether they were saying
Cannock was a town they pointed out that their definition is subjective and they were defining built up areas as defined by the ONS. Also this article is not callled Cannock (and surrounding areas) nor about the towns and villages surrounding Cannock. Does the page for Wolverhampton which says it is part of the West Midlands metropolitan area of England then proceed to list all the other places that is part of the West Midlands Urban Area? High Wycombe, Watford and Staines are all in the Greater London Urban area their pages do not proceed to list all the other places within that Urban Area. There is no precedent. In fact as in the Greater London Area I am more than happy for you to put all this information in the Cannock Urban Area pages - just not in this article that is about Cannock. Chadsmoor is within the Cannock North and the Cannock East wards. Your percentages duly noted have changed.
600:
wearayogooin bostin=great grearte=great yam yampy yow am your stupid you are dyowannacupataye do you want a cup of tea. t'aye tay tiume it isnt teatime yove= you have yoveshititayeya you've shit it havent you, ie you've messed up I will= arl I will do it yes arl do it arr horse=oss ossncart horse and cart n=and won't=wow won't you do it wowyadoowi' it= i' pronounced ih
923:
figures given by SCC do correlate to the urban area let's leave it at that, that it doesn't for other areas is neither here nor there for this article. Secondly my point about the SSC document is that it states clearly with every district that the principle towns figures are given using whole wards and output areas. Im not going to say for the third time what output areas are but that because they are there would suggest that SCC is not making any particular judgement about whether that particular area is one town or not, which brings me to my final point. That because this document is the only source to state that known villages in South Staffs are "towns" would also suggest that they are not making any particular judgements about that dreaded word "town" - which is why Ive been arguiing all along that
Cannock and Hednesford should not be lumped into one.
948:
invent another one). Do not put this information in again as it repetition and making what was a simple statement convoluted. Do not repeat information that is more appropriate in the
Cannock/Great Wyrley article you have created. Neither Heath Hayes nor Hednesford wiki pages state they are part of this so why should Cannock. Urban subdivisions are irrelevant to an article about what is an ancient town with defined borders. This article should state a) it is a town b) it is part of an Urban Area as defined by the ONS (as stated by SCC). The previous entry already stated it forms a large part of the Urban Area why do you need to repeat this and then include unnecessary information about what other places are in the urban area when this article isnt about them? If you think it is relevant put it in the Cannock / Great Wyrley Urban Area page.
685:
Brownhills etc and neither does
Cannock Urban Area distinguish between Cannock Town and the towns and villages surrounding it. In fact the Cannock Urban Area includes villages that are not even in the district that Cannock itself is part of such as Great Wryley and Cheslyn Hay. This article, I believe, should be about Cannock the town which has a clearly definied political border (seperate from the town of hednesford, and the villages of heath hayes, norton canes et al) and with this in mind I have reverted to the population count of the total of the four defined wards of Cannock. If we can include a section that seperatly identifies the surrounding towns and villages of Cannock, then surely it would be appropriate to exlude these settlements from the population count, anything else would be inconsistant.
614:
hammer ommer chissel chizulle trowel treuwle man mon black block mi me or my as rare as rockinoss shit as rare as rocking horse shit movie,picture show= pictures or flicks mind your language mindyalangwige where are= werra werrayougooin where are you going flouwe, what the black country man calls his sweet heart, his flower, is lover, comes from flower donkeys years donkizyeyas what are =warra okay there ya go, took me ages to do that paul
817:
council. I think this argument boils down to how far we consolidate or break down statistical figures. Would it be fair for example to call the metropolitan West
Midlands a city just because there are government statistics out there that quote its population as one single urban area? I think the present article on Cannock balances the fact that it is a town in its own right, that it forms a large part of the urban mass that is the Cannock / Great Wyrley Urban Area and is also the seat of government for the district too. Anything else only confuses and complicates and is in there for its own sake and doesnt add anything to the quality of the article which should be about the town and the people who live there. Shall we compromise on the article as it is with the links to the urban area?
894:
called CANNOCK - the people of this area do not recognise
Cannock and Hednesford as being one town neither do the County Council - they call Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay a town when it is not recognised by any power that can decide they are a town this is for statstical purpoes only! I see you have not answered my points about both Cheslyn Hay and Great Wyrley nor Perton. I do believe you are being stubborn on this point and I dont even think you live in this area to understand the points I am making. It is true that two or more parishes can become town but this can only occur with the agreement of the parishes involved. The larger Cannock DOES NOT EXIST in either the politcal will of the area nor by the spirit of what Staffs County Council's figures suggest.
832:
Pears
Cyclopaedia 1966-67 as a town as well as an urban district. I saw comments somewhere a little while ago on the pros and cons of a Greater Birmingham - I think it said there isn't really any support for it. I believe Staffordshire County Council when they call Cannock (population 60841 in 2001) a town, like all the other places they call towns, because I don't know why they would call it a town if it isn't. What does the area on their map represent if not a town? I don't believe you when you say it isn't a town. Get the county council to change their website and I might believe you. (Separate issue: They call Cheslyn Hay & Great Wyrley a town - are they right or wrong about that?)
1041:
names KNOWN and VERIFIABLE villages like
Codsall, Wombourne and Great Wyrley as towns. 2) It omits KNOWN and VERIFIABLE towns like Hednesford. I dont think some demographer sitting in a council office 5 miles away seriously had the purpose of deciding what is a town or not (not that it even is in their power as to call oneself a town a settlement needs to declare itself one), but from the email I recieved they admitted the word town was an unfortunate one to use and next census (If they can even remember) they may plump for the word settlement. Cannock HAS A RIGHT to a town council which was self-disbanded but can be reconvened any time anyone decides they want to.
860:
too - do you know the area of South Staffs? If you do then surely you know none of these are nor call themselves towns, in fact other than
Penkridge South Staffs Disctrict has no towns at all. To complicate matters Perton is a village in South Staffs that is actually classed as being part of the Wolverhampton Urban Area - now using this the same logic you are using with Cannock is it not right that Perton should be referred to as being part of Wolverhampton? Don't you think the area they are refering to is what others calls the Urban Area - it has to be named after something after all so why not the principle town or where there is no town the principle village?
