User talk:Anonymous MK2006

Since you are doing a great job of spring-cleaning the BMK articles, I suspect that you will come onto Woughton sooner or later. Here be dragons. If you plan on doing anything, I advise that you read talk:Woughton (parish)#Requested move 10 October 2020 and User talk:Crouch, Swale#Woughton first. (Maybe you may think that an FoI request to the Council on whether/when/how Woughton on the Green (parish) was formally renamed or abolished?) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Thanks for the helpful information. I am aware of that discussion, and I say just let it be. Woughton is the formal name for the parish, and all users need to know is what's in the parish, and general things people want to know via Wikipedia. With that said, many articles regarding Buckinghamshire (outside the BoMK) feature outdated subjects, and many still haven't caught up with the recent reorganisation of local govt (post April) in Bucks (some villages still state that they are in the defunct non metropolitan districts, e.g. Aylesbury Vale district, Chiltern). Maybe we should start a mission to make sure that all those articles are up to date. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems certain that Woughton is not the formal name for the parish, that is still "Woughton on the Green" because someone in the Council dropped the ball. There is no record that anyone can find that says that the name was ever changed. The OS and ONS still record it as WotG. For example, this is record for Netherfield:^[1]

objectid ‎9750
PARNCP19CD E04012227
PARNCP19NM Woughton on the Green
PARNCP19NW
LAD19CD E06000042
LAD19NM Milton Keynes

I decided to let the question drop because to pursue it might very well have the opposite effect intended. I don't see any way to resolve it unless and until MKBC puts through a formal change of name order.

As for the parishes in south Bucks, I'm reluctant to tread on others' grief. I can see that "Aylesbury Vale" exists with or without a district council but some of the others were a bit artificial. And are Buckingham and Whaddon really in that Vale? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

As for whether Buckingham and Whaddon are in the Vale of Aylesbury, it seems like we should do more research on the topic to see if they are really in the Vale. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: BTW, I have have created a new page on Eagle Farm, Milton Keynes. It would be helpful if you could review it and give me some feedback, or just make sure it's all clean. Much appreciated. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that it is very likely that your article won't be accepted. It is uncited and not obviously WP:notable. You would have been wiser to make it a new section of Wavendon. (If I were you, I would do that now anyway, and turn the current article into a redirect to it.) As to the content, you desperately need citations! Otherwise, apart from a few minor tweaks, it looks fine. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I'm not sure what you mean by "uncited." I have included 5 cites/references on that page. Yes, I could do with a few minor tweaks; I shall definitely expand the article and add as many cites as I can. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"I cannot tell a lie". I was distracted by the big banner "does not cite any sources" in the Location section. As for expansion in place, very few housing areas have their own articles, almost all are sections of the parish articles. The only exceptions that I can think of are the original villages that have a significant history section. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: See Oakgrove, Milton Keynes. That is a housing development estate with its own article. Whitehouse and Fairfields also have their own articles, but those are also their own civil parishes. They don't require a whole load of information as they are new areas, but should at least be noted, and their articles should be expanded upon as they grow and become more significant. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This is really a Plan B in case your article is not accepted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As per my edit note, the article used to include Birmingham but I couldn't defend against the accusation of wp:cherry picking. A 50-mile radius was accepted as a reasonable compromise. A significant difference since is that I didn't then have access to the Plans for Milton Keynes report: of course I don't have it now either but I think it says something about position between BHM and LDN. So I can only suggest that, when the library re-opens, you have a look to see if there is some text that can be cited. I'm cautious because maybe it only said that this is where the government has decided it should go and oh look it has these advantages. I have never seen any record of what influenced HMG's decision, which is what we would really need. Northampton could claim pretty much the same thing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Thanks, it just seemed strange to me how one of the things that people say that makes MK so special is it's proximity to both London and Birmingham (although a number of other settlements could arguably make that claim), and how only the former was mentioned in that section. I'm also sure that the location in-between the each of the four cities (LDN, BHM, OX, CA) was one of the things that was eye-catching to MK's planners. Anyhow, one could argue that the distance between MK and Leicester, and MK and Brum is very similar (in the 50-ish miles radius). So as you said, the PfMK report would be very helpful in this scenario. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The clue was in the mention of Coventry... It was intended to provoke that reaction :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

