Jump to content

Talk:Milton Keynes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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 Antar 01:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is already in Milton Keynes in popular culture. --Concrete Cowboy 13:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request: History of Milton Keynes

I would welcome peer review of History of Milton Keynes (directly or at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Milton Keynes/archive1, please - ideally to make FA on the UK or History portal on 23 January 2007, 40 years after designation. --Concrete Cowboy 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ferris wheel in CMK

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 Cowboy 17:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Its location on the page was away from other pictures but not directly relevent to that sub section. It may only be temporary but still worth listing - it is very impressive - even if the phot isn't! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Best pic for info box

Any opinions on the most representative pic for the info box? --Concrete Cowboy 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How about from the far side of Willen Lake looking towards the city town centre at dusk or dawn? Mk3severo 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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 Cowboy 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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. Mk3severo 17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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 Cowboy 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Whilst we're talking about photos, any obvious shots missing from Milton Keynes articles? Mk3severo 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Can't think of any, but have a look at the portfolio in Wiki Commons. --Concrete Cowboy 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

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.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for 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:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • 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==.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • 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][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. These are just ideas and are not always necessary. It may be worthing aiming for GA status, and getting some of the users involved in that process to suggest further improvements, Thanks, GazMan7 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC) This link may be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment

Good Article

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, SeveroTC 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

No - as said in a variety of places, the name dates back for hundreds of years. See Middleton, Milton Keynes. --Concrete Cowboy 12:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- roleplayer 11:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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? LookingYourBest 12:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Cowboy 12:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about putting that discussion bit in the main article - I'd C&Pd it from the other article! LookingYourBest 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Cowboy 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops did mean to leave a comment here. I think Art in Milton Keynes should be merged into here. - SeveroTC 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
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 Cowboy 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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). SeveroTC 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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, SeveroTC 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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. SeveroTC 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
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. SeveroTC 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernkaste-Kues twin town?

Is there any evidence that this arrangement continues to exist? One would expect the official website of at least one of the towns to record it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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)
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

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]

and, "this disaster, in my judgement" [2]


and comments on sustainability:

"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)

Strong support Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Any such critical commentary regarding the design and execution belong in the Milton Keynes Development Corporation article or possibly the History of Milton Keynes article, not this article. It would also need to be counter-balanced with referenced to articles such as those in Urban Design "Milton Keynes at 40" --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

  1. ^ Edwards, M. (2001) City design: what went wrong at Milton Keynes? Journal of Urban Design, 6 (1). pp. 87-96. ISSN 13574809
  2. ^ Edwards, M. (2001) City design: what went wrong at Milton Keynes? Journal of Urban Design, 6 (1). pp. 87-96. ISSN 13574809
  3. ^ 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)

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.

Comments? Other criteria? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Quincy Washington

The article on Quincy Washington (winner of CBBC's Young Apprentice) was deleted as 'not notable' and consequently deleted from this article. For explanation, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quincy Washington. If he does something else that's notable, the article might get recreated and be allowed to stay.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Richards

I don't think Eddie Richards belongs here, he is from South Bucks and his association with MK may only be as a visitor.--212.62.26.100 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no brainer as he is from Amersham. He probably did a few gigs at the Sanctuary. Removed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Economic base?

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)

Mostly service with hi-tech manufacturing, but I don't have any citations. Anyone? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I found it in the borough article and added it --AW (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)

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 Partnership in Central 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)


The information comes from MKC Population Bulletin 2008/09. The 231,400 figure is found on what Adobe Reader calls page 5 (numbered page 2). http://www.miltonkeynes.gov.uk/statistics/documents/PopulationBulletin2008-9.pdf

Alexander J. Hamilton (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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. -- roleplayer 13:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Yay, Leighton Buzzard for city status!!! -- roleplayer 14:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

