Talk:Milton Keynes (borough)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Milton Keynes is a Unitary Authority, not a county. Unless anyone can provide a citation for where Milton Keynes has been officially declared as a county I'll vote for this page to be moved, or deleted. Graham 01:24 (UTC) 24 Nov 2003

Your citation is right there in the article. SI 1995/1769. It is also known as the Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order 1995, and is at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951769_en_1.htm
You will note section 8, which I quote here for your convenience
Constitution of new county of Milton Keynes
8.—(1) Milton Keynes shall cease to form part of Buckinghamshire.
(2) A new county shall be constituted comprising the area of Milton Keynes and shall be named the county of Milton Keynes.
(3) Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act (which provides that every county shall have a council) shall not apply in relation to the county of Milton Keynes.
Thanks, Morwen 07:37, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Many thanks. You learn something new every day. Graham 23:14 (UTC) 24 Nov 2003
I was also surprised that unitary authorities are now officialy counties. I personally think the new designation is very silly and very at odds with ordinary usage of the term 'county', but I suppose it's difficult to express any dissent from the legal position in the body of the article. - dan

Contents

[edit] Clean up

I've cleaned up this page so it conforms to other similar pages. David 13:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Excised material was a load of axe-grinding guff. --Concrete Cowboy 17:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

Where's the name come from? MrZaiustalk 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

From the Norman Conquest. See Middleton, Milton Keynes.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move yet pending total consensus at Wikipedia talk:List of English districts to disambiguate —Mets501 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Milton Keynes (borough) → Borough of Milton Keynes — The current article name is seriously obscure. Every instance of it is a pipe ([[Milton Keynes (borough)|Borough of Milton Keynes]]) to the proposed target name. Doing so would follow the RtM already taken for Borough of Swindon. There is some prior discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain. The form proposed is as used in all public documents: the current name is used nowhere outside Wikipedia. This RtM seems uncontroversial to me, but I realise that some people get very exercised about names!
Borough of Milton Keynes currently redirects to Milton Keynes (borough). The request is for this to be reversed. Concrete Cowboy 20:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Support for the reasons given in the Request to Move. --Concrete Cowboy 20:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments: Hold on. Check out the list at Wikipedia:List_of_English_districts_to_disambiguate#Done. As I can see, all the stuff needing disambiguation follows "brace convention", i.e. has (borough) or (district) at the end. If the consensus to change format and rename them all has been reached, please point to it and get them all for moving; if not, please seek for it... somewhere. Don't do this one by one. Duja► 20:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:List of English districts to disambiguate. The plan is to get them all moved. Hopefully, someone can write a bot. --Concrete Cowboy 12:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Arms-milton-k.jpg

Image:Arms-milton-k.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided the requested rationale template and deleted the tag. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population Data

"The 30-44 year olds in Milton Keynes Borough can be seen as the largest 10-year age group of the population with 35-39 year olds being the largest 5-year age group."

Erm, I maybe be wrong, but I don't think 30-44 represents ten years? I've tried opening the data source referenced but can't get it to open - can someone else try? Alternatively could the original editor clarify?ColourSarge (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone messed with the page. Also, the 2007/08 figs are out so I've updated the URL. Please review. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep this looks good now, have also checked the source and agree with your conclusions. ColourSarge (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)