1641:
Hayes and
Wimblebury, Hednesford, Huntington, Rawnsley and Wedges Mills." we write "Cannock forms the largest part of the Cannock Built-up Area (population 86,121 in the 2011 census) which also includes the towns and villages of Cheslyn Hay, Great Wyrley, Hazelslade, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury, Hednesford, Huntington, Rawnsley and Wedges Mills." My previous comment that this is the second largest urban area in Staffordshire appears to be incorrect because of Burton however the Burton BUA does include Swadlincote in Derbs so the second largest urban area entirely in Staffordshire could be right but is too much a mouthful to warrant a mention.
908:"neither do the County Council" - then why does their map show C&H part of Cannock Town(pop. 60,814)? I have no more facts about Cheslyn Hay/Great Wyrley/Perton. I have never suggested that the Cannock article should be about any other area. What I do object to is excluding the fact that Cannock is part of the two (overlapping) built-up areas whose populations are given by the ONS and county council. This can be done without stating that Cannock Town is (or is not) a town. Should the fact that Cannock is part of Cannock Chase District also be deleted on the grounds that the article is not about CCD?
1349:
District councils. This is the point of contention that had arisen a few years back on this page. I apologies for removing the merger heading I was trying to go back to the original point but obviously cocked it up. As far as I'm concerned I have no problem saying that Cannock is a part of a statistical construct called a built up area but that is all it is - but we have to be careful in ensuring that those who live in the town of Cannock are the only ones included in its headline population -not of those who live in Hednesford, Heath Hayes, or the South Staffs villages.
607:
word is needed, s'it = thats it t'aye= it isnt I've = ov' the words joined so for I've finished havent I o'v finishedayei' you have havent you y'wav aye ya aye can mean ain't haven't "have not" "am not" am can mean am have y'am can mean I am some local sayings ard=I would
802:
statiticians for monitoring population changes is not true - as I stated previously thats what Urban Areas are there for and there already is a seperate Wiki page for this. That the Urban Area is often named after the principle town should not be an assumption that is used to create something thats not there. There are 28,000 people who dont live in Hednesford, or Heath Hayes or Rawnsley etc etc and the Town that they belong to is indeed Cannock which has a charter, which is what I beleive this article should be about
1583:
tick 'Show background map (roads etc)'. Hazelslade, Rawnsley and Wedges Mills are small. They don't have wiki pages but parts of them do belong to the Cannock BUA as a detailed map shows. There's no need to have all the details of the BUA (such as other places, ONS role, area, population, map link) in all six wiki pages for the other places if we keep the Cannock BUA wiki page for them to link to. My order of preference is (i) Keep page (but maybe simplify content), (ii) delete with no redirects, (iii) redirect.
1019:(2) A town's population may be smaller (eg Leek, Lichfield) or larger (eg Cheadle, Penkridge) than an urban area/urban subdivision (UA/US) wholly within the same district. I see no reason why either cannot be the case (in relation to the part of the UA/US within the same district as the town) when part of the UA/US is in another district. Population counts do not identify the cases because no SCC/ONS document gives a population breakdown by district of a multi-district UA/US. In the case of Cannock, the ONS map
249:
228:
593:
mate mert crocodile crocoduiyle baby babbie kid nipper woman wench man bloawke yes arrr I is also arrr
348:
130:
733:
we state for example that Heath Hayes has x population and Hednesford has y population but must assume that Cannock's population is x + y + (whoever is left living in the Cannock wards) this is clearly absurd. These surrounding towns and villages are NOT suburbs, Cannock even has a right to a town council but they gave up this right several decades ago - must this need to start up again before we can give Cannock its own identity?
106:
456:
438:
1026:(3) The Chasetown page says Chasetown is part of a town. Likewise, the Cannock page should say Cannock is part of a larger town (whether or not there is an ONS-defined Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area or a page for it). A settlement does not require a town council (Cannock doesn't) nor an ancient Royal Charter granting it the right to hold a market or fair (Burntwood doesn't) to be called a town.
75:
1330:. I disagree with your second point the towns and villages do not form the Cannock BUA, the towns and villages are defined by councils and the majority of the population of these towns fall into the Cannock BUA hence they form part of it. I could also argue that the OS maps which show the Built-up areas even label which areas and hence which towns and villages form part of the Cannock BUA.
140:
879:
thereabouts, Cannock - and, as it cannot be called an urban district any more, call it a town. If it's legitimate for a local authority to call other built-up areas which include more than one parish a town, then it's legitimate to do so for Cannock/Hednesford/Heath Hayes/Rawnsley or thereabouts. An area doesn't have to be a single parish before it can be declared a town.
466:
1300:(1) Some article should give at least the name, population, area and map link of each of the two subdivisions of the Cannock Built-up Area. Which article should this be? (2) Towns and villages do not form the Cannock Built-up Area. The built-up areas of towns and villages are not defined by administrative/electoral boundaries but by the ONS's rules for built-up areas.
21:
338:
1366:
article gives three different population figures in it's opening paragraph one for the district, the urban area and the metropolitan area. Cannock doesn't need as many because the town is distinct from the district unlike Birmingham and adding the metropolitan area's population is just not needed because Cannock isn't the centre or a major part of it.
317:
1467:
Cannock encompasses all of these individual towns and villages, which is just not the case. For example most of the towns and villages have their own wiki page yet none have the wording about being part of this urban area, why should Cannock - that they both share the word Cannock is irrelevant it's just that is the biggest
798:
parish council may simply declare that it is now a town council. The point of this being that it is only the will of the people of that area that can decide whether they are a town or not - as someone who lives in the area and who knows far too many people from Hednesford I know this is not the case.
