This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
/Archive 1 up to November 2006. Contains
1 Good omens
2 Concrete Cows
3 Quote from a resident
4 Link deletion by User talk:195.92.168.172
5 Population planning/projection
6 Factual inaccuracy (Not a city)
7 Town/borough confusion
8 Pronunciation
9 Cycling
10 Milton Keyes as Shown on a Map
11 Dodgy Citation In Origins section
12 Districts
12.1 National Bowl
13 Pictures deleted
14 Hi-res images of concrete cows
15 Popular Culture
16 Request for mention from Ask MK TV
17 city or not
18 Quick question
19 Poor quality of article
19.1 "New city"
19.2 Access and news media
19.3 The intro again
19.4 City status again
20 Review
21 history
Superman
Not sure where this might fit in - if at all, but when I was living in MK in the early 1980's, they shot several scenes for Superman IV at the railway station and various other places around the town. Mighty Antar01:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brookie added a pic of the ferris wheel in Central Milton Keynes. The wheel is not a permanent fixture, unlike the London Eye in London - it is only here for one winter season. I don't think it is a valid addition to the page. (Also, I don't see what it has to do with the grid squares apart from you can see them from the top of it). Is there a good reason to keep it? --Concrete Cowboy17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just before the lights go off or come on, I assume? Try a few pics and see how they work out. Another idea I had was to take pics at the same time from the Brickhills. I don't know if it is high enough, though, to emulate that view of LA that appears regularly in movies. Another option is to get a GPS track of the gridroads. --Concrete Cowboy17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe from the top of the Bow Brickhill transmitter if anyone has access there (significantly above the trees at one of the higher points), otherwise you can get a decent shot from Little Brickhill. I don't know if either would get quite what you want mind. Another one would be from Campbell Park looking towards the Theatre/Xscape, with a nice bit of grass in front to show the green space mixed with modernity. I'll see what I can get (given my limited photographic skills) in the next few weeks. Mk3severo17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might get your gonads microwaved :). What we need is a chopper (or a balloon). Got any rich friends? Thinking about it a bit more, it would be good to do some recces now but we also want it to show the "city in the trees", so we need to wait unil the trees are in good leaf - maybe May? If the lights are on, that will show the grid. --Concrete Cowboy21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10 km, use 10 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10 km.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 10 km.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
it has been
arguably
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): can't, DON'T.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
In terms of content, I think this article is comprehensive. Therefore, I'm intending to do as much work as possible in improving the referencing of the article and the article in terms of the Manual of Style with the intention to nominate it as a Good Article. I would really appreciate if anyone can do anything - no matter how small - in checking through the article and improving its quality! Regards, SeveroTC17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Name
Milton Keynes...as in Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes? Bith are economists but both are loggerheads....
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.82.8.121 (talk) 15:45, May 26, 2007
Actually, I too have heard this from a reputable academic who specialises in this area of economics and its impacts on society. I would recommend further fact checking beyond wikipedia (maybe I'll come back to it after I have finished my paper, if I remember!) KevinCarmody (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a historian based in Buckinghamshire just a few miles south of Milton Keynes, and I can assure you that the name Milton Keynes was in use a long time before either economist had even been born. I believe there are plenty of sources in the article to illustrate this fact, but if you need more I can provide more. -- roleplayer11:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Art in Milton Keynes
I don't think this stub: Art in Milton Keynes really emphasises anything on it's own, but I really think it could add something to this page. I realise the Concrete Cows have their own page, but they are very well know. I propose merging it with this article. Any thoughts? LookingYourBest12:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new user created it as part of a discussion about the activities of MKDC. I didn't really think it has much merit - it can only ever be opinion and promotion, especially if it is merged into this article. I'd vote to delete it. --Concrete Cowboy12:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no further discussion, and the Art in MK is really about Art in MK during the MKDC years, I'm removing the tag here and changing the tag in the Art in MK article. --Concrete Cowboy17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could revert my move of the tags then.
