Talk:Milton Keynes

The 'Culture, Education, Media & Sport' tab should be split into separate tabs

In my opinion, the 'Culture, Education, Media & Sport' tab should be spilt into separate tabs as in my opinion it would make the article easier to follow. User:Xboxsponge15 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No objections, just go ahead and change it Abcmaxx (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

How? Each topic is too small in itself. The government uses "Culture, Media and Sport", with Education separate: would that do? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have re-jigged the sections a little bit, as there was quite a bit of duplication and some of the sections seemed to be a little odd, especially if you compare it to articles on other cities. There are still only 10 level 1 subheadings, which is not a lot considering the size of the article. I did not add or remove any information though. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As an additional point, the fact that the government uses a certain phrase does not convince me, as the government does lots of unusual and illogical things which do not work well. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Added up to date info on the radio stations Fishplater (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Twinning / partner cities

Expanded the section, but the sources although reliable could be a lot better, if anyone knows where to find this information then please do not hesitate to add it. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if these belong at the Borough article? Otherwise we need to include the twins of the constituent towns, like Ploegsteert with Wolverton (if I remember correctly). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman As far as I found, these belong to the twinning of Milton Keynes itself. I think the German borough-equivalent of Bernkastel-Wittlich is twinned with the Borough of Milton Keynes, which is where Bernkastel-Kues is which is twinned with Milton Keynes. However, at this point though I'm happy to be corrected where necessary. Although as Milton Keynes expands, the distinction between borough and the city will be ever more blurred, I would argue that the cases of Newport Pagnell, Bletchley, Wolverton, already has blurred the divisions. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, accepted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to check the citations but how current are they? I remember researching the twin town issue a few years back and couldn't find any evidence of a current formal twinning arrangement with any other city. Almere was mentioned specifically as a 'partner' city with common interests but no more. The arrangement with Bernkastel had completely lapsed. If we are giving this list as current information then the citations need to be no more than a couple of years old, IMO. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

So I tried looking for sources which would even discuss twinning but could not find any, also tried to see whether any of them lapsed, also could not find any mention anywhere. It all seems very unstructured to be honest. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Twinning was "a thing" last century. Very BI (Before Internet). So at best, this section is very minor history, but IMO it is just clutter. Given the work you've put in, I'm sorry but I have to vote for delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I disagree, maybe so in the UK but in other parts of the world twinning is still a big part of cultural exchange and inter-city development. Rather than deleting outright, how about changing it to prose, better reflecting the reality? Abcmaxx (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would work better: narrative would give it context whereas a list leaves too much to the imagination. My concern is really about any suggestion that these relationships are active or at least recognised by both sides (something on miltonkeynes.gov.uk, for example). The Bernkastel one has definitely lapsed and the Almere one never became formal. I know there is a lot of Chinese interest in MK, they are creating a lot of new cities (they don't get out of bed for less than a million). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman done as discussed, I tried to keep it coherent and true to the sources at the same time. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: yes that is a big improvement. I edited it slightly because the word city just invites the trolls in. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Large" town

user:37.152.231.40 objects to the adjective "large" as in "large town" to describe MK. This style has been used in this article for many many years without comment. The same usage may be seen at Reading, Berkshire: Reading [...] is a large, historic market town in Berkshire, South East England.

Wikipedia is written for a worldwide readership. In most of the world, a settlement of well over 200,000 people would be called a city. City status in the United Kingdom explains why British usage differs. A "town" can be anything from few hundred individuals to hundred of thousands. WP:think of the reader rather than wiki-lawyering: a qualifier is essential. Do I really have to find a citation that says that MK is 'large'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

According to this BBC report, MK is a "large town" by some margin, since the threshold set by the reliable source is 135,000. So what makes a random Wikipedia editor's opinion more valid? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