1529:
it may look like a big mass but they have defined borders, towns and parishes, the technical construct is the collation of population statistics from those individual towns and villages. Cannock Town council disbanded itself a few decades ago but there is talk about bringing it back and I've always
1451:
AONB. In common usage of the word town such an area would not be considered part of the town of Hednesford. Also your changes to the Cannock article in my opinion just add more confusion you mentioned numerous places which don't have articles and you refer to towns and villages as built-up areas when
1177:
Cannock is a separate and distinct town to Hednesford both of which contribute towards the urban area, I agree the urban area inclusion is confusing but if you'd have bothered to read the previous entries in the talk page you would have seen this as a compromise. Cannock is a to in its own right and
613:
which is like sayin I see a flying pig over there, a way of saying ya dow beleive a werd in edgeways. you don't beleive a word in hedgeways warra=what are warrayowonabou=what are you on about a to o bank bonk
599:
arrr willarrrr "I will yes" "dow ya wanna cum" "don't you want to come" what are you going on about warrayogooenonabou what are you warrayow you arnt are you yowayeamya where are you going
592:
alot of the words get changed ie Jesus becomes Jaysus the words change example say while becomes wyule toy tiye bird berde
1348:
actually I beg to differ towns are defined by the people who live in them, any village through its parish council can decide whether or not it wants to be called a town - it is not imposed on them by a higher authority especially those that collect statistics or those working in Borough, County or
1116:
says: This surname , of Scottish, Irish or English origin, is either a topographical name for someone, who lived on a hilltop, derived from the Old English "cnocc" (Gaelic "cnoc") meaning "round-topped hill", or, a locational name from one of the places called Knock in Scotland and Northern England.
1040:
Chasetown is part of a town - called Burntwood which has a town council and which Chasetown has representative on it! Yeah a settlement is a settlement is a settlement but doesn't make it a town! The document you are using is an unreliable source for the purposes of deciding what is a town. 1) It
1022:
of the Cannock urban subdivision has a populated area (Mendip Road etc) outside it which is inside the larger Cannock town (in Hednesford North ward). There are other differences. But the maps are not large scale and may not be accurate enough to draw a definite conclusion. I haven't studied maps of
778:
Superimposing the inclusive town does not change the constituent towns into something else. The inclusive town need not have its own administrative council or affect electoral wards. It may have little purpose other than to monitor population changes and provide information for an inclusive entry in
1598:
BUAs may include just the built-up areas of towns and villages not the whole of them but the built-up areas of towns and villages are the towns and villages in common usage of the term. There is no need for all six wiki pages to contain a lot of information about the Cannock BUA. It might be useful
1582:
BUAs include built-up areas of towns and villages, not towns and villages in their entirety: the boundaries of towns and villages do not lie on a 50m grid, unlike BUAs. To see this level of detail for BUAs, on the nomis website use Wizard Query, at step 4 of 5 select the map format, then on the map
1512:
and in the British case most large urban areas have articles. In this Cannock BUA case an article is probably not needed because it is so small. Also are you implying you support a deletion but not a redirect? Also it's not a very technical construct looking at satellite pictures and many maps will
1466:
I have a real problem with all this because an urban area is just a statical entity, I do find it strange that these these urban areas have a Knowledge page as they are very technical constructs. My other problem with the redirect is that the name Cannock Urban Area is just a title and implies that
998:
The 60,814 is the population given for the Urban Area minus Huntington (dont forget Hatherton is not in the ONS stats as being part of the Cannock Urba Area) and is actually quoted in the SSC document. Have you checked whether all the other areas you quote by SCC are missing section of what is the
732:
Yet again it should be stressed that Cannock is a town in its own right. Each of those villages and towns quoted as being part of this non-existant larger town have their own pages on wikipedia and each gives individual figures for their populations. The only exception to this is Cannock. Why can
585:
its a diallect that we've preserved for hundreds of years, its nothing to do with blacks it refers o the miners and the hard times living in total blackness from the smoke of the factory. some say it came about as a result of trying to talk under sound of the ommer(hammer) some say its a throw back
1640:
That's true but it is simpler and makes more sense to the average reader if instead of writing "Cannock is largely a built-up area that is part of the Cannock Built-up Area (population 86,121 in the 2011 census) which also includes the built-up areas of Cheslyn Hay, Great Wyrley, Hazelslade, Heath
1617:
The ONS does NOT define built-up areas according to common usage. Nor could it, because 'common usage' is far too imprecise. It defines them according to its fairly strict rules (which most people are unfamiliar with) about the built environment (and not according to administrative boundaries). Do
1365:
Are you happy for what I wrote to replace above to replace "Cannock contribute the larger part of the Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area." which you wrote as the third paragraph of this article. Also most articles on towns give a variety of different figures for populations for example the Birmingham
1251:
Your new thing you wrote is pretty confusing, so lets come to a compromise which doesn't imply that Hednesford isn't a distinct town which seems to be your main fear. You've also written Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban area instead of what the 2011 census calls it which is the Cannock Built-up area. Is
947:
Isnt this describing exactly what the Urban Area? I think any intelligent person can determine that an Urban Area is a built up area. FYI I have spoken with SCC and they confirm that they figures are from the ONS and define this as the Urban Area (they dont creat an urban area only for the SCC to
859:
like I said it does state on that Staffs CC document that it is the wards and the output areas (surrounding areas of the principle town). Furthermore the green areas ln the map correlate to Urban Areas. Quickly going through the document it states that Codsall, Perton and Wombourne are all towns
797:
The town of Cannock that you are talking about is mythical. Becoming a town is not like becoming a city in the UK. Pre 1974 any settlement wishing to become one had to recieve a town charter, post 1974 any parish that wants to become a town may simply call itself a town, for example Norton Canes
736:
It is absolutely true that there is a mass of buildings stretching from Pye Green down to Cheslyn Hay and from Huntington through to Five Ways island but this is recognised as the Cannock / Great Wyrley Urban Area. Urban areas, however, do not decide what is a town. Maybe in the future this will
672:
Have reworked the geography section. Cannock as a town does not include places such as Heath Hayes and Rawnsley and as such have recalculated the population count. I have given the figures for both Cannock town (based on the Cannock South, Town, North and East wards) and Cannock Chase district.
