Talk:Middleton, Milton Keynes

Pictures needed
This article could use some pictures of the village (and the road signs!). --Concrete Cowboy 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to change name of article to Middleton (Milton Keynes Village)
This seems uncontroversial to me, but others may disagree. I would like to rename this articles to become Middleton (Milton Keynes Village). The present title of the article doesn't reflect properly that Middleton (a) contains the village at its heart (b) the Parish is still Milton Keynes (c) the area has been called Milton Keynes for centuries [before which it was Middleton Cahaignes and (maybe) before that was just Middleton]. Any comments before I do it? --John Maynard Friedman 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As there are no objections, I'll go ahead. --John Maynard Friedman 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a subsequent objection, though without bothering to discuss it here. After discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, the relevant interpretation of WP:UKPLACE for this article is that the town/city is the more appropriate disambiguation. The article should be at Middleton, Milton Keynes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Page moved. As has been made clear, the relevant naming convention (WP:UKPLACE) supports this move, and arguments against it are based on outdated versions of that page. Ucucha 15:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Middleton, Buckinghamshire → — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UKPLACE, for districts of a city/town that are within the town/city boundary, it is more appropriate to use the town/city name to disambiguate it. (Note that, through a series of earlier moves, the requested name already exists as a redirect to the inappropriate name currently in use). See also discussion above.John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you say for certain that it is "within the town boundary"? This looks to me exactly as it's described - a village, not a suburb.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - you may be being misled by mapping or photography that is out of date. Go to http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/mkmap/home.asp?Y_Coord=239448&X_Coord=488830&Xpt=0&Ypt=0&Scale=2&bgimage=1&selectedgroups=8&icons=no&osrefs=no&panonclick=no&quickchangemap=no    The blue line marks the city boundary.
 * Or go to http://www.mkweb.co.uk/mkmap/home.asp?scale=3&bgimage=3&X_Coord=485043&Y_Coord=238794 and then find Midelton at the Ordnance Survety level of zoom (2nd). In the right hand panel, under "Routes and boundaries", select "city boundary" and then click "Update map". It gets you to the same address, but proves it. You can see that it  (Middleton) is a district of modern Milton Keynes. Use the highest level of zoom to see the zoning map. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would appear to contradict the duck test. Dropping into Google Street View what I see something that clearly looks like a village rather than a suburb.  Is there clear green between this and the central area?  81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Openstreetmap.org shows it a little more clearly: see http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.039897441864&lon=-0.691902637481689&zoom=14 : the legal boundary [area designated in the 1967 Order] near here follows the stream between Broughton and Broughton Gate (née Broughton Manor), as per the OS map just mentioned. Yes, Milton Keynes Village is certainly a village! But (as the article says), it is at the heart of a district called Middleton [Google's mapping is misleading here, as it doesn't show that] and it is the wider district that is being disambiguated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * [Google does get it right! - compare http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=52.035703,-0.677719&spn=0.064628,0.204449&t=h&z=13 with the next deeper zoom.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But I can't see what you are looking at in streetview? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean about the clear green stripe: that's the flood plain of the River Ouzel. Not a good idea to build on it. It's a linear park. By the way, Central Milton Keynes is not Milton Keynes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I meant. When I asked "is there clear green", I wasn't referring to any specific bit of land, but rather I meant it literally.  Either the place is a suburb, in which case we should move, or it is a village, and we should not move.  Given that boundaries are effectively just lines on the map, and urban development has a habit of stopping short of or exceeding them, I find it far more useful to look at what a place is stuck to and what's between it and somewhere else.  If you start at the centre, and head out to this place, do you at any point find yourself passing through large areas of green land?  I'm not referring to verges, buildings being set back 100 yards from the road isn't "green".  If the entire proposal is predicated on an arbitrary line which appears to have been drawn by the ONS for statistical purposes, then to my mind de minimis non curat.  So are we looking at a suburb or a village?  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the same mapping and (old by Milton Keynes standards) aerial photography as I am? Middleton is a grid square, bounded by Childs Way to the north, Tongwell St to the east, Chaffron Way to the south and Brickhill St to the east.  