Fundamentally, though, I think that the topic is one that can never be anything but POV (as the article is now). My vote is for delete. --Concrete Cowboy12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. I'm not saying anything in the Art in MK article is salvageable, but it is easy to redirect that article here, and link anything that related to Art in MK to that redirect, then if a viable article is created (even if tomorrow, in 6 months or 6 years!), it will already have a number of links to it (Build the web). SeveroTC12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Milton Keynes
You may be interested in a proposed WikiProject Milton Keynes. I proposed the idea today to gauge how much interest it will attract. I think we have enough editors that, with just a bit of organisation, we can systematically create excellent MK related articles. Please leave your interest and any comments at the proposal page, we'd love to hear from you. Regards, SeveroTC20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Size of the disgnated area
Until recently, this article cited The Plan for Milton Keynes saying the designated area was 25200 acres, rather than 22000 acres. I've consulted the source, and without the page reference, am slightly confused to how the figure of 25200 was chosen. In The Plan for Milton Keynes, Volume 1, Chapter 1, paragraph 2 (page 3), it says the draft designation order was made for "10,500 hectares (25,000 acres)" in 1966, and in 1967 the designation of "9,000 hectares (22,000 acres)" was made. Can anyone throw further light onto the 25200 figure? If not, we'll take 22,000 acres as that's what the primary and secondary sources seem to agree on. SeveroTC13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bletchley New Town?
Can anyone shed some light on this?
Compared to many other large urban centres in the UK, Milton Keynes has a relatively low population density. However, well before it was designated as a New Town (1967) it had been known that the government wanted to create a large new centre somewhere in the area, and Bletchley may have seemed a more obvious choice. The article states that Bletchley had already seen some overspill development from London, but I'm sure I read somewhere that Bletchley actually offered to become the major new city the government was seeking to develop, even saying it was willing to accommodate up to 279,000 inhabitants within its existing municipal area. This would have resulted in a much higher population density - a higher target figure crammed into a considerably smaller area. If it can be confirmed and sourced that all this is correct, perhaps the article should include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonythepixel (talk • contribs) 10:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is true, but in the scheme of things it is a detail of history since it never happened and this article is already very long. The History of Milton Keynes is the appropriate article and the topic is covered there. Annoyingly, Bletchley's bid to be the centre is not cited though I remember reading the book where it is mentioned, along with Wolverton's counter-bid. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard this bit before: "it was willing to accommodate up to 279,000 inhabitants within its existing municipal area". From my reading, North Bucks became the target expansion area because of Bletchley's positive attitude towards expansion in the 1950s. SeveroTC15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a reference on the Milton Keynes Council website. You may have struggled to find it as the town is refered to as Bernkaste rather than Bernkaste-Keus. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Milton Keynes and Bernkastel were never officially twinned. All that existed was "a partnership" At present this partnership is pretty much defunct now with little contact if any between the two towns in recent years. Lewisdl (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC) former Mayor of Milton Keynes[reply]
Including the criticism of Milton Keynes design and implementation for a balanced view point.
I notice the main article omits any criticism of Milton Keynes.
To correct this; the published criticisms of design and implementation should be included for a balanced view point. The referenced paper express a critical viewpoint of the design:
"the city of Milton Keynes was largely developed in ways which produced a much worse built environment than had been envisioned" [1]
"the design as built does not 'sustain' local shops or other services nearby as well as it should, it works against the use of public transport, helping to 'sustain' a car-dependent way of life and gender inequalities in mobility" [3]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.10.130 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the article already borders on a pro-MK propaganda piece, I doubt any more 'counter-balancing' would be required. It is not at all clear that discussion of a relevant topic should be shunted off to a stub article, either.
References
^Edwards, M. (2001) City design: what went wrong at Milton Keynes? Journal of Urban Design, 6 (1). pp. 87-96. ISSN 13574809
^Edwards, M. (2001) City design: what went wrong at Milton Keynes? Journal of Urban Design, 6 (1). pp. 87-96. ISSN 13574809
^Edwards, M. (2001) City design: what went wrong at Milton Keynes? Journal of Urban Design, 6 (1). pp. 87-96. ISSN 13574809
Push towards Featured Article
I don't think it would take very much to bring this article up to featured article status. Thoughts? I wanted to throw the idea out there and see what changes are suggested before nominating it. Tom walker (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable people
This is just a generic guidance note. Comments welcome.
The de facto rule for notability is that the person is the subject of a wikipedia article. No article = not notable.
The two local MPs are notable, but they are not from MK. That means not born here or not permanently resident [for at least 10 years?]. MPs typically have a home in the constituency - it's good for votes - but tend to hold it only for as long as they have a seat in Parliament. So that means that they don't get listed.