606:
a aaye b boye c seuy d deuy e aye f eff g jaye h ayche i uiye j jaye k kaye l elle m em n en o owe p paye q quewe r ah s ehss t taye u yowe v veye w dubehyu x eks y wui z zad ey in words is nearly always ay, donkey becomes donkaye some times only the last letter of a
1201:
I am not arguing that Hednesford isn't a distinct town. I am arguing that we don't need an article on the Cannock built-up area (all it does is state what is in it and it's population) and hence redirecting it to this article and that this article could do with stating that Cannock is the largest
1155:
The Cannock Built-up area article itself is pretty small and most of it consists of discussing what each subdivision contains and part of it goes off-topic into how the county council and the local government commission define the town which has nothing to do with the article's main topic. So the
975:
I don't use the term 'urban area' when I mean a built-up area that might not be an ONS-defined Urban Area. Was your question to the SCC specifically about what they call Cannock Town? I think you are assuming that the part of the 65,022 that is within Cannock Chase District is PRECISELY 60,814? I
831:
I don't know when the larger Cannock was first called a town by the county council. Maybe it was when Cannock Urban District was abolished in 1974. 'Frinton and Walton, urb. dist., Essex, Eng.' - Pears Cyclopaedia 1966-67. Mablethorpe and Sutton did not come into existence in 1974 because it's in
816:
I have been looking at the the examples you have given and Frinton existed as a town pre-1974 and Mablethorpe and Sutton came into existance as a result of a local government reorganisation in 1974 when the parish opted to be called a town. They also both have a local government capacity eg town
617:
The Cannock page makes reference to the population of the district but declares that it includes Rawnsley yet not Norton Canes. I am fairly sure that is not correct: Norton Canes is not excluded. Incidentally, I heartily endorse Paul's long discusion on the local accent but if I recall correctly
1406:
but that is a special case because it used to be it's own civil parish and the article is mainly about the former parish. The Scottish and Welsh urban areas of similar size which have their own articles do so because they have their own names and aren't named after their largest parts. My other
922:
Ok I feel we're getting somewhere here and I think the article is already where you said it should be. The first main point is that this aticle does indeed state that it is part of something bigger and gives the 60,000 figure so no need to delete the CCDC reference. You said yourself that the
893:
My point is that a county council authority cannot declare anything to be a town - even with the urban district there was no such thing as a Cannock town that incorporated both Hednesford and Cannock - can you not understand that this article is about that entity that has a town charter that is
874:
Some green areas called towns do indeed correlate to Urban Areas. We do agree on something! But apart from the places you've mentioned, plus Stone and Uttoxeter, this is not the case for Biddulph, Burntwood, Burton-upon-Trent, Cannock, Cheadle, Kidsgrove, Leek, Lichfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme,
1401:
and that no-one is going to search for it so a deletion might be better although a redirect is just quicker than going through the deletion process but does the same thing really. My reasons for redirecting is that no other English urban areas that are that small have their own article except
942:
Within its boundaries specified by the county council, the built-up area had an estimated population in 2001 of 60,814. Cannock is also part of the Cannock urban subdivision (population 65,022 in the 2001 census) of the Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area. The area specified by the county council
801:
You say that there cant possibly be two pages called Cannock and I agree - my point though is that there are articles for most of the villages in this district and none of them make the point that they are a part of this larger town that we disagree on. That towns are created in the minds of
717:
To Kinewma, you seem to have a keen interest in statistics, particularly the population figures given for Cannock. I have removed the ludicrous statement that Cannock and Hednesford are part of a larger mythical town. This assumption is based upon a misunderstanding of the figures given for
1159:
If a merger was to go ahead this wouldn't have to mean an urban area section on this Cannock article which I put here to replace an earlier urban subdivision section which just left me confused. It could probably just be written about in the opening paragraph what the Cannock built-up area's
684:
Cannock Urban Area is a demographic and statistical entity used for housing, services and other planning issues. It does not define borders between vilages, town and cities within that urban area. For example the West Midland Urban Area does not distinguish between Walsall, Wolverhmpaton,
878:
The built-up area (more so now than then in some places, eg Heath Hayes) of Cannock/Hednesford/Heath Hayes/Rawnsley was part of an area called Cannock until 1974, when Cannock Urban District was abolished. It's not really surprising that the county council still call the built-up area, or
728:
As the document states itself it is a statistical measure of wards and OUTPUT AREAS (surrounding areas considered to be linked economically and socially to the principle town) and should be used with caution when talking about areas that have CLEARLY DEFINED POLITICAL AND CIVIC BORDERS).
782:
The larger Cannock Town is not mythical and is no less valid than the other principal Staffordshire towns described on the county council's website. But it's more of a problem than the examples I've given because we can't have two articles both called 'Cannock'!
1014:
545:
I made a diallect guide, as I'm from cheslyn hay, I am of pure black country descent, my grandad was from hendsford my nan from bloxwich, my other grandad was from walsall, and my other nan was from walsall too but she was half scottish. This is how I talk.
1202:
part of a built-up area which includes Hednesford and Great Wyrley as well as some smaller settlements. You probably shouldn't have removed the merger notices because they are up to try and attempt to get more people discuss this which is the point of them.
721:
Staffs County Council have arbitarily decided that Cannock and Hednesford are now to be considered one single "New Town". This would be news to the people of the area and a shock to the councillors of Hednesford Town Council and the parishes.
737:
provide the basis for Cannock becoming a Unitary Authority or something akin to what happened with Stoke when it becames a city but until then please keep the details and the figures in the Urban Area wiki page that has been created for them.
1407:
reason for deletion was that most of the article consists of discussing the subdivisions and these subdivisions don't have a solid definition and appear to be arbitrarily assigned in many cases so I don't think discussing them is necessary.
846:
Well there you go then that answers our problems if they call Great Wryley / Cheslyn Hay a town then obviously they dont mean it the way you think it does. Cheslyn Hay and Great Wryley are two seperate villages check here for confirmation
1396:
OK I've gone ahead and put that into the article. Now what do you think on whether the Cannock Built-up area should remain or be changed into a redirect to Cannock. A redirect might be pointless as I doubt many articles link to
1136:
It seems my merger with the Cannock built-up area article and this one has been reverted even though there was no opposition to the merger proposal that appeared on the top of both pages for the best part of a fortnight.
1544:
Yes that's true but the fact that it is a big mass is notable enough to appear albeit briefly on this article. If we both support deletion of the Cannock urban area article. I will go ahead and nominate it for deletion.