If the continuous urban development is relevant (which I doubt, otherwise Botley is in Oxford and Caversham is in Reading), then Northfield is to the north, Broughton to the east, Monkston to the south and Oakgrove to the west [shown as green space on Google's mapping, construction has since begun].  From the centre (which is not Milton Keynes again), because of the flood plain of the Ouzel, then you need to take a circuitous route via Willen and Pineham.  But again, it doesn't matter - see York or Exeter. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your "arbitrary line drawn by the ONS", I refer you to the "North Buckinghamshire (Milton Keynes) New Town (Designation) Order", London Gazette, January 24, 1967, page 827 in which the Minister designated the boundary of Milton Keynes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposer cites WP:UKPLACE to justify the move.  That citation reads In England, disambiguated place names should go under placename, ceremonial county. Where county boundaries have changed, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK counties).  Where further disambiguation is needed (i.e. there are two identical placenames within the same county), use the local government district. Thus Moorside, Oldham, and Moorside, Salford (not Moorside, Metropolitan Borough of Oldham or Moorside, City of Salford).  In London/Greater London, disambiguated place names should go under placename, London. Thus Rainham, London not Rainham, Greater London (which is a redirect page). Where two places exist within London, use the London Borough (in short form), so for the two Belmonts, they become Belmont, Sutton and Belmont, Harrow.  That is pretty clear that we should use Placename, Ceremonial County, which would mean staying with Middleton, Buckinghamshire.  Skinsmoke (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When I proposed this move, the text of WP:UKPLACE said quite clearly: "where this is inappropriate, use city/town name". It has been saying that |since 12:44, 20 April 2009 [based, according to the edit summary, on discussion at the time] and only stopped saying it when User:Jza84 changed it on 12 April. ::I suggest that this RtM be suspended without decision until the dispute at WP:UKPLACE is resolved.  I need to find out what discussion took place in April 2009.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Related to this archive search, I have already found Talk:Shirley, Southampton which exactly parallels this discussion. The outcome of the RTM was that Shirley, Hampshire was moved to Shirley, Southampton.  It was that decision which led to the policy being changed. On the the basis of that precedent, there should be not concerns about this article being moved as requested. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am reinstating WP:UKPLACE to the version prior to 12 April, on the basis of the policy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/April. Consequently, User:Skinsmoke's objection fails. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:IAR and common sense (I presume we all have an ounce of common sense?) Jeni  ( talk ) 23:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am firmly of the view that the ceremonial county should be used wherever possible, but if the policy disagrees with me then I must reluctantly acquiesce.  Oliver Fury, Esq.   message  •  contributions  23:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Summary: the request is compliant with WP:UKPLACE. It follows the precedent set by previous successful moves from Hampshire to Southampton.  There are two editors opposed, but both do so on the basis of the version of WP:UKPLACE that existed prior to April 2009 and that was updated then following the discussion of districts of Southampton.  One editor questions whether Middleton is indeed a "district or suburb" of Milton Keynes: reliable external sources and mapping say that it is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - but offer another suggestion I don't see how this location/article is different to Bradwell, Buckinghamshire, Calverton, Buckinghamshire or Loughton, Buckinghamshire that means it should use a different style of disambiguation. As a separate point, the article appears to be dealing with three different things. 1) The civil parish called Milton Keynes, 2) The district called Middleton, and 3) Milton Keynes Village. The parish includes two wards: Middleton and Milton Keynes Village which implies they are two different places. Might it be better to name this article Milton Keynes (civil parish). This leaves the door open to creating separate articles for Middleton and Milton Keynes Village later. It removes the inaccuracy of the article claiming there is a civil parish called Middleton. MRSC (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification MRSC's posting contains a number of misunderstandings:
 * This proposal is indeed not any different to Bradwell, Buckinghamshire or Loughton, Buckinghamshire: both are clearly within the boundary of Milton Keynes [the town, not the UA] and will (with Walton Hall, Buckinghamshire) be the subject of the next RtM. So if you have a reason why the districts of Milton Keynes should be treated differently from the districts of Southampton, you need to raise that separately. On the other hand, Calverton, Buckinghamshire is unambiguously outside the designated boundary of Milton Keynes and will remain as is.