"Up the city" (MK), "up west" (East End, meaning the West End), "up to town" (Home Counties, meaning London), "down town" (US crime thrillers) are just figures of speech, altitude is incidental. In the first two cases, it is indeed uphill, in the third it is downhill and in the fourth who knows? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even going to try to put my oar into this one, but for amusement:

1. Calverton Rd, Stony
2. Horsefair Green, Stony
3. Wolverton Rd, Stony (as far as the V5 I think)
4. Stratford Rd, Wolverton (V5 to V6)
5. Newport Rd, New Bradwell (V6 to V7)
6. Wolverton Rd, Stantonbury, Great Linford and Newport (V7 to Marsh End Rd, Newport)
7. High St, Newport
8. Northampton Rd, Newport

Unofficially, H Zero! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:

And for good measure:-)

9. Newport Rd, Brooklands

Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah but that is from a different direction. "All roads lead to Newport". Except Bedford Rd, Sherington, which runs between Newport and ...
... Olney. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:

I'm sure one could spend all day counting the number of Newport Roads in and around MK. I'm also pretty sure Newport Rd, Woughton, doesn't actually lead to Newport. Fascinating, eh? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh but it did do. How else would you have gotten to London? (The main road from Northampton to London was via Newport, Willen, WotG, Simpson, joining Watling St at Fenny. And a terrible road it was too, see Simpson, Buckinghamshire.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Wow, I didn't no that such a tiny, often flooded (its modern-day equivalent is probably Little Linford Rd in that regard), road connected London to Northampton via modern-day MK. It sure is a good thing they decided to construct the M1, or God knows if MK would even exist in its current form! Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, at some stage the route was changed to take the high ground via Broughton, Hogsty End (aka Woburn Sands), Woburn, to join Watling St near Hockliffe. Though I suspect that the road through Roade (geddit?) would have been popular too. Hours of original research fun to be had if it takes your interest. That's scraped the bottom of the barrel of my knowledge. Here endeth the lesson. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: The first route you mentioned appears to be the (former) A5130 and B5704, while the second route is... the A508! Who would've thought? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

does it still exist? last time I looked (a year ago) I couldn't find anything current to say that it does? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: It's true I haven't really heard of that club nowadays. Maybe some further research could be done? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: So after a bit of surfing the web, I couldn't find anything that indicated that BTFC still exists; however, interestingly enough, according to this there is a club called Bletchley Park Football Club. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