36:
943:
comprises Cannock, Hednesford, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury, Rawnsley, and Hazelslade. The urban subdivision covers a similar area plus the urban part of Huntington in the adjoining district of South Staffordshire.
976:
would not rely on an answer from SCC unless this was the precise question asked AND they explained why the boundaries (within CCD) on the two maps are NOT exactly identical. The maps are in these pdfs:
1156:
Cannock Built-up area article could do with having a lot of stuff removed from it turning it into a stub without much potential for ever being more than that further building the case for a merger.
1140:
The reasons for my merger proposal was because I planned to merge all articles on small urban areas (with a population less than 100,000) unless there was a good case against which was made for
1432:
Just as Cannock comprises 4 electoral wards, Hednesford comprises 3. Only part of Hednesford is part of the Cannock BUA, because one of its 3 wards (Hednesford North) is mostly not built-up.
2042:
1020:
1513:
show you that Cannock, Hednesford and Great Wyrley form an urban area the Office of National Statistics just give a formal definition of it with their urban areas/built-up areas.
1565:
1318:) as part of the citation. The subdivisions are arbitrary and confusing I don't think they need any mention. A good example of how rubbish these subdivisions area is that for
1076:
anyway). I've taken Jakki Degg off the list because I'm pretty sure she's from Hednesford, and if I know anything about people from Hednesford she might be none too pleased!
2087:
2052:
200:
2067:
1980:
1976:
1962:
1850:
1846:
1832:
299:
289:
2082:
420:
410:
2062:
2077:
1667:
Hazelslade, Rawnsley and Wedges Mills should not be excluded just because they don't have articles. I've also revised the Cannock Built-up Area article.
645:
Im also pretty sure that Cannock is not part of of the Black Country, Walsall (assume this also includes Brownhills) is part but that is where it ends.
1016:, which is less than 65,022-60,814. (The addition of Hatherton parish (532) gives 4,472, which is the population of the Hatherton and Huntington ward.)
2047:
186:
582:
I dunno if you've ever heard of it, but its one of the only remaining natural old style diallects in the country,still standing and frozen in time.
265:
210:
1452:
you could have just said towns and villages which is the common usage and less confusing to users who aren't familiar with the term built-up area.
1316:
618:
there is a Wiki page based on the Black Country accent (or there ought to be) and that discussion would be better there. Mr Margarine Sep 2009
2092:
1178:
this article should reflect that in its own article. I have been away for a while but you can certainly count me in as opposing any merger.
977:
673:
Have removed the reference to Cannock being the fifth largest settlement in Staffordshire as it does not seem to be verifiable nor relevant.
589:
the basic idea behind is, we have our own words like dayna-did'nt want to downa= don't want to day=did'nt dow=don't aye=ain't taye=it aint
1928:
1205:
We only really need one line in this article to summarise the Cannock built-up area and what it contains. This is what I wrote previously
55:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
1094:
256:
233:
579:"black country" or just a "cannock dialect" people like me who talk like thisr'called yam yams, block countraye folk, yammies warrever
2072:
2057:
634:
382:
378:
374:
361:
322:
162:
1958:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1828:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1697:
I prefer the previous wording of this and have reverted, I think it flows easier on the tongue and avoids repeating the word area.
496:
1281:
and Wedges Mills form the second largest built-up area in Staffordshire with a population of 86,121 according to the 2011 census."
1938:
1753:
1530:
maintained this article should be about that town and nothing else. I would support a deletion of the Cannock urban area.
1948:
153:
111:
2023:
1893:
1713:
964:
701:
661:
479:
443:
86:
1270:
1227:
875:
Penkridge, Rugeley, Stafford or Tamworth because the 2001 town population and Urban Area population are different.
1447:
The part of Hednesford North that isn't built-up is unpopulated and mostly consists of forest that is part of the
558:
dow(don't) daye(did not) wow(won't) arr(yes) tha(that) thas(thats) aye(aint) gonna(going to) doowih(do it)
1274:
1231:
981:
32:
1979:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1849:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1323:
718:"Cannock" from the Staffordshire County Council. One can assume one of two things from this document, either,
1818:
1492:
When settlements form part of a larger urban area in many cases it is talked about in the article for example
610:
a blind mon on a gallepin oss ard be glad t'see it a blind man on a galloping horse I would be glad to see it
74:
1098:
2014:
1920:
1884:
1810:
1916:
764:
630:
261:
1998:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1986:
1868:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1856:
1398:
1219:
366:
353:
92:
1919:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1809:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1599:
for the larger ones but the smaller ones could have a less detailed sentence or no mention whatsoever.
1929:
https://web.archive.org/web/20071121091314/http://www.nsdatabase.co.uk/newspaperdetail.cfm?paperid=389
248:
227:
1701:
1497:
1090:
952:
689:
649:
622:
495:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
264:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
161:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1509:
760:
752:
386:
1983:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1853:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1999:
1939:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130906020213/http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/people/robinson.htm
1869:
1932:
1768:
1672:
1623:
1588:
1437:
1305:
1122:
1031:
989:
913:
884:
837:
788:
626:
48:
1568:
it would be useful if you wrote on it your support or disapproval of the potential deletion.