MKBC make it very difficult (hence by first erroneous attempt) by blurring what is MK and what is MKB – see http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/statistics/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=11407 and especially http://analysis.mkiobservatory.org.uk/webview/index.jsp?v=2&mode=cube&cube=http://analysis.mkiobservatory.org.uk:80/obj/fCube/PE097_C1&study=http://analysis.mkiobservatory.org.uk:80/obj/fStudy/PE097&top=yes which has the 'urban' population and the 'rural' population, as opposed to city and non-city. As for the expansion areas, I don't see that we should have any concerns because these are redrawing the boundary by Statutory Instrument – see the Prescott stuff at Expansion plans for Milton Keynes. As for Newport, it's all a bit academic now as the ONS has recognised with the urban area statement, but the fact remains that it formally ouside the boundary and, according to the Wikipedia definition of a settlement, should not be included, even though it is a pain to find consistent data. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops I misread your point about the expansion areas. Yes, we should include them in the area figure, but where do we get a revised figure? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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. SeveroTC 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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? SeveroTC 14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Population's vanished

Just wondering what happened to the population line in the infobox? It seems to have disappeared entirely. Tom walker (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was incorreectly added by an IP. I have updated it now.Tmol42 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, could have sworn I left a message as well as a comment. Yes, I deleted it because the figure was unsourced (the claimed source dated from 2008). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I think we can do it by wards if we use the definitions used at the census

There is a handy table at http://www.mkiobservatory.org.uk/Download/Public/1026/DOCUMENT/10179/Difference%20between%202011%20Census%20and%202011%20MKC-Estimates.pdf which gives (among other things) the 2011 census by ward that we can easily turn into a wikitable. [Aknowledgement to Tmol who came up with this idea first]. Although the ward boundaries get modified between censuses, they are fixed for the census. The ward map is here: http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/parishes/documents/A3P_MK_Wards_with_MKC_Logo_map_12.05.11.pdf

Ward Population
Bletchley_and_Fenny_Stratford 13,581
Bradwell 12,938
Campbell_Park 16,859
Denbigh 8,062
Eaton_Manor 8,563
Emerson_Valley 17,896
Furzton 9,148
Linford_North 8,397
Linford_South 9,672
Loughton_Park 18,108
Middleton 15,775
Newport_Pagnell_North 7,392
Newport_Pagnell_South 7,726
Stantonbury 9,469
Stony_Stratford 12,148
Walton_Park 14,559
Whaddon 8,462
Wolverton 15,601
Woughton 11,824
Milton_Keynes Urban 226,180

and

Ward Population
Danesborough 4,672
Hanslope_Park 5,132
Olney 8,735
Sherington 4,102
BMK rural 22,641

Any comments before we put up the 226,180 figure? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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)
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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://mkweb.co.uk This has archives from the late 1990s and early 2000s WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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]

Anyone? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Citypopulation.de not a reliable source for MK

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)

Fred Roche

Why is Roche, described today on BBC television as "the father of Milton Keynes", not mentioned in this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

References

  1. ^ New MK ‘daughter settlement’ of 20,000 homes could engulf countryside and villages MK Citizen 4 August 2016

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

MK postcodes

We appear to have a disagreement over the span of postcodes for the MK area.

  1. 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).
  2. As defined by the New Town Designation order in 1967, these settlements were outside MK
  3. 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).

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

Accepted, having read the more detailed articles. The "post town" and the location are not coterminous. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hospital

As of 24 November, the infobox for Milton Keynes University Hospital is still showing the old entrance. Could someone please supply an image of the new one? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Quality challenge

The article is now technically up to snuff in that all significant statements are supported by citation. The next challenge is the more difficult one: improving the style, rewriting or pruning out the leaden prose. Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Any comments or contributions before submission for GA evaluation?

If anyone can contribute or suggest improvements, please do so now.

Our peer reviewer wonders whether the quotation from the Community Foundation (that currently closes the lead) could be improved for WP purposes by paraphrasing it rather than quoting it. I wish I could write so succinctly! If anyone else sees it as problematic, would they please say so - and ideally propose words sufficiently different as not to fall foul of wp:paraphrase (which says essentially that 'in your own words' has to more than a token effort). It is tempting just to leave it out but I really don't think we can do that, the article must reflect the good, the bad and the ugly. Well, ok, maybe not The Hub, we have to show some mercy towards our readers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Grove School, Milton Keynes

non-notable school Tacyarg (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose merge. No other primary schools are even mentioned in the overall MK article, what makes this one so special? The MK article is already quite long and has been improved over the years by moving this sort of very minor detail out to subsidiary articles. If you want to start Education in Milton Keynes, then put it there otherwise wp:speedy delete it as not notable product placement. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Have tagged for CSD. Tacyarg (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the existing example of Newton Leys Primary School and the discussion above, I have changed that article to a redirect and deleted this merge proposal. As usual, WP:BRD applies. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Gratitude to peer reviewers