What's the city's economic base? Service industry, manufacturing, tech? I didn't see much about it in the article. --AW (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it is valid to use precise figures that were collected at the Borough level and quote them as if they were for the city. They aren't, so we can only give a summary in this article, which is already rather too long. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it says in this article, "However, since the urban area is predominant in the Borough, it is reasonable to assume that, other than for agriculture, the figures are broadly the same." I added a brief synopsis of the borough data - it seems like a pain to have to go to another article to see that rather basic information. --AW (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Population
The 186,000 figure comes from the 2001 census. This obviously means that it, and any comparisons drawn with other cities from it, are eight years out of date. Now, somebody has just edited to read 231,000. I think this is the population of the entire borough at the same census. There is a board erected by Milton Keynes PartnershipinCentral Milton Keynes railway station which gives the 2009 city population as approximately 227,000. This figure is some 41,000 ahead of the 2001 figure, showing up how horribly out of date that is. Does anybody have any thoughts or any other more up-to-date sources? Tom walker (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's some slight confusion here over the settlement of Milton Keynes and the borough. From the PDF you provided, which is a reliable source as it was published by the local government): "the Borough’s population is now more than three times (380%) what it was and is currently estimated to be over 230,000 (MKC estimate for June 2008 is 231,400)", (own emphasis added) so it's the borough that has an estimated population of 231,400. For the settlement itself:『The city’s population is now over four times (480%) larger than in 1967 and is currently estimated to be 192,250 (June 2007).』I've changed the article to reflect this.
Most articles on UK settlements make do with the 2001 census, but where reliable and more up to date estimates are available, it's ok to use them. However, most of the time the most comprehensive demographic data comes from the 2001 census, and it's strange to have a juxtaposition of a 2007 estimate (for example) and a breakdown of demography from 2001. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the figure, that's much better and more up-to-date. Unfortunately, the (2007 estimate) part and the reference are stopping it from displaying properly! Tom walker (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry about that. It's fixed now. I'd forgotten that the template was changed recently and that now you're only allowed to put the population in the population field (ie: number only). Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I'll just have to wait for the urban area to swallow the entire borough.
On a related population note, in the Kingston Upon Hull article a 2007 population estimate is used, both in the opening body and righthand infopane, without any reference.
Alexander J. Hamilton (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dread to think how many articles have unsourced populations, nevermind the rest of the article, so good find on the PDF from the MK borough. I'm surprised Kingston-upon-Hull doesn't have a source as it's a Good Article, meaning one of Wikipedia's best articles and should have been checked for missing references etc. It's possible it's present later in the article as WP:LEADCITE means that information in the lead of the article doesn't have to be referenced as long as the reference is provided later on in the article. But that article shows exactly what I mean about conflicting figures. The infobox gives an ethnicity breakdown based on 2005 estimates, but the population estimate is from 2007. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole city/town thing again
OK, I know the deal with MK being called a city and not officially being one (I do it myself). Anyway, some IP address just edited the article to say 'city', and I was about to revert it back to town when I stumbled on this. With regard to MK securing the world cup bid (which should probably be mentioned in this article), I've now found three websites stating the 'fact' that MK applied for, and was granted, city status in the run up to the bid. Now I would absolutely love it if this was true, but wouldn't the MK News or the Citizen have mentioned it? It would've been on the news and everything... which it hasn't. So what the hell is going on? Tom walker (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been nothing in the local press about it, and there is nothing on google news other than what is recently related to this 2018 bid. My conclusion: the press release from the organisers is wrong. -- roleplayer13:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very surprised if there hadn't been some noise in the local news (the papers in Stockport have a perennial gripe about not having city status). Lozleader (talk·contribs) may have sources, but I doubt MK got city status; "host city" is surely just a generic term. Nev1 (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few sites have gotten the wrong end of the stick. MK has just been awarded 'Candidate Host City status', meaning that IF England wins the World Cup bid (no walk-over), then MK will be a Host City. Everywhere else in the world, MK would already be a city but not in dear old blighty. [If Ingerland does win, I expect that we'll still be a town. Can you really see Charles III giving us city status, even if we grew to to be a million people. I mean, where are the classical colonades with doric columns, the Georgian terraces, the neo-Classical villas? We'll just have to hope that HMQ hangs on and gives it us on her 90th birthday! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She has another Jubilee in 2012, so it might happen then. Knowing the record though it'll probably go Luton or Macclesfield or Leighton Buzzard or something ridiculous. Anyway, I'll keep a lookout for anyone else making this statement. I found another one that said "Milton Keynes, which only recently received city status". Read that and went "er, what?". Tom walker (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Milton Keynes is still, as always, a town. A big town, but a town. In design and scope it's exactly like Stevenage or Harlow but slightly bigger. More accurate than cathedrals, one way to know if you're in a city is to look at the roads around you. If they are all running at 70mph for at least 1 minute of each day, you are not in a city. If they are all running at 4mph even at 3am, every single night of every single week, you're in a city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that locals refer to Milton Keynes (and in particular central Milton Keynes as a city or "the city" is because of the original intent. It was conceived as a place that would develop into a city in the future "City of the Future" used in taglines in the 1970s. So the expression "New City" appeared in the names of many places, clubs and businesses. "City" is just a contraction of New City, meaning the work in progress place. 212.62.26.100 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Population & area
First of all, many thanks to John Maynard Friedman for updating the population figures, the newer the better. I'm also wondering if the area figure needs changing? In the last few years the city has expanded beyond the original designated boundary (namely at Broughton Gate, Magna Park and Brooklands as well as Linford Park and Stantonbury Park Farm). Do the new population figures include these new areas too? I know the urban area officially includes Newport Pagnell now too, so it makes sense to include that (don't know if we have been doing or not) Any other thoughts? Tom walker (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness that's a confusing website. It gives the 2001 urban figure as 177,500, about 8,000 less than the official census. Do you reckon the population of Newport Pagnell might be in the region of 8,000? The 198,512 2009 figure also disagrees with the figure you arrive at if you take the 2001 census figure, take the difference between that and the 2001 borough figure and subtract it from the 2009 borough figure. That gives you something in the region of 210,000. Unless somebody's doubled the size of Olney without telling me, that indicates that they're not using Newport, but if the official census does then I think we should too. It is a physical part of the urban area. Mind you, so is Old Stratford, and that's in Northamptonshire. Apropos the expansion areas, other than asking the council if they've included all of them, I don't know how we can find out? Tom walker (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - [1] gives the Newport Pagnell population as being around 8,000. Also the document states figures include the Eastern Expansion Area, but makes no mention of the Northern or Newton Leys ones. Tom walker (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Classification of this article
A class C article and a 'Low importance in Buckinghamshire' may be argued, but surely the classification should be done by an editor who has no connection with the subject (unlike Severo). Conventionally, the classifier gives an explanation is given for his/her classification. I have reverted the classification pending a neutral review. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I Think MK also now justifies a mid-importance on the cities Wikiproject according to their own guidelines (population over 200,000 and media coverage of an event, I'm thinking the scaffold collapse to name but one). Maybe that has to wait until after the 2011 Census data come out, however long that's going to take. Tom walker (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails the B-Class criteria - specifically #1, that is it is not suitable referenced and there are quite a few unreferenced challengeable statements. For example:
Nevertheless, the terms 'city' and 'city centre' are widely used by its citizens, local media and bus services to describe itself, perhaps because the term 'town' is taken to mean one of the constituent towns.
Most grid squares have Local Centres, intended as local retail hubs and most with community facilities as well. Originally intended under the Master Plan to sit alongside the Grid Roads, the Local Centres were mostly in fact built embedded in the communities and some are becoming unviable as a result of this and pressure from the new hypermarkets.
Despite what appears to be a desirable facility, rates of cycle commuting in Milton Keynes are well below the national average for urban areas. The detailed article includes a critical appraisal.
Now that the trees and shrubs have matured, the skill and lavish scale of the Grid Road planting makes a dramatic and welcome change from the monotony of many British towns and cities.
Milton Keynes does not have a mainstream airport. Given the proximity of Luton and Birmingham airports, it seems unlikely that it will acquire one.
These are not serious problems and, in my opinion, the article is not far from B-Class but at the moment it clearly fails the criteria. The reason I re-classified this article is actually that I want to come back to it (with the intention of an MK featured topic by 23 January 2017). The problem with "involved editors" and rating articles is that often they over-rate their own work. If you would like an independent review, who do you propose asking for one? Do any of the tagged projects do B-Class reviews? If you intend just waiting for one, I think that it would be better to remove the classification altogether. SeveroTC06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Severo, first I think that it would have been wise to have explained all this before changing the classification. Given that you live in MK, you must realise that there was a risk of conflict of interest. In the light of your subsequent explanation I applaud your motives. Nevertheless, classification should be done by a neutral third party. None of the regular editors should even consider doing it. Btw, I think that you may be confusing B class with GA class. B says that
Yes, there is certainly some OR and WP:PEACOCK in the lines you mention, but I have trouble seeing them as 'important or controversial' in the article as a whole. But they certainly wouldn't pass muster for GA!