But it is probably worth writing something better about the status of cmk in its own section. As you say, outsiders (including the ONS!) don't seem to understand that cmk is not mk nor vice versa, that it is a town but not the town. (If we got city status, it would make writing so much easier). Good luck, you'll need it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Certainly, city status would make the situation with CMK much more clear and simple (a "town in a city" is much more easy to digest than a "town in a town.") Thanks, for the suggestion! :-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed it could be argued that MK is not a town: it doesn't have a town council and so has never declared itself to be a town. It never had a market charter. Nor is it a borough, that's the bigger area. "It's complicated"! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:: Of course, technically speaking, MK itself has never been a town (let alone an official settlement, save for maybe the 1967 designation order). I understand how much confusion it causes, especially with MK (a town of towns): Bletchley is a town within MK (the de facto town), within another MK (the BoMK - the borough). Newport Pagnell is a town outside MK, but also within MK (the BoMK)?! Then, you consider the fact that MK (the town) doesn't have a separate governing authority (only the borough). Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. It turned out to be more awkward to get right than I first thought too. No doubt it could still be improved. Any bets that the M1-M40 link will be back on the agenda by 2035? Some py seem unable to make a distinction between number of journeys and number of vehicles making them. When the chemical and audio pollution costs drop, the case against will die too. IMO. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I'd say there's a 50/50 chance that the M1-M40 link proposal will re-enter people's minds by 2035. Yes, as you say, it's likely that chemical and audio pollution costs will drop, but there's also a chance that the East-West Rail Link will keep people (including ministers) content. But who knows? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm moving the discussion here. If you are interested, the project I'm working on is described here and drafting space is here. Right now what I am trying to do is get the legal status down and update the chart at the bottom of the draft page. I broke down and bought, after selling an arm and a leg, Laurie Fransman's book on British nationality law, because it gives history in every place the British colonized. And I've discovered that the European University Institute is producing studies on nationality for each country with the current information. History sections of their work is sometimes good and sometimes not (rarely mentions the status of women) and unfortunately, apparently they were instructed to use citizenship for nationality as all the Spanish ones specifically say that "nacionalidad" is used in country X but they are using "ciudadanía" to conform with the instructions of the project. *sigh* Happy to have your help on the project if you like. SusunW (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MKFM is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKFM until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Thanks for notifying me! I'll be sure to check it out whenever the discussion begins:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've given Tattenhoe a heavy spring cleaning. If you have time, would you give it a look over? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:: Looks like you've done a good job, and have interestingly removed the mention of "city" with regards to its location, and replaced with the BoMK (though if you've seen the news, this may later become redundant ;-)). Arguably, you could've noted that it is close to the boundary with Bucks Council, as you mentioned that Whaddon was in the Aylesbury Vale (now, of course, not a district, but only a geographical area). Other than that, splendid job! Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

TYVM. I know I can't say 'city' but I really have to force myself to use the T word and avoid if I can. What news did you mean? The application for city status?

I struggled to come up with anything less prolix than "the Buckinghamshire Council administered part of the county" and chickened out. But it was that problem that made me think I should ask for a second opinion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Correct, I was referring to the application for city status. True, when having to refer to MK, it's hard to use both the T and C words (as the former is hardly used locally, and the latter is "officially" incorrect). So here's the question - if MK isn't technically a city or town, then can we call it a borough? Of course, the Borough covers a much larger area than the original "designated area" of MK, but it seems as though that that is what the government (local and national) seem to mean when they say "MK." (And the fact that it's not technically MK that becomes the city, but the BoMK that becomes one). Very strange? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I try to use "MK urban area" or "the urban area" where I can. The Newport Pagnell article had regular edit wars with IP editors until that get-out-clause became available. Yes, there are a number of areas that are larger than their homonymous city, see for example City of York. Anyway, I suspect that political reasons favour Middlesbrough and Dudley over MK and Reading at present. We'll see but I'm not optimistic. And we can totally forget about it when and if Chas III becomes King.--18:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I can understand the confusion with Newport (it is contiguous with MK proper, after all). And yeah, since the "red wall" in the Midlands and north largely fell, the Tories will be more keen to satisfy the people of Middlesbrough and Dudley than Reading and MK. Anyhow, we'll see how the wind blows. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If a two routes join for a while, that is called multiplexing. For example, the A422 eastbound meets the A5 at Old Stratford, then "multiplexes" with it southbound as far as Abbey Hill rdbt, where it splits again, with the A222 continuing east. I don't know the A509/A4146 set-up well enough to question your edit but just wanted to say that multiplexing really is a 'thing' though I had never heard of before seeing it here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Actually, I was in fact aware of the definition of "multiplex" which is (as you say) two roads joining together for a while. The reason behind my edit on the A509 page was that it and the A4146 don't in fact join together ever. Instead, the A509 southbound meets the A4146 at Northfield Roundabout, and simply turns west, while it's "existing" southbound route becomes the A4146. Two completely different routes, two completely different directions. But thanks for your good willingness, as always:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm opening a book:

• 2/1 Lovatt Meadows, Ouzel Meadows
• 3/1 West Moulsoe
• 5/1 North Moulsoe
• 10/1 Tickford Farm, Drake Gorse
• 50/1 Caldecote
• 100/1 something wildly different.