'Large' does not define itself and as such should be avoided without some sort of qualifier. 'Reading is a large town compared to other settlements in the county' is fine, but 'Reading is a large town' is not. There are indeed places where anywhere above say 40k is a city, and a settlent above 2k is a large town - it is all relative. I think the IP has a valid point and I am surprised this has not been picked up before. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So would your concern be satisfied by providing a definition of "large", citing the BBC report? (In the case of this article, using the footnote [b] in the opening sentence that explains why the term "city" can't be used, despite local usage. The equivalent for Reading may need a bit more thought.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer to avoid introducing disputable size descriptions into all settlement articles, except as part of an expanded discussion of the settlement's size, within the body of the article (i.e. it's not OK in the lead sentences of an article to just summarily describe a settlement as "large" or "small" or whatever). One person's "large" is another person's "average" and so on. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The lead should always avoid subjective judgments such as "large", "small", "affluent" – especially in the lead. The body of the article can address these by quoting actual population figures and or other suitable statistics such as "... the 10th town in England by population ..." — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this general principle but here we have a reliable source, the Centre for Cities, giving a clear definition of what "large" means. So, specifically and exclusively as framed by that definition, how is it 'disputable'? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you arguing that because a certain source defines the word "large" in a particular way, for their own particular purpose, then you can use that definition as if it is something factual? That is most certainly not the case. I very much agree with the arguments others have made for not using an unquantified relative adjective. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I am arguing that the Centre for Cities, the nationally recognised centre of expertise on large settlements in the UK, is unarguably a reliable source; that it defines the term "large town" as one with a "population greater than 135,000"; that it describes Luton, Middlesbrough, MK, Northampton, Reading and others as "large towns" as measured that metric; and that here, as in everything else, we should follow the sources. In this context "large town" is not a relative term because the RS gives a precise definition of "large town". Provided the article cites that source and quotes its definition, it is an absolute term not a relative one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard of the Centre for Cities, nobody recognises them as having any expertise on the meaning of the word "large", and they are not a reliable source on dictionary definitions. In the context of their own publication which defines the terms they use, "large town" has the meaning they give it. Here, it does not. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have never heard of the Centre for Cities, that says more about you than it does about them. I suggest you read the article. Their public reports about urban economies are widely cited. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

They might be widely cited within the academic field of urban studies, but this is a general encyclopaedia. You cannot take a technical definition used in a publication by an obscure organisation and present it as some kind of generally accepted fact. That is ridiculous. I really don't get what your aim is in arguing this. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A very silly exchange which has become irrelevant unless people want to start discussing whether MK is a “small” city.

But within MK designated area there are “small” towns. Wolverton, Stony, Newport Pagnell, Bletchley. The larger Milton Keynes town (as it was) encompasses all of these towns, so it stands to reason that it is large. 81.99.178.220 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Centre for Cities is not a reliable secondary source - it is primary! I think so many of the disputes on WP arise from people misunderstanding, misquoting and generally misusing sourses. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. I have very often seen people insisting that a particular word or phrase must be used, because a source uses it; and (as here) arguing that a subjective statement should be presented as if factual, because a source uses it. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The source I cited was a secondary, the BBC. But of course it will be argued that, since the BBC article was written by CforC staff, it doesn't count. I would have to go look for other secondaries but to be honest, I won't waste my time unless any new contributors to the discussion consider the game worth the candle.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Meanwhile

Recognising the emerging consensus, I have changed the article so that now it reads "the largest town in Buckinghamshire" (rather than "a large town in Buckinghamshire"). The revised edition is objectively true though rather more stolid. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If I may add late to the discussion, I think using words like Small, Medium or Large are confusing. To me you can't judge a settlement as one of those based on its population. Sure a hamlet can have less then a 100 or a city less then a 10000 or so. But to me it's more important to use heritage sites and history sites for words like market minster cathedral industrial or suburban.

If we started calling Monmouth small but Ross on Wye medium. Arguments would arise over the use of medium sized to smaller or small.

Some settlements are smaller or bigger then others but to me. If it's a market charter and town council or status. It's a market town. If it's a cathedral status for a city then it's cathedral city like Ripon York Lincoln and Wakefield and so on.

Articles are usually written from a pov and neutral stance by authors on sources so to me find a historical status from ages back to establish the right term. As many say terms are debated and unless widely recognised or used. It's subjective using small medium or large.

I'd rather just read ie "Fakenham is a market town in Norfolk, England" then "Fakenham is a medium-sized market town in the region of East Anglia in the county of Norfolk in eastern England". That's too much reading to me. Simplified is best for everyone who isn't bothered with in depth regions and sizes of towns.

DragonofBatley (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Worst page on the wiki ?

Basically starts with 'for MK see a completely different page' (For Milton Keynes, the original village, see Middleton, Milton Keynes)

Why can't we have a page entitle MK actually be about MK ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.1.35 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Because there are three places all called Milton Keynes. Many articles have this kind of redirection up front, it saves a lot of arguments. See for example Boston. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Central Milton Keynes is not Milton Keynes

I reverted an edit by DragonofBatley because it is at odds with reality. I appreciate that editors from elsewhere have difficulty getting their heads around the way that MK works. It is fully parished. It has six town councils as well as many parish councils: all are subsidiary to Milton Keynes Council. Central Milton Keynes is just the central business district: in accordance with the law, it declared itself to be a town. In a poly-centric settlement, it is first among equals but is a town centre, not the town centre. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is about MK, not CMK, which is a part of MK (and is not MK itself), regardless of political status, and thus that citation isn't useful at all anyway.