576:
owsi gooin me ole shoe, yo aurite arr spayke a local diallect we call
1709:
1646:
1604:
1573:
1550:
1535:
1518:
1478:
1457:
1412:
1387:
1371:
1354:
1335:
1286:
1183:
1165:
1046:
1004:
960:
928:
899:
865:
822:
807:
742:
697:
657:
492:
2006:
1876:
1781:
1403:
1149:
1949:
https://web.archive.org/web/20111114140835/http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/wakefiel.htm
1068:
and, though my Old English is less than perfect, I don't think there was such a word as
1965:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1942:
1835:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1505:
756:
370:
192:
145:
2005:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1875:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
2036:
1501:
1448:
1077:
772:
539:
471:
856:
848:
1668:
1619:
1584:
1433:
1301:
1278:
1235:
1118:
1027:
985:
909:
880:
833:
784:
129:
105:
373:
on Knowledge. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can
1972:
1952:
1842:
1705:
1642:
1600:
1569:
1546:
1531:
1514:
1474:
1453:
1408:
1383:
1367:
1350:
1331:
1282:
1222:
which had a population of 86,121 according to the 2011 census and also includes
1179:
1161:
1042:
1000:
956:
924:
895:
861:
818:
803:
768:
738:
693:
653:
455:
437:
1971:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1841:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1749:
1266:
1223:
1145:
564:
awow(I won't) iuye (I) tharaye(that aint) tharis(that is) dayah(d'aint you)
461:
343:
135:
1112:
by Nicolaisen, Gelling and Richards refers to the Old English "cnocc". Also,
1493:
751:
It is not the case that a town cannot be part of another town. For example,
1819:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101216013927/http://www.connectcannock.co.uk/
1113:
1508:. Many other similar technical constructs have articles notably all large
1148:
because they hade names which didn't refer to the main settlement and for
1327:
369:
dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the
1160:
population is and what it contains many other articles on towns do this
940:
Cannock is part of the largest built-up area in Cannock Chase District.
1912:
1802:
1141:
158:
52:
1822:
570:
whera(where are) whoa(who are) yoe(you) wheramya(where are you)
337:
316:
1319:
534:
I've lived in Cannock more than twenty years - I've never heard
488:
484:
852:
755:
is a civil parish and town in Essex that consists of the towns
2028:
1898:
1717:
1676:
1650:
1627:
1608:
1592:
1577:
1554:
1539:
1522:
1482:
1461:
1441:
1416:
1391:
1375:
1358:
1339:
1309:
1290:
1187:
1169:
1126:
1102:
1050:
1035:
1008:
993:
968:
932:
917:
903:
888:
869:
841:
826:
811:
792:
746:
705:
665:
638:
195:
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
191:
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
68:
15:
1933:
http://www.nsdatabase.co.uk/newspaperdetail.cfm?paperid=389
1265:"Cannock along with the neighbouring towns and villages of
1923:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1813:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1618:'common usage' boundaries lie on a 50m grid? I think not.
1013:(1) Huntington's population in the 2001 census was 3,940
1806:
60:
56:
27:
1566:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cannock Built-up Area
530:
Black country dialect - not relevant to Cannock page?
1943:
http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/people/robinson.htm
483:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
260:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
157:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1975:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1845:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1084:
1083:"Cnocc" is not an old English word. It is Gaelic.
2043:C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
857:http://www.sstaffs.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=13756
849:http://www.sstaffs.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=13854
1326:subdivision includes the large Kentish town of
1961:This message was posted before February 2018.
1831:This message was posted before February 2018.
1087:The town's name probably has another origin.
1953:http://www3.shropshire-cc.gov.uk/wakefiel.htm
8:
596:you can say "arrr do arrr" for " I do yes"
72:
1801:I have just modified one external link on
432:
311:
222:
100:
1911:I have just modified 3 external links on
1114:http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Knocker
1110:The names of towns and cities in Britain
2088:Start-Class WikiProject Cities articles
2053:Mid-importance England-related articles
1738:
1218:"Cannock forms the largest part of the
1066:Oxford Dictionary of English Placenames
434:
359:This article falls within the scope of
313:
224:
102:
1777:
1766:
767:in Lincolnshire consists of the towns
2068:Mid-importance West Midlands articles
1744:
1742:
552:yole(you will) dayna(daint want to)
7:
2083:Mid-importance UK geography articles
1252:the following a suitable compromise?
477:This article is within the scope of
254:This article is within the scope of
151:This article is within the scope of
1315:I can put a map link (such as this
763:. And the civil parish and town of
274:Knowledge:WikiProject West Midlands
91:It is of interest to the following
2063:Start-Class West Midlands articles
1072:meaning "powerful" (and "oak" was
1064:etymology is the one given in the
395:Knowledge:WikiProject UK geography
277:Template:WikiProject West Midlands
193:project-independent quality rating
14:
2078:Start-Class UK geography articles
1915:. Please take a moment to review
1805:. Please take a moment to review
398:Template:WikiProject UK geography
2048:C-Class England-related articles
1823:http://www.connectcannock.co.uk/
1152:because it used to be a parish.
464:
454:
436:
346:
336:
315:
247:
226:
138:
128:
104:
73:
19:
982:Cannock/Great Wyrley Urban Area
415:This article has been rated as
294:This article has been rated as
205:This article has been rated as
1750:"2011 Census - Built-up areas"
1085:http://en.wiktionary.org/cnocc
706:12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
666:19:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
639:18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
387:how to write about settlements
1:
2029:08:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
1051:09:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
1036:00:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
567:dowya(don't you) isi(is it)
499:and see a list of open tasks.
268:and see a list of open tasks.
171:Knowledge:WikiProject England
165:and see a list of open tasks.
2093:All WikiProject Cities pages
1132:Cannock Built-up area merger
1009:06:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
994:05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
969:16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
933:06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
918:23:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
904:23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
889:23:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
870:08:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
853:http://www.great-wyrley.net/
842:03:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
827:13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
812:08:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
793:23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
747:08:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
505:Knowledge:WikiProject Cities
174:Template:WikiProject England
1718:06:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
1677:00:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
1651:11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1628:00:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
1609:18:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
1593:18:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
1578:16:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
1555:16:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
1540:16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
1523:15:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
1483:14:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
1462:23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
1442:22:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
1417:19:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
1392:18:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
1376:15:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
1359:14:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
1340:11:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
1310:23:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
1291:21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
1188:19:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
1170:11:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
511:WikiProject Cities articles
508:Template:WikiProject Cities
375:join us at the project page
2109:
1992:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1908:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1862:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1798:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1564:Here is the deletion page
1271:Heath Hayes and Wimblebury
1228:Heath Hayes and Wimblebury
421:project's importance scale
300:project's importance scale
211:project's importance scale
2073:WikiProject West Midlands
2058:WikiProject England pages
1899:07:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
542:09:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
449:
414:
331:
293:
257:WikiProject West Midlands
242:
204:
190:
123:
99:
59:; for its talk page, see
1127:23:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1103:20:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
1080:12:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
362:WikiProject UK geography
177:England-related articles
1904:External links modified
1794:External links modified
713:Urban Area / Large Town
603:black country alphabet
1776:Check date values in:
765:Mablethorpe and Sutton
555:downa(don't want to)
280:West Midlands articles
81:This article is rated
1473:of the settlements.