GA is certainly a target we can achieve and FA is one to aim for. But in the meantime we should at least be honest about our strengths and weakenesses. The article is not C grade. A more constructive approach would have been to find the citations [Plan for Milton Keynes], or rephrase [example "Milton Keynes does not have a mainstream airport. Given the proximity of Luton and Birmingham airports, it seems unlikely that it will acquire one." to "Milton Keynes does not have a mainstream airport. Luton and Birmingham airports can be reached by public transport in less than an hour.(cite virgin trains and vt99 timetables)"] or just delete the OR/PEA. I invite you to revisit your decision to reclassify. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A constructive approach is to first recognise what's wrong before going on to fix it. Step-by-step. I would love to be able to go straight to the next step but we all have time limitations so I don't think it's fair to criticise me on that. I think the best course is to fix the errors and then look at reassessing. I should add that criteria 4 of the B-Class criteria is also failable here due to the peacock terms. Anyway it doesn't really matter because it's something to work from. How about we set some target dates to send this to GA? How about end of July for peer review and then end of August for GA? SeveroTC14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have access to the details of the Britain in Bloom assessments of MK? It is one of the 2011 City/large town finalists, having won the SE region.[2]. Previously in BinB, MK won an RHS gold medal. It might help provide some citations for the praise for the parks and lakes. Is "Destination Milton Keynes " a reliable source? See [3]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've gone and done it again. I reverted Tmol42's figure because that's the figure for the whole Borough. We are still waiting for the ONS to produce the Urban Area figure. Meanwhile, my only suggestion is to sum the data for the urban parishes. Volunteer needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake on the UA figure I presumed the 2001 census figure was correct so updated based on that. Do we have to go down to parish level as some of the very smallest parishes are not yet published due to DP issues? Can we define MK town by urban wards or at least all the clearly urban parishes plus any that are split by parishes assuming there are all co-termonous boundaries as it seems that the MK Observatory talk in terms of Borough split by 'urban' and 'rural'? Here the list of wards in Milton Keynes UA with my stab of what is in. not sure=name? or out; Bletchley and Fenny Stratford; Bradwell; Campbell Park; Danesborough; Denbigh; Eaton Manor; Emerson Valley?; Furzton?; Hanslope Park; Linford North; Linford South; Loughton Park?; Middleton; Newport Pagnell North; Newport Pagnell South; Olney; Sherington; Stantonbury; Stony Stratford; Walton Park; Whaddon?; Wolverton; Woughton Tmol42 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could just go back to the 2009 estimate we were using before until the urban areas figure is released... also does anyone know what happened to the largest 25 settlements template? I was really looking forward to seeing MK gain its rightful place on that. Tom walker (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is better to have no figure than a wrong figure. The figures on MKi Observatory are for the Borough. The wards go outside the (extended) boundary to make up the numbers for electoral reasons so we can't use those. We can only use the Parishes. (see template:Milton Keynes parishes. Sorry I don't have time now to go through them to mark which is in and which is out.
The 'largest 25 settlements' template was deleted because it lacked a reliable base. People were arbitrarily using the 1971 boundary, ignoring extensions. It clearly doesn't work at all for MK and works badly for Northampton - just to take two locations at random. A 'list of urban areas' might have worked since it is based on ONS data but Birmingham (and Wolverhampton, Dudey, Sutton Coldfield) objected to being just West Midlands. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can do it by wards if we use the definitions used at the census
One observation. Despite referring to the various MK articles on WP and from the MK Observatory I still was left with the belief that there is still a valid distinction between the ONS defined MK Urban Area and Milton Keynes the town. I think the relationship between this article and the sister article Milton Keynes Urban Area needs looking at as does the wording contained in the latter which still indicates that Newport Pagnell is outside the "MK boundary". In short there needs to be a clarification of what is 1. the Borough / UA, 2. the Urban Area 3. The Town (if different) and I guess for good measure 4 Milton Keynes the parish/ village.Tmol42 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The convention now on wikipedia is to use urban area since that is the concept used by the reliable source, the ONS, and to forget about 'traditional' boundaries as hopelessly out of date (even though the ONS still used them in the 2001 census report but only as an urban sub-area, for continuity reasons). The ONS says that NP is part of the MK urban area. It would be POV for us to declare something else.