Secondly, yes the issue of what MK is has come up a lot, and (very reasonably) people don't understand all the nooks and crannies about MK that make it different from probably most other places in the UK. For one, there are only two political entities that can be called "Milton Keynes", that is the Borough of Milton Keynes, and the Milton Keynes (civil parish). Within the former lie seven areas (including Olney) with either a town council, town charter, or both (CMK does contain both). Those are the official "towns." The New Town designation order was just that, a designation order, whose area is more akin to an urban development area as opposed to an actual entity in and of itself (same could be argued for Telford). In reality, MK is (not) as much of a town, as it is (not) as much of a city. It is referred to either only as a matter of practicalities rather than technicalities. Anyway, the word "settlement" avoids this confusion, so I think its better to stay that way. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Economy, finances and business

The Centre for Cities have redesigned their web page so that the raw economic data is less accessible. Fortunately, Archive.org has captured earlier versions so I will be working on this section over the next few days to put some dates on the statements and broaden the perspective. Advice here will be welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, those who questioned the statements in the article citing wp:NPOV and WP:OR should read those policy articles again. The only challenge that looks to me as having any basis is wp:SYNTH. But as a local editor, I suppose Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies so I won't pursue it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, these are the historic data

• 2014 data, archived 14/11/15:
  • GVA per Worker (£) 2014 = 63,650.87 (4/62)
  • Patents granted (per 100,000 of population) 2014 = 8.49 (9/63)
  • Business Start-ups (per 10,000 population) 2014 = 75.42 (3/63)
  • Business Closures (per 10,000 population) 2014 = 46.49 (3/63)

• 2014 data, archived 31/12/16
• 2014 data, archived 26/12/17

• 2017 data, archived 09/11/18
  • GVA per worker (£) 2017...72,980.72 (3/62)
  • Patent Applications (per 100,000 of population) 2017 = 16.2 (20/63)
  • Business Start-ups (per 10,000 population) 2017 = 78.69 (5/62)
  • Business Closures (per 10,000 population) 2017 = 68.78 (5/62)

• 2017 data, archived 18/12/19
• 2017 data, archived 28/11/20

• Live version as of today, 8/2/22 (2020 data)
  • GVA per hour (£) 2020 = 43.9 (7/62) average 35.1
  • Patent Applications (per 100,000 of population) 2020 = 27.0 (11/63) average 17.8
  • Business Start-ups (per 10,000 population) 2020 = 66.4 (6/62) average 53.3
  • Business Closures (per 10,000 population) 2020 = 74.6 (?/62) average 47.2

The problem now is how best to summarise this data without being accused of POV and OR? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Updated to add 'league table' positions found on spray diagram. --11:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have inserted POV inferences from primary sourced material and POV language -- even "productive" is unsourced -- in this article. Perhaps you can propose text with references here and we can all workshop it. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the primary source is the ONS. The Centre for Cities is a secondary. And the current version (at least) says Productivity: GVA per hour (£). I'm afraid you will have to point out the POV wording, I'm not seeing it. [M R-D again!] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Successful economies" ? Not even sure what that might mean. It doesn't have its own isolated "economy" and economies do not have a purpose that can be graded for success. Etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see the logic in that but struggle to think of a succinct way of saying essentially the same thing. "... performs significantly above national average on a range of economic indicators" is maybe more accurate but talk about deathly prose! Never call a spade a spade when you can call it a bi-pedal regolithic excavation implement. Suggestions, anyone?

Just to complicate things, having found where they've moved the 'league table' positions, I see that the 2020 data is not as 'significantly above average' as were 2014 and 2017. So maybe the lazy solution is to let readers draw their own conclusions but it still needs an intro sentence.

