Request Would you or any non Commonwealth English speaking talkpage stalkers be willing to offer your opinions on this one Basically the standard British and Australian Canadian etc way of differentiating traditional city from larger modern city that grew around it is to use City of for the original city and Greater for the modern city City of Manchester Greater Manchester le de la Cit Paris aire urbaine City of Sydney Greater Sydney City of Toronto Greater Toronto and so on While the formal city broader area named after it formulation certainly exists in the US the Las Vegas strip isn t formally in Las Vegas Miami Beach isn t formally in Miami etc the problem is that while the meaning of City of will be immediately obvious to Brianboulton s concerned that City of London will be misunderstood Unfortunately there isn t really an obvious simplification London is an agglomeration of multiple cities that have merged together that happens to have been named after one of the older cities and the City is neither the oldest nor the most important part just the part that happened to give its name to the remainder so none of the usual historic centre of or the core of formulations apply Any thoughts on how to disambiguate it without jarring phrases like the City of London in London