I believe it appropriate to record here our gratitude to SkyGazer 512 and Tim riley who generously gave their time to peer review this article, so as to bring it up to be a Good Article candidate. (See Wikipedia:Peer review/Milton Keynes/archive1.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the shout-out, John Maynard Friedman. I was hoping to be able to review the article more thoroughly, but I couldn't as I was quite busy with other stuff on Wikipedia and IRL, but after a brief looking over of this article I do not think it would be quick-failed in its current state. If you need any help with the review once its started, feel free to ping me and I'll see if I can help. Thank you for your work on this article and I hope the review goes well!--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 17:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Article size?

Does anybody know whether the article size advice in wp:summary style refers to the size as reported in "page information" or the size of actual body text. If the latter, it is ok (42,147 characters, 6962 words - including three characters per reference or footnote) but if it is the former (110,631 bytes) then major butchery would be required, which is not something that I for one would make the time to do. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Milton Keynes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


Initial comments

Having contributed to the peer review of this article I have held back from reviewing it for GAN to give other editors the chance to do so, but as the review has been open for three weeks or so I'm happy to do the review. Starting first read-through of the current text now, and will be back with comments shortly. Tim riley talk 09:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley:, thank you very much for giving your time to doing this review. I will begin working through your comments tonight. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Detailed comments

I could with a clear conscience promote this fine article as it stands, because in my view it meets the GA criteria already. The following few comments are made more with potential FAC in mind than with GA, but I hope they will be useful.