(BTW, lest I be accused next of cherry-picking, also on my to-do list is to add something about Skills and Educational Performance from the same C4C report. And public/private jobs ratio.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Addition of table of 1991 demographic data: BRD discussion

Per WP:BRD, I reverted user:Tweedledumb2's addition of a table giving demographics from 30 years ago. This article is rated as GA, so additions as significant as this one need consensus to be added. I invite other editors to contribute. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is Tweedledumb2's proposed addition:

Ethnic Group	1991
	Number	%
White: Total	166,101	94.19%
White: British	-	-
White: Irish	3,614	20.4%
White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller	-	-
White: Other	-	-
Asian or Asian British: Total	5,982	3.39%
Asian or Asian British: Indian	2,861	1.62%
Asian or Asian British: Pakistani	822
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi	694
Asian or Asian British: Chinese	667
Asian or Asian British: Other Asian	938
Black or Black British: Total	2,869	1.62%
Black or Black British: Caribbean	1,665
Black or Black British: African	523
Black or Black British: Other Black	681
Mixed: Total	-	-
Mixed: White and Black Caribbean	-	-
Mixed: White and Black African	-	-
Mixed: White and Asian	-	-
Mixed: Other Mixed	-	-
Other: Total	1,378	0.78%
Other: Arab	-	-
Other: Any other ethnic group	1,378	0.78%
Total	176,330	100%

• Reject. In my opinion, the addition should not be made, at least not in its current form and not without evidence of its accuracy. The article is already a long one and this data is of very limited interest to most readers, for whom only the current figures are useful. Its style is intrusive: the existing style is running text but this is a table (it also violates MOS:FLAGS but that is by the way). The geographic area it describes is unclear: the ONS has always struggled with its definitions of MK so data from 1991 would need very precise provenance if it is to be used. IMO, its inclusion would be WP:UNDUE and should be declined. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You are actually correct, thank you for the intervention against my sloppy editing, my plan was to add in the 1991 figures yesterday night and then today add in 2001 and the most recent figures of 2011. Checking the figures for population total on https://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/, I believe the 1991 figures I added must equate to the actual unitary authority of Milton Keynes, (estimate of 178,300 in 1991, 249,895 in 2011) rather then what is used as the population total in this article as the built up urban area which totals to figure estimates listed on the website as 161,109 for 1991 (229,941 for 2011).

Regardless though on this point; 'The article is already a long one and this data is of very limited interest to most readers', would it be better to have a Demographics of Milton Keynes article? We already have articles for areas of less significance population wise like Slough for example. Thanks again, Tweedle (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

An understandable mistake since there are seven places called Milton Keynes: (1) the Borough of Milton Keynes, which contains and is much larger than (2) the Milton Keynes BUA (aka urban area) which contains and is larger than (3) the 1967 Milton Keynes New Town designated area (which has long since been expanded out of); and (4) a BUASA that the ONS called (and citypopulation.de copied) "Milton Keynes" despite it excluding Bletchley, which has been part of MK since its inception); which contains (5) Central Milton Keynes, a civil parish that is the CBD of MK; and (6) Milton Keynes CP [which predates the new town] and which contains and is larger than (7) Milton Keynes Village.

If you want to create an article called "Demographics of Milton Keynes", go ahead provided that you are sure and make it very clear which of the seven versions of MK you mean and that you are consistently comparing like with like. But please don't but flags in tables without exceptionally good reasons - see MOS:FLAGS: British people of Bangladeshi heritage are British not Bangladeshi so to show the flag of Bangladesh looks like you are making a political point. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

These are fair points, thanks for the constructive comments and for the clarification on Milton Keyne's administrative and classification areas. This stuff can be a bit confusing at times!

I will also go ahead and remove the flags as I put flags on previous tables, they were originally there to just show ethnic origin and heritage but I can see what you mean where it can come off as a political message. Thanks again. Tweedle (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

Milton Keynes is a city in England. Population: 287,100 (2021 Census) 84.70.204.42 (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, (a) MK is still a "city-designate": city status must wait until HMQ has put her mark on the Letters Patent; (b) the figure of 287,100 is for the Borough of Milton Keynes, which is a lot bigger than MK itself. The ONS has not yet released the Built-up Area data. No reliable sources exist to support the change requested. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