(info re MK parish, aka Middleton, belongs in that article, not this one).
Archives of old websites from Milton Keynes government
MK to be featured article in January 2017 for 50th anniversary? That gives us Max 18 months to achieve GA, then a year in the queue.
So let's get a move on!
As a minimum, all the web citations need to use the cite web template. Every section must be tested ruthlessly and individually against the GA criteria. Let's do it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited material at 'Linear parks'
I have removed this text from Milton Keynes#Linear parks because no source is provided to support it after two years of asking. If anyone can supply a source, please do so and then it can be reinstated.
Youngman[citation needed] introduced a policy of creating "settings, strings, beads" for landscape features: 'settings' for historic villages and landscape features, 'strings' of landscape to make the linear parks hang together and 'beads' of public space where residents might linger.[citation needed] Higson also made the landscaping of the Grid Roads,[citation needed] one of the features of Milton Keynes, more subtle, with 'windows' cut into the roadside planting so that motorists travelling through had a sense of the major town they were in; early critics had said of Milton Keynes 'there is no there there', as the town could not be seen by the motorist just passing through. [citation needed]
I have reverted an edit which replaced the reliable [Office of National Statistics] source for the population of MK, which reports the population of the contiguous built up area, with an incorrect figure sourced from citypopulation.de . For some unexplained/unexplainable reason best known only to them, the ONS has defined an urban sub-area that they also called 'Milton Keynes', which actually covers no more than two-thirds of the real MK [it excludes 'greater Bletchley', for example, which has been part of MK since day one]. Citypopulation.de has used the data for this sub-area, leading to them giving a wildly inaccurate figure for MK as a whole. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is [though not before yesterday] - see Milton Keynes#Urban design. The article is rather long and, while of great interest to historians, every detail of the early years will just lose modern readers, especially those not from MK. He, Jock Campbell and others are more fully covered in the MKDC article.
To my eye, the greater deficiency in the early years narrative is that we have nothing about the civil engineers who did all the non-glamourous but essential stuff. But we need citations, we can't just assert it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding him only four minutes after I asked about it! The BBC are covering the 50th anniversary, but I've heard no mention of Lord Campbell, only of Roche. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New town proposed near Haversham
I removed an addition that claimed [without any evidence] that MK Council has a plan to develop a satellite new town near Haversham - it does not. In reality all we have is a proposal[1] by Gallagher Estates for such a development, another one of many kite-flying proposals by various developers down the years. Most go nowhere. As of February 2017, there is nothing in the Structure Plan that would permit it. A wild guess might speculate that, as Gallagher has options on this land, it is hoping to influence the direction of the new plan in its favour. A cynic might interpret Sam Crooks's support for the idea as associated with his long-standing wish to stop MK spreading east across the M1 towards Cranfield. But all of this is so much speculation. In accordance with Wikipedia policy wp:CRYSTAL, it can't go in the article as of today.
If/when there is an adopted plan, then a brief summary can be given but even then we don't give space to the developers' hot air until that start putting money on the table in the form of a planning application. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Milton Keynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 8 external links on Milton Keynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Milton Keynes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
We appear to have a disagreement over the span of postcodes for the MK area.
As defined by the best external reliable source, the Office of National Statistics, as of the 2011 census, MK includes Newport Pagnell (MK15) and Woburn Sands (MK17).
As defined by the New Town Designation order in 1967, these settlements were outside MK
As defined by the Postmaster General (again about 50 years ago), Newport Pagnell is a separate 'post town';. In 2017, its post is handled in exactly the same way as the rest of MK. The post town for Woburn Sands is Milton Keynes.
So we have a choice: a) per [1], recognise the facts on the ground and show "MK1 - 17"; b) per [2], pretend that nothing has changed in 50 years and show MK1 - MK14; c) per [3], accept that postcodes belong to the Post Office and if they haven't bothered to change then neither should we (implies MK1 - MK14, MK17).
3. To the best of my knowledge, the post town and postcode infobox relates to the area covered by said town. For example, the Wikipedia page of my hometown Norwich lists the districts as NR1-NR16, which correspond to the table in the NR postcode area with all localities covered by the Norwich post town. Furthermore, the Royal Mail themselves have stated that the postal system does not necessarily correspond to other government systems and are sorted purely for postal purposes. Other pages I have seen only list the postcode areas covered by said post town, and not based on census data. Samuel J Walker (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