1399:Cannock Built-up Area
1220:Cannock Built-up Area
1056:Is cnocc Old English?
401:UK geography articles
354:United Kingdom portal
28:Cannock Built-up Area
1973:regular verification
1843:regular verification
1498:Newcastle-under-Lyme
779:works of reference.
47:. Its contents were
43:with a consensus to
1963:After February 2018
1833:After February 2018
1023:other urban areas.
538:say 'do your rip'.
154:WikiProject England
2017:InternetArchiveBot
1968:InternetArchiveBot
1887:InternetArchiveBot
1838:InternetArchiveBot
1510:metropolitan areas
1238:and Wedges Mills."
761:Walton-on-the-Naze
753:Frinton and Walton
680:Cannock Urban Area
491:and various other
480:WikiProject Cities
385:and guidelines on
87:content assessment
31:was nominated for
1993:
1863:
1721:
1704:comment added by
1093:comment added by
972:
955:comment added by
709:
692:comment added by
669:
652:comment added by
642:
625:comment added by
549:yode(you would)
527:
526:
523:
522:
519:
518:
431:
430:
427:
426:
310:
309:
306:
305:
221:
220:
217:
216:
67:
66:
2100:
2027:
2018:
1991:
1990:
1969:
1897:
1888:
1861:
1860:
1839:
1786:
1785:
1779:
1774:
1772:
1764:
1762:
1760:
1746:
1720:
1698:
1382:It's fine by me
1105:
971:
949:
708:
686:
668:
646:
641:
619:
586:to old english,
513:
512:
509:
506:
503:
474:
469:
468:
467:
458:
451:
450:
440:
433:
403:
402:
399:
396:
393:
377:where there are
356:
351:
350:
349:
340:
333:
332:
327:
319:
312:
282:
281:
278:
275:
272:
251:
244:
243:
238:
230:
223:
179:
178:
175:
172:
169:
148:
143:
142:
141:
132:
125:
124:
119:
116:
108:
101:
84:
78:
77:
69:
23:
22:
16:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2033:
2032:
2021:
2016:
1984:
1977:have permission
1967:
1921:this simple FaQ
1906:
1891:
1886:
1854:
1847:have permission
1837:
1811:this simple FaQ
1796:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1775:
1765:
1758:
1756:
1748:
1747:
1740:
1699:
1404:Norton Radstock
1150:Norton Radstock
1134:
1088:
1058:
950:
945:
715:
687:
682:
647:
620:
615:
608:
601:
594:
577:
573:warro aer kid,
568:
562:
556:
550:
532:
510:
507:
504:
501:
500:
470:
465:
463:
400:
397:
394:
391:
390:
352:
347:
345:
325:
279:
276:
273:
270:
269:
236:
176:
173:
170:
167:
166:
144:
139:
137:
117:
114:
85:on Knowledge's
82:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2106:
2104:
2096:
2095:
2090:
2085:
2080:
2075:
2070:
2065:
2060:
2055:
2050:
2045:
2035:
2034:
2011:
2010:
2003:
1956:
1955:
1947:Added archive
1945:
1937:Added archive
1935:
1927:Added archive
1905:
1902:
1881:
1880:
1873:
1826:
1825:
1817:Added archive
1795:
1792:
1788:
1787:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1612:
1611:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1506:Higham Ferrers
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1133:
1130:
1057:
1054:
939:
937:
757:Frinton-on-Sea
714:
711:
681:
678:
676:
612:
605:
598:
591:
575:
566:
560:
554:
548:
531:
528:
525:
524:
521:
520:
517:
516:
514:
497:the discussion
476:
475:
459:
447:
446:
441:
429:
428:
425:
424:
417:Mid-importance
413:
407:
406:
404:
371:United Kingdom
358:
357:
341:
329:
328:
326:Mid‑importance
320:
308:
307:
304:
303:
296:Mid-importance
292:
286:
285:
283:
266:the discussion
252:
240:
239:
237:Mid‑importance
231:
219:
218:
215:
214:
207:Mid-importance
203:
197:
196:
189:
183:
182:
180:
163:the discussion
150:
149:
146:England portal
133:
121:
120:
118:Mid‑importance
109:
97:
96:
90:
79:
65:
64:
39:was closed on
37:The discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2105:
2094:
2091:
2089:
2086:
2084:
2081:
2079:
2076:
2074:
2071:
2069:
2066:
2064:
2061:
2059:
2056:
2054:
2051:
2049:
2046:
2044:
2041:
2040:
2038:
2031:
2030:
2025:
2020:
2019:
2008:
2004:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1988:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1964:
1959:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1903:
1901:
1900:
1895:
1890:
1889:
1878:
1874:
1871:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1858:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1834:
1829:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1799:
1793:
1783:
1770:
1755:
1751:
1745:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1580:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1502:Wolverhampton
1499:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1450:
1449:Cannock Chase
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1157:
1153:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1131:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1115:
1111:
1106:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:64.134.151.97
1092:
1086:
1081:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
973:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
944:
938:
935:
934:
930:
926:
920:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
901:
897:
891:
890:
886:
882:
876:
872:
871:
867:
863:
858:
854:
850:
844:
843:
839:
835:
829:
828:
824:
820:
814:
813:
809:
805:
799:
795:
794:
790:
786:
780:
776:
774:
773:Sutton-on-Sea
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
749:
748:
744:
740:
734:
730:
726:
723:
719:
712:
710:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
679:
677:
674:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
611:
604:
597:
590:
587:
583:
580:
574:
571:
565:
561:arl(i will)
559:
553:
547:
543:
541:
537:
529:
515:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
473:
472:Cities portal
462:
460:
457:
453:
452:
448:
445:
442:
439:
435:
422:
418:
412:
409:
408:
405:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
355:
344:
342:
339:
335:
334:
330:
324:
321:
318:
314:
301:
297:
291:
288:
287:
284:
271:West Midlands
267:
263:
262:West Midlands
259:
258:
253:
250:
246:
245:
241:
235:
234:West Midlands
232:
229:
225:
212:
208:
202:
199:
198:
194:
188:
185:
184:
181:
164:
160:
156:
155:
147:
136:
134:
131:
127:
126:
122:
113:
110:
107:
103:
98:
94:
88:
80:
76:
71:
70:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
29:
25:
18:
17:
2015:
2012:
1987:source check
1966:
1960:
1957:
1910:
1907:
1885:
1882:
1857:source check
1836:
1830:
1827:
1800:
1797:
1778:|accessdate=
1757:. Retrieved
1733:
1700:— Preceding
1581:
1563:
1472:
1431:
1299:
1279:Great Wyrley
1236:Great Wyrley
1158:
1154:
1139:
1135:
1109:
1107:
1089:— Preceding
1082:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1059:
1039:
1025:
1018:
1012:
997:
978:Cannock Town
974:
946:
941:
936:
921:
907:
892:
877:
873:
845:
830:
815:
800:
796:
781:
777:
750:
735:
731:
727:
724:
720:
716:
683:
675:
671:
644:
627:Mr Margarine
616:
609:
602:
595:
588:
584:
581:
578:
572:
569:
563:
557:
551:
544:
535:
533:
478:
416:
392:UK geography
360:
323:UK geography
295:
255:
206:
152:
93:WikiProjects
44:
40:
26:
951:—Preceding
769:Mablethorpe
688:—Preceding
648:—Preceding
621:—Preceding
493:settlements
383:to do lists
83:Start-class
57:its history
41:1 June 2021
2037:Categories
2024:Report bug
1894:Report bug
1734:References
1275:Huntington
1267:Hednesford
1232:Huntington
1224:Hednesford
1146:Levenmouth
367:user-group
2007:this tool
2000:this tool
1877:this tool
1870:this tool
1759:09 August
1494:Rotherham
1108:The book
379:resources
2013:Cheers.—
1883:Cheers.—
1769:cite web
1714:contribs
1702:unsigned
1328:Dartford
1091:unsigned
1078:Hedgehog
965:contribs
953:unsigned
702:contribs
690:unsigned
662:contribs
650:unsigned
635:contribs
623:unsigned
540:Hedgehog
33:deletion
1917:my edit
1913:Cannock
1807:my edit
1803:Cannock
1669:Kinewma
1620:Kinewma
1585:Kinewma
1434:Kinewma
1302:Kinewma
1142:Deeside
1119:Kinewma
1028:Kinewma
986:Kinewma
910:Kinewma
881:Kinewma
855:, and
834:Kinewma
785:Kinewma
419:on the
298:on the
209:on the
168:England
159:England
115:C‑class
112:England
53:Cannock
1706:Aprhys
1643:Eopsid
1601:Eopsid
1570:Eopsid
1547:Eopsid
1532:Aprhys
1515:Eopsid
1475:Aprhys
1454:Eopsid
1409:Eopsid
1384:Aprhys
1368:Eopsid
1351:Aprhys
1332:Eopsid
1324:Bexley
1320:London
1283:Eopsid
1180:Aprhys
1162:Eopsid
1043:Aprhys
1001:Aprhys
957:Aprhys
925:Aprhys
896:Aprhys
862:Aprhys
819:Aprhys
804:Aprhys
739:Aprhys
694:Aprhys
654:Aprhys
536:anyone
502:Cities
485:cities
444:Cities
89:scale.
49:merged
1062:cnocc
489:towns
51:into
45:merge
1782:help
1761:2013
1710:talk
1673:talk
1647:talk
1624:talk
1605:talk
1589:talk
1574:talk
1551:talk
1536:talk
1519:talk
1504:and
1479:talk
1458:talk
1438:talk
1413:talk
1388:talk
1372:talk
1355:talk
1336:talk
1322:the
1306:talk
1287:talk
1184:talk
1166:talk
1144:and
1123:talk
1099:talk
1070:cann
1060:The
1047:talk
1032:talk
1005:talk
990:talk
980:and
961:talk
929:talk
914:talk
900:talk
885:talk
866:talk
838:talk
823:talk
808:talk
789:talk
771:and
759:and
743:talk
725:or,
698:talk
658:talk
631:talk
365:, a
61:here
1981:RfC
1951:to
1941:to
1931:to
1851:RfC
1821:to
1754:ONS
411:Mid
290:Mid
201:Mid
35:.
2039::
1994:.
1989:}}
1985:{{
1864:.
1859:}}
1855:{{
1773::
1771:}}
1767:{{
1752:.
1741:^
1716:)
1712:•
1675:)
1649:)
1626:)
1607:)
1591:)
1576:)
1553:)
1538:)
1521:)
1500:,
1496:,
1481:)
1460:)
1440:)
1415:)
1390:)
1374:)
1357:)
1338:)
1308:)
1289:)
1277:,
1273:,
1269:,
1234:,
1230:,
1226:,
1186:)
1168:)
1125:)
1101:)
1074:ac
1049:)
1034:)
1007:)
992:)
967:)
963:•
931:)
916:)
902:)
887:)
868:)
851:,
840:)
825:)
810:)
791:)
775:.
745:)
704:)
700:•
664:)
660:•
637:)
633:•
487:,
381:,
2026:)
2022:(
2009:.
2002:.
1896:)
1892:(
1879:.
1872:.
1784:)
1780:(
1763:.
1708:(
1671:(
1645:(
1622:(
1603:(
1587:(
1572:(
1549:(
1534:(
1517:(
1477:(
1456:(
1436:(
1411:(
1386:(
1370:(
1353:(
1334:(
1304:(
1285:(
1190:#
1182:(
1164:(
1121:(
1097:(
1045:(
1030:(
1003:(
988:(
959:(
927:(
912:(
898:(
883:(
864:(
836:(
821:(
806:(
787:(
741:(
696:(
656:(
629:(
423:.
389:.
302:.
213:.
187:C
95::
63:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