New infobox collage

Hi, I would like to propose a new replacement collage for the infobox section. Since its been more than a decade since it was updated, and the skyline today has changed quite alot now, Wikipedia photographer John Chryslar has recently posted stunning new images that I think would be a nice update to this article. Milton Keynes major wikipedian supervisor User:John Maynard Friedman has recently questioned the design of the collage I tried to put in the article. Any suggestions? Thanks Raphael.concorde (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not often involved with MK as an editor but I think you used images at night and so at first. My response is night photos do not make good lead photos. The viewers cannot see any of the places clearly in them as they would see them better in daylight. And also removing Christ Church the Cornerstone church imo is a bit unfair given it is one of the cities most notable buildings (religion or not) and you failed to include Bletchley Newport Pagnell Wolverton Stony Stratford or Wombourn Sands in a single photo and echoing what @John Maynard Friedman: said in his revert. It represents just central MK and not a few of its notable towns. That's the good thing with Stoke on Trent and Telford articles. They represent their constituent parts and not just the one settlement. It's important to keep the town identities intact as despite forming somewhere they have their own grounds to be included as separate photos along side MK itself DragonofBatley (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to the principle of updating the collage - as RC says, the skyline of CMK has much changed since then. But it is essential that the collage be representative of MK as whole. Central is not MK: "MK itself" is all of MK and the original settlements are essential elements of its totality. I agree with DoB re night photos, so looks like we need a campaign over the coming year to build a collection of photos from which to choose a new selection. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the tips. I'll email John Chryslar of areas to take pictures other than central MK. By the way hope you had a nice Christmas. Cheers Raphael.concorde (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Another proposal

Good afternoon, I surfed through the commons pages and put together this new revised collage. Let me know what you think. 147.197.250.54 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@147.197.250.54 On my phone when I view the MK article, initially I only see the top three images, predom8nantly a large green area. The first images need to be the most representative. PamD 07:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

File:MK Theatre and Gallery buildings.jpg

| static_image_caption = Top to bottom, left to right: Central Milton Keynes Hub skyline, the Peace Pagoda - the first built in the Western World, the Church of Christ the Cornerstone, Willen Lake North and surrounding residences, the railway station, Queensway strip, Bletchley Park House, and the Theatre District from Campbell Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.250.54 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. As discussed above, it is timely to refresh the image but I'm afraid I must disagree that this proposal hits the spot, for these reasons:

1. the result is far too big, intruding much too far down the page (especially in the new design for Wikipedia, no white space beside the ToC to fill). The target should be an image no bigger overall than the current one.
2. Central Milton Keynes is not Milton Keynes: the fraction devoted to CMK is disproprortionate
   1. The Hub is a poor example of CMK architecture (unless we want to show that English Partnerships were tasteless vandals). The Theatre and especially the Gallery are far better.
   2. the MKC pic could be of any station anywhere. If it is to be included, then we need the frontage (or rather we should but right now it looks like Glasto at the end of a bad week).
3. There are two pics from Bletchley and none from Wolverton, Stony or any other area apart from Furzton Lake (but not Furzton)
   1. The pic of Queensway is dire.

well that's my 2p worth. I don't own the article and I may be in a minority of one. So let's give it a week or two for more opinions. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively (smaller, more widely representative)

| static_image_caption = Top to bottom, left to right: the Church of Christ the Cornerstone (CMK); the Milton Keynes Peace Pagoda (Willen Lake); High Street, Stony Stratford; Bletchley Park; Canal-side redevelopment in Wolverton; Milton Keynes Gallery (CMK)

Would that be a reasonable compromise? Two old, four modern; two from CMK, three old towns, one new area; two religious, four secular; two classical design, two pre-C20, two C21. The selection is inevitably arbitrary and we can argue which to include but IMO the total space taken up by the collage should be no bigger. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me as it generally grasps what the whole of MK is (i.e. a mix of old and new settlements/landmarks, as well as a mix of built-up areas and green space), without solely focusing on the city centre. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ideally we should have a city centre skyline first (a 1/2/2/2 arrangement, with #1 being a thin strip) but there is nothing current on Commons that is suitable.

• So competition time: when the trees come into leaf, let's see what we can do. Does anyone have access to the telecomms tower in Linford Wood? A long telephoto lens from Oakhill or Cranfield? A drone with a 15° camera? Get out there and shoot early, shoot often! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As should be obvious, I've been bold and just made this image set live. I tried it with my skyline shot but even I could see that it is not of the same standard as these six. Further comment below. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

CMK skyline competition

Central Milton Keynes skyline

This is my competition bid: CMK from Great Holm (April 23) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I took it from the playground in Great Holm (52.033631, -0.794748), which has a very good vantage point. Someone else with a better camera, sunnier day, clearer sky, moodier cloud, whatever, may do better. There is also a good view from Portway between Fulmer St and Tattenhoe St if anyone feels lucky enough to stand on the middle of the roadway to take the shot. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried my skyline shot in the group, but the result was just not good enough. My feeling is that it won't ever be possible to get a suitable shot from ground level: the skyline is just too thin. I suspect that will really need someone with a drone-mounted camera at maybe 50 metres above ground over Linford Wood or Campbell Park to do it justice. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Stony Stratford High Street