Any other ideas? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Tickford Fields, Caldecote Park, Moulsoe Park, and (to make locals blow a fuse) Newport Park and Pagnell Park! Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

And South Newport and Great Moulsoe - cue howls of anguish.

Well Milton Keynes West became Fairfields and Whitehouse (names of the farms previously on the site) so two names - one for each side of the river - could mean we both win and everyone shall have prizes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Glen Fields (on the west side) and Caldecote Park (on the east side). Bingo! Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Middleton, Milton Keynes#Split 2 that you might want to contribute your two cents' worth. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited East Midlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you worked out that we had an edit conflict. It was easier to wipe out your edit to the CP with my big edit, then reinstate yours. I hope you are ok with that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: No worries, I'm sure your edit was a lot more significant than mine, plus it has cites. It'll only take a few seconds for either one of us to reinstate my "edit conflict resolution." Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you think of anything to add to talk:Milton Keynes#Central Milton Keynes is not Milton Keynes? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Anonymous MK2006

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slywriter, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Watling Academy, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slywriter}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slywriter (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

All the other secondary schools in MK have articles but I guess the barrier for inclusion has been raised. It needs a good scandal to get enough citations to pass WP:GNG .

So I suggest for now that you create a new section about the school in Whitehouse, Milton Keynes from what you have written, then create a WP:redirect 'article' that points to it. In that redirect, include to lines {{r to section}} and {{r with possibilities}}. In a few years, when enough citations have accumulated, you can propose a WP: split. This is how we handle the primary schools.

Hope that is useful.

@Slywriter:, do you agree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, Whitehouse would work. Also possible the trust itself is notable enough to support all the schools including the newest one being built now. Just couldn't find enough material to overcome current notability standards for primary schools. Slywriter (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter:, it is not a primary school but it is a very new secondary so it doesn't have much in the way of citations yet. I have no doubt that it will qualify for its own article within a very few years. Trusts come and go but the civil parish will persist.

Personally, I think there is a reasonable case to retain the article as a stub and will add my voice. But I recognise that the GNG argument is strong right now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Of the five (but really 4, the first is pretty self-explanatory) objectives constituting the WP:GNG criteria, IMO it satisfies the final 3 (Reliable, Sources and Independent of the subject), but where I see a potential issue is with significant coverage because (naturally) being a very new secondary school means that it hasn't had much showtime in the press, and there isn't (yet) much "history" to talk about (though this should change as the school ages). Although IMO what we have now is fine because the notable aspects of the school are covered in adequate detail (such as why it was constructed, the main features of the school, etc.) In addition @John Maynard Friedman: has just added an Ofsted report in advance of it opening, so any doubt of the lack of diversity of sources should've (hopefully) been minimized. For consistency sake, IMO it doesn't make sense that this would be the only secondary school in MK that doesn't have an article, regardless of its age. Also, @Slywriter:, did you by any chance assume that the school was a primary school, or was it just a case of confusion and/or an innocent typo. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

AMK, I suggest you copy your GNG rebuttal to the article talk page, where I have started a "retain" discussion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Will do right now, thanks for the notice:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Primary is a typo here. WP:NSCHOOLS points out that presumptive notability ended in 2019 for Secondary schools. The main issue for me is that the one independent source (MKFM) comes across as reprinting press releases as they have no byline. Looking at more of the sources articles shows the lack of byline to be standard but also shows they are primarily reprinting police blotters and community annoucements. I'm not going to pursue an AfD but if this were a draft submitted to AfC, I'd have declined as having less than 50% chance of surviving an AfD. Slywriter (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter:, yes, that is fair comment, indeed MKFM itself failed an AfD so not a RS. I had already made a mental note to search for better sources when I have time (recognising that local papers are all reduced to reprinting press releases for much of their content). But I suggest that these are short-term issues. No matter how you look at it, a school that will have >1000 students from September is going to be notable by any measure, it is a question of when and how, not whether. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Watling Academy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watling Academy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MB 00:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 26. It makes sense to me but you may have a different perspective? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I too agree with a merge and have stated my reasons as to why on the relevant talk page:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that the national audience wants any more detail about mk, but I thought we might continue this one out of the limelight.