 * Milton Keynes (civil parish) consists of two districts of Milton Keynes (the large town): Middleton and Oakgrove (which is the neighboring district to the east). Middleton (district, this article) contains Milton Keynes (village) and other neighborhoods. In parallel, Milton Keynes CP has three wards, Milton Keynes Village (ward), Middleton (ward) and Oakgrove (ward).  Middleton (ward) is not the same as Middleton (district, this article). It is an anomaly. We have two Middletons, like we have two Milton Keyness.  Your proposal confuses the larger with the smaller. The district of Middleton is not coterminous with the parish. If you have trouble understanding this, please go to http://www.mkweb.co.uk/mkmap/home.asp and play with the boundary switches at the right, preferably with 'city map' (on left) activated.
 * So to summarise: the alternative proposal is based on a misconception, caused by multiple use of the same name to mean different places. I trust that the explanation above clarifies matters and the request can proceed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC) revised --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PLACE is clear that Placename, County is used as the default naming where disambiguation is required. Placename, Town is exceptional use. Placename, County was chosen with good reason, it is non-subjective and easy to apply. I'm not convinced by the arguments for renaming this or any other settlement in Milton Keynes to Placename, Town. Looking at the other places in England, Placename, County is overwhelmingly the convention. MRSC (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is easily an exceptional situation! Jeni  ( talk ) 09:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * MRSC, please read WP:UKPLACE again. It has not said what you think it says, in over a year.  It says quite clearly that districts that are part of cities/towns are disambiguated by the city/town name. If you would care to read earlier in this RtM discussion, you will see a link to when it was changed, after a comprehensive debate. Your objection is ill founded and therefore invalid. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)   (As for other places in England, please see for example the districts of Southampton as discussed above.  You are certainly right about places outside the city limits, like Calverton, Buckinghamshire but not about Middleton). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Summary: The request complies with WP:UKPLACE#England and is therefore uncontroversial. None of the three persons opposed have produced a reason why it should be made an exeception to the rule. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus for move. Discussions as to whether one or two articles are appropriate can be carried out separately to this request. Dpmuk (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Middleton, Milton Keynes → Milton Keynes Village — I think it is more commonly called Milton Keynes Village than Middleton, also it is shown on my road atlas as Milton Keynes Village, not Middleton. Crouch, Swale  talk to me   My contribs  15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hi there Crouch, Swale. Can you provide any reliable sources to support this proposal? As it stands it seems to be based on your interpretation of a road atlas which I would class as original research? Best,  Nancy  talk  16:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Road atlasses typically point to original settlements (which the Village certainly is), not the district that contains them. It is not obvious why the atlas should be relevant when the article is about the district. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We do have to go by official names I feel when talking about places, and Middleton's official name is Middleton. No problem with adding also known as Milton Keynes Village in the lead of the article but the article name should remain as it is.  Also a simple google search for the two terms brings in 274,000 for "Middleton, Milton Keynes", but only 122,000 for "Milton Keynes Village". --  role player 16:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is about the district (grid square) called Middleton. Milton Keynes Village is in Middlton, it is not an alternative name for it. At present, everything is being done to give recogniton to the Village: the first line of the article Milton Keynes is a pointer to the Village. There is an article called Milton Keynes Village which jumps directly to the Village section of the Middleton article.   We could of course have two articles but they would each be just two or three lines and so at great risk of being deleted.  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment looking at http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm, there appears to be 2 settlements, also looking at What links Here there appears to be 2 settlements, as List of United Kingdom locations: Mid-Mn links to Milton Keynes Village and List of United Kingdom locations: Mid-Mn links to Middleton, Milton Keynes. I think the best solution would be to have separate articles. Crouch, Swale   talk to me   My contribs  11:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is a misreading of the geography. (a) There is a district, Middleton, which is bounded to the north by Childs Way, to the east by Tongwell St (A4146 road), to the south by Chafron Way and to the west by Brickhill St. [It is easier to see on Google maps]. That district contains Milton Keynes Village, two schools and some modern development. (b) There is a Parish called "Milton Keynes", with history going back hundreds of years. (c) That parish contains three wards: Milton Keynes (the village), Middleton [the modern part of the district] and Oakgrove (on the other side of Brickhill St).  