A more recent pic is needed but, given the importance of the Cock and the Bull in its history, it is important that they be included. I will take a new pic next time I'm up that way (unless someone gets there first). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Weather records

I am about to replace the 1981–2010 table with the latest equivalent, 1991–2020 so I thought it may be useful to future editors to keep a copy of the old table here:

Climate data for Woburn 1981–2010 (Weather station 3 mi (5 km) to the SE of central Milton Keynes)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Mean daily maximum °C (°F)	7.0 (44.6)	7.4 (45.3)	10.3 (50.5)	13.1 (55.6)	16.6 (61.9)	19.6 (67.3)	22.1 (71.8)	21.9 (71.4)	18.7 (65.7)	14.4 (57.9)	10.0 (50.0)	7.2 (45.0)	14.1 (57.4)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F)	1.3 (34.3)	0.9 (33.6)	2.7 (36.9)	3.8 (38.8)	6.5 (43.7)	9.4 (48.9)	11.7 (53.1)	11.6 (52.9)	9.6 (49.3)	7.0 (44.6)	3.8 (38.8)	1.5 (34.7)	5.8 (42.4)
Average precipitation mm (inches)	54.2 (2.13)	41.7 (1.64)	45.3 (1.78)	52.1 (2.05)	54.3 (2.14)	53.2 (2.09)	53.1 (2.09)	55.4 (2.18)	57.5 (2.26)	70.3 (2.77)	63.0 (2.48)	57.3 (2.26)	657.4 (25.88)
Mean monthly sunshine hours	52.0	69.4	105.5	147.4	183.4	179.9	197.1	189.0	137.0	105.6	61.7	43.5	1,471.6
Source: Met Office

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Average temps (min, max) have increased by about 0.3°C. Rainfall is much the same, sunshine up by about 3 hours per month. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here but the table in the article as it stood this morning didn't match the latest version on the Met Office website. It does now. (The Met Office also gives data for 1961–1990, 1971–2000, 1981–2010 and 1991–2010, if anybody wants to be depressed.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Should there be a reference to the common name misconception?

Should there be a pop culture reference to the common misconception especially abroad, that the town is named after prominent economists Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes? Outside of the UK this is the common although incorrect assumption. 220.253.111.35 (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO, the section Milton Keynes#Name explains the origin clearly. It would be nice to be be able to say that the De Cahaignes (the boat people from Normandy, 1066) were ancestors of J M Keynes but, although probable, is not evidenced. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"CMK" v "the city centre"

Should we change most uses of "CMK" in the article to "city centre"? I suspect that it was originally written that way as device to avoid using the word "city" before status was granted. It looks a bit cliquish to me but does it matter? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Infobox picture at the Buckinghamshire article

MK editors may wish to comment (at talk:Buckinghamshire#Infobox image selection) on the choice of the (replica) Concrete Cows to represent the city. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Photos by "John Chryslar"

I asked this at Talk:Central_Milton_Keynes#Photos_by_"John_Chryslar"; I'll ask here as well. I notice that several photos by Flickr user "John Chryslar" [1] have been uploaded and are in use for Milton Keynes articles. This Flickr user has participated in a hoax with dishonestly photoshopped images (see Admin noticeboard, Noticeboard on Commons for details). The user has since been placed on Commons Flickr user blacklist. Has anyone noticed anything strange or suspicious about their Milton Keynes related photos? -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Campbell Park

Campbell Park is included under the Linear Parks heading, but is it a linear park? The article Campbell Park doesn't describe it as such. Secondly, there is a quote attributed to Nicholas Pevsner. Pevsner died in 1983 and according to the Campbell Park article the park opened in 1984 — the book the quote is taken from was published in 2000. Would someone with access to the source kindly check this? Rupples (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it is definitely not a linear park. That is an error that I will remove, don't know how it slipped past me.

The Pevsner series of books continue to be updated in new editions, in which I think he is still (validly) listed as an author. I don't have the book but the attribution is regularly cited locally. So I guess the wording isn't as tight as it should be. I'll have look. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The issue is that is in a section about the linear parks, so implicitly rather than explicitly claiming to be one. I will look to relocate it when next I'm using a big screen (not wise to do in mobile). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Does that change hit the spot? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Certainly does! Rupples (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)