I think MK is more than the sum of its parts. But anyway, the obvious reason that OS is outside the MK BUA is the wide flood-plain of the Ouse. The usual ONS definition is that any gaps must be < 200m but an exception was made for MK to make it 300m (I guess because of the Ouzel flood plain?) The M1 at NP is not wide and there are houses v close to the bridge. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It's just a question of - where do we draw the line?! What if a settlement is 301m away from the nearest MK BUA dwellings. Do we give it "margin of error" treatment because the average person would almost certainly not be able to tell a 1m difference. With MK/other settlements, there are just too many geographical, historical, cultural and political factors to consider. On the one hand, using the "ancient" historic boundary (often conterminous with a BUASD) is misleading because it fails to take into account the reality that is expansion (nobody would ever consider reverting the boundaries of "London" to the City of London), but on the other hand using the district/LA boundary is unlikely to make sense to many people due to what can be seen with the naked eye on all maps - the rural hinterland. It seems logical that using the BUA boundary would receive the most consensus from people, but ultimately (IMO) it's up to the people to make a decision as to whether "X is part of Y," including ambiguous instances like OS vis-à-vis MK. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

According to Urban area:

In 2013 the United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics (ONS) published 2011 Built-up Areas - Methodology and Guidance which sets out its definition of a built-up area as an area of built-up land of at least 20 hectares (0.077 sq mi), separated from other settlements by at least 200 metres (660 ft). For 2011 census data there are 5,493 built-up areas, of which 501 are divided into sub-divisions for which data is also available. Each built-up area is named algorithmically, using Ordnance Survey place-name data.^[1]

The ONS has produced census results from urban areas since 1951, since 1981 based upon the extent of irreversible urban development indicated on Ordnance Survey maps. The definition is an extent of at least 20 ha and at least 1,500 census residents. Separate areas are linked if less than 200 m (220 yd) apart. Included are transportation features.^[2]

There are some classic cases like Cambridge, where South Cambridgeshire won't give way, so that about 25,000 people in the BUA don't live in Cambridge, apparently. And the Cardiff article is in permanent edit war about whether previously independent settlements are in practice part of the city. At MK, the IP editors seem to have accepted the word of the ONS for it, thank goodness. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

So I thought... unlike you to miss out on the MKC-Whitehouse-Fairfields-Stony bus. You didn't, it no longer runs. But surely there must at least be a service to CMK? No. No public transport services serve Whitehouse or Fairfields. Not even down along Watling Street. It seems that they didn't use it enough, so they lost it. Wonderful. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm suprised that supposedly not many people used the service, because I'm pretty sure that Whitehouse and Fairfields are some of MK's fastest growing areas (this is especially telling considering all the development that has taken place there in recent years)! Maybe the Council stopped adequately financing them? I guess now they expect residents to either go to Stony to catch a bus, or to use the Council's new MK Connect Service. What a world we live in! Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You used the "currently" word!

Fifty lashes, Mr Christian. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That'll teach me to copy/paste "not quite boilerplate" from another article without double checking.

Another one against the mizzen, Mr Christian. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@JMF Aargh! You're getting 100 lashes now! ;)

Chicheley is a damn village unlike St Asaph, which is (definitely) a major city metropolis, because the Lord's Noble Majesty said so!

Excommunication! Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, the other one against the mizzen for a lashing was myself. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

My best wishes for the solstice season and the best for 2025. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@JMF Best wishes to you too! Let's hope the world changes for the better in the New Year, and most importantly, that we're not on Santa's naughty list (well we've both had plenty of lashes from Mr. Christian, so maybe we'll get a shouting from Papa Noel!). Also, maybe MK will decide to go to war with Bedford, Buckinghamshire Council and Central Bedfordshire over "housing colonialism!" Turbulent times await :-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)