  • Lead
  • "neolithic" – the WP article and the OED both capitalise the word. (The latter adds "Forms: also with lower-case initial" but a capital N seems the safer option).
 Done
  • Seats for theatre, concert hall and stadium: as the numbers of seats are used as attributive adjectives I think the theatre and stadium should follow the hyphen given to the concert hall: "a 1400-seat theatre" and "a 30,500-seat football stadium". I suppose by that logic it should be "a 65,000-capacity open-air concert", though I admit one is in danger of overdosing on hyphens.
 Done For consistency and to avoid inconvenient line breaks, hyphenated all,
  • "However, despite this economic success" – this is the first of five "howevers" in the article, and although "howevers" have their place I don't think any of the five here add anything to the sense (except possibly the one in the Height section) and they rather dilute the prose, in my view.
I agree.  Done You might question my two replacement "in contrast"s but I think that they are appropriate in context.
  • Birth of a "New City
  • "lakes and parkland that are so evident today" – the "so" strikes a slightly editorial note, I think.
 Done An editor in the past was keen on such expressions, I thought I had found them all.
  • "Local Centres in most of the grid squares" – local centres are in lower case later in the article – rightly so, I'd say.
 Done, flagged in the peer review but missed one.
  • History
  • "late Industrial revolution settlements" – our WP article capitalises both the I and the R.
 Done
  • "World War II" in the text but "Second World War" in the caption of the photo of Bletchley Park. Probably better to be consistent one way or the other.
 Done
  • Redways
  • "270 kilometres or 170 miles total length" – this is, I think, the only place in which you give kilometres first and miles second. Perhaps there is good reason for this inconsistency, but it isn't obvious.
 Done.
  • Linear parks
  • As with the km/mi, above, the ha/acres are not in the order adopted elsewhere in the article.
 Done
  • "a third larger than Richmond Park and ten times larger than London's Hyde Park" – I think I see why you have phrased this thus, but it might flow better if you moved the "London's" to before Richmond. It would be clear that the immediately following mention of Hyde Park did not refer to the Hyde Parks in other cities. But you may disagree and I don't press the point.
 Done as ten times larger than London's Hyde Park and a third larger than Richmond Park.
  • Original towns and villages
  • I don't know that I'd italicise Rose and Crown Inn or capitalise Parish Church, but again, I don't press the point.
 Done
  • "cryptographers broke a large number of Axis codes and ciphers, including the German Enigma machine" – they didn't break the machine, but its codes.
 Done which fixed a redirect
  • Music
  • "founded by jazz artists Cleo Laine and John Dankworth" – on the whole you have avoided false titles in the article, and I think it would benefit from a "the" before the "jazz", to take away the slightly tabloidese flavour.
 Done also changed 'artist' to 'musician'.
  • Arts, theatre and museums
  • "The adjacent 1,400 seat" – hyphen, as mentioned above?
 Done Yes, numbers giving a quantity are required to have a hyphen or a {{nbsp}}
  • Education
  • "Like most parts of the UK, the state secondary schools in Milton Keynes are comprehensives" – this would be more precise if you changed "Like" to "As in". At present the sentence says that most parts of the UK are comprehensives. Nobody will mistake your meaning, but it would be as well to have the prose watertight.
 Done. But they might wonder which compo I attended, like?
  • A tale of two cities
  • As you have carried over the capitalisation of "Small and Medium Enterprise" in the header three paras earlier I wonder if you should do similarly here, "A Tale of Two Cities"? Just a thought. As you are quoting, I don't think MoS purists could object.
 Not done I changed it as suggested but have decided that it is just wrong. It is not a book title, it is a quote. (I've put in quotes as it is a quote. MOS:HEAD doesn't object and it might protect against those who object to misuse(!) of the word city.)
I have decapitalised Small and medium enterprise.
  • Closest cities and towns
  • Am I right in supposing the order in which Northampton etc and Coventry etc are listed reflects how far each is from Milton Keynes?
Yes
  • Notable people
  • There is some inconsistency in the amount of detail you give about the various worthies in the list. There is a 36-word para on Christopher B-Lynch, which seems disproportionate by contrast with most of the other people mentioned.
 Done. To avoid wp:OWN, I have generally not interfered with how people are listed here but for GA it definitely needs tightening.
  • Similarly, though I am quite willing to believe that Emily Bergl is a notable person, I doubt that her relevance to Milton Keynes requires the reader to know that her mother was Irish or her father an English architect.
 Done

That's my lot. I'd like to emphasise again that these points are merely advisory, and do not affect the question of promotion to GA: the prose certainly meets the relevant GA standard already. But as the article seems to me to have FAC potential I have been as pernickety as I can, as you no doubt see. – Tim riley talk 10:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that it passed the scintillating writing test for FA , though, but thank you for the implied compliment.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Promoting to GA. As to FAC I am leaving a note on the nominator's talk page, but here I will just record that I found this a thoroughly satisfying article, and it was a pleasure to read and reread it. – Tim riley talk 08:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


Midsummer Boulevard, astronomical alignment adjustment

Names
Midsummer sunrise is somewhere to the east – not actually on the alignment of Midsummer Boulevard: it's slightly to the left of the sewage works chimney... But it was a good urban myth to lay down. Let's call that road Midsummer Boulevard because you could tell people that on Midsummer's Day, the sun rises at the end of it, which it nearly does. And the other two? We'll refer to our Anglo-Saxon heritage, because this is not an American new town... It's an English new town, in an English place, on a Common, where three Saxon Hundreds used to meet at that little mound behind the library. So we refer to Avebury and Silbury as being part of our historical and cultural references. We've got all these overlays of mystical alignments and (what) was done in Queen's Courts - the stainless steel circle with the cryptic clues, which somebody some day will decode about the ley lines and the stellar alignments... which also then embellish the understanding of this grid.

