This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
Any opinions on the most representative pic for the info box? -- Concrete Cowboy 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
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.
[?]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
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, Severo T C 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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, Severo T C 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Severo T C 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
References
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)
This is just a generic guidance note. Comments welcome.
Comments? Other criteria? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | The article is
suitably referenced, with
inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of neither <ref> tags nor citation templates such as {{
cite web}} is required.
|
” |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Anyone? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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).
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gazeley.com/Our_Site/Details/52When 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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
We appear to have a disagreement over the span of postcodes for the MK area.
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)
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
non-notable school Tacyarg ( talk) 21:39, 21 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)
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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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.
-- 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
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)
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)
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
Any opinions on the most representative pic for the info box? -- Concrete Cowboy 18:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
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.
[?]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
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, Severo T C 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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, Severo T C 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Severo T C 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
References
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)
This is just a generic guidance note. Comments welcome.
Comments? Other criteria? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | The article is
suitably referenced, with
inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of neither <ref> tags nor citation templates such as {{
cite web}} is required.
|
” |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Anyone? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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).
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.gazeley.com/Our_Site/Details/52When 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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
We appear to have a disagreement over the span of postcodes for the MK area.
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)
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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
non-notable school Tacyarg ( talk) 21:39, 21 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)
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)
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tim riley ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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.
-- 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
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)
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)
References