Now we could certainly have five articles: Milton Keynes (parish), Milton Keynes (village), Milton Keynes (ward), Middleton (district) and Middleton (ward).  But each of these would amount to perhaps two or three lines, each article mostly duplicating the other four.  So a split is just about arguable; a rename is not.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the question directly, no, there are not two settlements, there is one settlement – Middleton [whose name derives from the un-elided historic name, Middleton de Cahaignes - see the VCH reference in the article] and the Village is its 'heart'. Certainly there are two settlement patterns - the Village is almost entirely pre-19th C houses whereas the rest of the district is late 20C/early 21C houses.  I don't have a problem with two articles, but not for the reason that Crouch, Swale proposes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Splitting the article
I suggest that we split the article into (a) Middleton [the district] and (b) Milton Keynes (civil parish) (currently a redirect) at the same time as Broughton and MK joint CP divides. I don't believe that this is currently on the cards but I suspect it won't be more than a couple of years or so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middleton, 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090608003948/http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/parishes/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=17026 to http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/parishes/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=17026

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Split 2
From User talk:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (1) and the above discussions should we split this article? The normal convention if a settlement and parish have the same name is to have a single article describing both such as Temple Guiting rather that having an article for the settlement and the parish. This also includes cases where the parish name is a synonym for the settlement such as Aston-on-Trent and Aston upon Trent thus "Milton Keynes" (parish) is a synonym for "Milton Keynes Village" (the settlement). Reading the article is also seems like the names of "Middleton" and "Milton Keynes" are also synonymous however from the above discussion it was noted that "Middleton" and "Milton Keynes Village" are 2 different places however if the names are still somewhat synonymous or the distinction is otherwise unclear it might be better to keep them combined. Should we


 * A, split this article to Milton Keynes Village and redirect Milton Keynes (civil parish) there
 * B, split this article to Milton Keynes (parish) or Milton Keynes (civil parish) and redirect Milton Keynes Village there
 * C, move this article to Milton Keynes Village, Milton Keynes (parish) or Milton Keynes (civil parish)
 * D, leave as is.

Thoughts? I'm not sure which option is best.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * D, leave as is.
 * The normal convention can't be imposed in this case because it doesn't fit the facts on the ground. There will always be exceptions (see also Campbell Park) so the rule needs to adjust to the reality. Right now, Milton Keynes (civil parish) redirects to Middleton, Milton Keynes and that works. It ain't broke, there is nothing to fix. The civil parish of Milton Keynes predates the foundation of the new city, and the local people have chosen to retain the name, however 'untidy' to outsiders that may be – tough cookie.  The CP consists of three districts (Oakgrove, Middleton, Fox Milne) and part of a fourth (Broughton). You can get a much better sense of the local perception by looking at the map produced by the PC itself.
 * A: The Village itself is about a third of the area of Middleton and, as I said elsewhere, the suffix has no legal status, it is just a common name, a disambiguator. The road signs approaching the village still say "Milton Keynes". It would be an insane fiction to drag the heart out of its own district: as you walk through, the only distinction is the age of the houses – pre-1967 v post.
 * B: The reverse side of coin A, with all the same problems except the additional one that Milton Keynes parish is the CoE parish of the church of All Saints on Willen Road.
 * C1: No, because the district is called Middleton, the Village is just the heart of it. "Middleton, Milton Keynes" has the convenient advantage of recognising both names.
 * C2 as per B, Milton Keynes parish is the CoE parish of the church of All Saints
 * C3: No, because that gives the CP a greater priority than it deserves. It doesn't have its own PC at present, it operates jointly with Broughton.