Professor David Lock[1]

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted an addition to this main article about the alignment of Midsummer Boulevard. Although the item is true (and sourced), IMO it is too much of a detail to go in this overview article (which is already rather long). The item is already covered at Central Milton Keynes#Topology. Midsummer Bvd is a major street in the city centre but it is not a city-wide grid road: if we are to have that kind of detail about one particular part of MK in the main article then there are items relating to the other towns and villages that are just as notable. I don't wp:OWN this article so if there is a significant consensus that it should be included, I will concede. But note that, as this article is rated GA, the criteria for changes are that much more challenging. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is understandable, however, it might be advisable to insert a brief reference to a realignment of the street in order to motivate some readers to follow-up at the sub-page for details. Let's see what other editors think. Also, it would be helpful to define terms such as GA for those not familiar with them. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Well it wasn't physically realigned since at that stage it was just a blueprint for a greenfield site. GA linked above as suggested, thanks. I am conscious that, to New Age fans, this is story is important, but then equally so is the last sighting of the Princes in the Tower to monarchists and likewise England's first Turnpike on Watling Street to engineering historians, the pilgrimage chapel at Bradwell Abbey to Christians and so on.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This story is well known locally to be an urban myth, the so-called alignment is coincidental. None of the books about the history of modern MK or the MKDC mention it. Some gullible London journalist got suckered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.200.122 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It is reported in some detail in the Introduction of Watling Street: Travels Through Britain and Its Ever-Present Past, Higgs, 2017, ISBN 9781474603478 --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The anon IP is correct! Unimpressed by the nonsense in Higgs (2007) (who claims that the whole city-wide grid is offset from 'true' NSEW to suit some mystical alignment, rather that being dictated as it was by the pre-existing M1 and A5, and his source is someone who was a junior clerk at the time), I searched a more reliable source: the words of the people who actually built it. It is unambiguously a hoax that certainly doesn't belong in the main article and will remain in the CMK article so that it can be debunked. (And BTW, which idiot said we don't need libraries any more now that we have the internet?). I have given the quote verbatim in the box above right. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

See also section?

Would this be a suitable candidate for the See Also section? (I am sympathetic to your view that we should tempt readers to explore further but conversely one person's astonishing nugget is another person's boring trivia so I think it best to keep the main body 'tight'). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Or its own Did you know? ? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that the alignment has been exposed as a myth, I suggest that we do not take this any further. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kitchen, Roger (2007). Hill, Marion (ed.). 'The story of the original CMK' … told by the people who shaped the original Central Milton Keynes (interviews). Milton Keynes: Living Archive. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-904847-34-5. Retrieved 26 January 2009. (Professor Lock is visiting professor of town planning at Reading University. He was the chief town planner for CMK.)

Again: John Maynard Keynes, John Milton, Milton Friedman, and Milton Keynes

User:John Maynard Friedman reverted my (sourced) edit on the link between the town name and the poet and the two economists, arguing that "'contrary to what one might think' is not encyclopedic" and that it should be taken to the talk page if I "really think that the article didn't already cover the name adequate". Leaving aside the rudeness of reverting this without prior discussion, I'd like to point out that the history of the name is rather obviously not fully covered in the article - sure, the village of Middleton is mentioned, but not the actually existing link of John Maynard Keynes to that place. If you don't like the "contrary to what one might think" part then reword that rather than deleting a useful addition to the article. This entry is not your property. SchnitteUK (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@SchnitteUK:, please read wp:Bold, revert, discuss. Once an article has achieved wp:GA or wp:FA, the standard expected of additions or changes is that much higher, so yes I don't wp:own the article but did no more than I would do for a similar controversial addition to any GA or FA status article. It is not rude, it is how things are done.
As a general principle, Wikipedia rarely says what something is not, preferring to emphasise what it is. The origin of the name is mentioned twice in the article, though I accept that both are very brief. It would be reasonable to have a very short etymology section that mentions the De Cahaignes / Keynes family, such as is given in the Middleton, Milton Keynes article. Would you propose such a section here for comment? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
What would really be a worthwhile addition, if you can find it, is why this name was chosen rather than, say, Bradwell Common? I came across a reference somewhere to Jock Campbell putting his finger on the map and saying, "that's it, that's what we'll call it" (or words to that effect) but failed to note the reference at the time and have never found it again. Living Archive might be a good place to start? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
... which turns out in fact to have been Dick Crossman. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD says that as an alternative to agreeing a consensus text on the talk page, that I should try to develop your contribution. So I withdrew my revert and instead have revised your text substantially. The new text has a more sound basis to mention John Milton and John Maynard Keynes. It explains the origin of the name and puts it in a national context (other places called _____ Keynes). Finally, it has a more convincing source, convincing to me anyway. I hope that the result delivers on the intent of your contribution, even though it is not in your words. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits by 84.67.111.209, 13 July 2020

User:84.67.111.209 added some material that seems to me to be irrelevant detail for this article, especially when it clutters the lead. The diff is here.

  1. Milton Keynes is in Buckinghamshire, a ceremonial county that consists of two administrative counties (Unitary Authorities). This is the first thing that the article has to say, because it provides a geographic frame of reference for a national (potentially international) audience. The detail about the unitary authority belongs in the second sentence.
    Historically part of Buckinghamshire, in 1997 it ceased to form part of Buckinghamshire is incorrect and irrelevant in any case (because this article is not about the Borough of Milton Keynes). But for the record, what actually happened in 1997 was that BoMK left that administrative county controlled by Buckinghamshire County Council (that continued to be called Buckinghamshire) but remained part of the ceremonial county. (This dual naming makes explanations difficult so readers may find the example of Bedfordshire easier to follow). Earlier this year, Buckinghamshire Council was reconstituted as a Unitary Authority: the Buckinghamshire article is now exclusively about the ceremonial county.
  2. The new paragraph beginning "In 1995 the Secretary of State submitted a report on its review of the county of Buckinghamshire together with its recommendations" is true but irrelevant because it is about the Borough (and covered in its article). It does not belong here.

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

As a counter-argument for your revisions, should the correct term be "county and area for the purposes of lieutenancy" rather than the informal "ceremonial county". These are legal and not geographic areas of reference only.User:84.67.111.209

Thank you for raising this first at the talk page. I think I have already fixed (well, danced around) that issue (see next section written 14 July, because on reflection I could see your point). The revisions are these:
  • The introductory paragraph (the "lead") now says just that "Milton Keynes is a large town in Buckinghamshire": I removed the text about BoMK and the Unitary Authority as too detailed for the lead. So there is nothing explicit there about the status of Buckinghamshire in law. (The lead of the Buckinghamshire article does use the term "ceremonial", is that what you meant? If so, then it would be wise to propose new wording at talk:Buckinghamshire first.)
  • The section "Local government" reads The responsible local government is Milton Keynes Council, which controls the Borough of Milton Keynes, a Unitary Authority and (in law, a non-metropolitan county) since May 1996.[1] Until then, it was controlled by Buckinghamshire County Council. (Thank you again for providing that citation that enabled an annoying silly error to be corrected). This doesn't mention "ceremonial county" either.
Does that resolve your concern? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you've sailed way past the point I was making. "These are legal and not geographic areas of reference only.". Why is the area for the purposes of lieutenancy stated at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.111.209 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to use talk:Borough of Milton Keynes to propose a rewording of the Borough of Milton Keynes article, which currently reads The Borough of Milton Keynes is a unitary authority area and borough of the ceremonial county of Buckinghamshire. ? That text was written before the Buckinghamshire article stopped being primarily about Bucks County Council and consequently is more convoluted than it needs to be. Ideally the lead section should be tight and uncluttered with legal detail, but that precision should be given in the body.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-metropolitan county

The anon editor has added the detail that the Borough is, in law, a non-metropolitan county. This is true but to me it just adds off-topic clutter. The article is not about the Borough and this very technical detail, it seems to me, is not useful in this article. Does anyone want to defend it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The anon editor does have a reasonable argument that if the Unitary Authority detail is given then the NmC detail should be given too. So I will delete both for now and see if anyone feels it is essential. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The big problem was that it was too detailed for the lead but otherwise valid. So I have re-added it in the body under 'Local government'. I think that this is a sensible compromise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It turns out that the anon editor's contribution, although in the wrong place, was actually very valuable, The original BBC citation given at "Local authority" (for establishment of BoMK separate from 'rest of Bucks') did not in fact support the sentence it was claimed to support – and the date was wrong. I have recycled the citation that the anon editor provided (and corrected the text accordingly), so I would like to thank them for helping improve the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "The Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order 1995". Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milton_Keynes/Archive_2&oldid=1137012804"