 * It ain't broke, there is nothing to fix. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Rereading your intro, Middleton and MK Village are not synonyms at present [though Middletone was the ancient name for the village]. The village is the historic core of the district. If the people who chose the name for the new city has picked something else, the district would have had the same name as its core village (as happened nearby, at Broughton, Milton Keynes). They didn't, so the planners had to come up with an alternative name. If the people who lived in the village has submitted to the new name, the issue would not have arisen. They didn't, so Wikipedia has to work around it. What we cannot and must not do is impose an arbitrary 'standard' where it is clearly not going to work or reflect reality. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Split 2a

 * My suggestion is to rename or split the article to create Milton Keynes (village). If Wikipedia had existed 100 years ago, it would have had an article called Milton Keynes which would have covered the village, history, church and civil parish.  The village is no longer the primary topic for the name, so it needs to be disambiguated.  To the extent that the village, church and civil parish continue to exist, the article can continue to cover them, and there is no need for new articles.  The lead could say:
 * Milton Keynes was a village and civil parish in Buckinghamshire, England, before the foundation of the "new city" of Milton Keynes in 1967. The new Milton Keynes includes the old village, which is now called Milton Keynes Village. The civil parish continues to exist, but it now has a joint parish council with Broughton called Broughton and Milton Keynes Parish Council.
 * There is the question of what to do about Middleton. It seems that some Milton Keynes districts have their own articles (e.g Oakgrove) while others are included in their parish articles (e.g. Shenley Church End and Woughton).  If Middleton becomes a section of this article, the history of the names of the village would still be in one place, without duplication, and I think that would be easier to understand. JonH (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't reflect reality. Milton Keynes (the village) still is "a village and civil parish in Bucks". The civil parish (Milton Keynes CP) is not combined with Broughton CP, they just have chosen to have a single administration at present and that could change next week if they chose to do so.
 * The old village is not "now called Milton Keynes Village", though that is its common name, a local form of disambiguation. Its proper name is "Milton Keynes". Full stop.
 * Almost all the districts of the "city" that have articles have them because in each case the ancient village or town at their hearts is historically notable and the new district bears the name of the historic settlement. Indeed Middleton bears the name of the village at its heart, just not the one in use since the De Cahaignes took over.
 * Instead of one worthwhile article we would end up with two trivial articles, three stubs if we also have a separate Milton Keynes (civil parish). That is not a natural division that anyone living in the area would recognise.
 * So why would we want to do any of this? Is it because it would be nice and tidy and match the other Wikipedia UK settlement articles? That is not a good reason. WP:Think of the reader should motivate us to find the best way that describes all its complexity and that means doing all in one place; not every round peg must be hammered into a square hole. Wikipedia editors must adapt to the world as it is, not create fictions that can be made fit with some arbitrary ideal. Right now, the various names all redirect to the same single article. It works. It has worked for years. Nobody local has tried to change it. It is not broken. It does not need to be fixed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm completely missing the point, but even after reading all if the above I cannot see what the purpose of the split would be given the article seems to be completely fine, and so do the redirects? For example, West Gorton redirects to Gorton, despite being only the western half of it. Knowsley Village redirects to Knowsley, Merseyside, even though the village part only constitutes part of the modern area, not even considering the much larger borough. City of Birmingham redirects to the much larger Birmingham. So we have precedent to leave it as it is. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I hasten to mention, Milton Keynes has probably the easiest neighbourhood split around. Each "square" is named. You live that particular square that's your neighbourhood. It's gerrymander-proof really. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of a split either. There are articles for virtually all of the other modern Milton Keynes districts which were formerly "independent" villages and now have a wider CP named after the main settlement, and it is just one singular article, and any linked mention of the main settlement redirects to that very article (e.g. Great Linford, whose CP is greater than the original village).


 * This does not apply to, say, Willen as it is just the name of the historic village, and not a wider CP (in this case, the CP is Campbell Park). As this is how it is throughout the MK articles, and other settlement-related articles, I see no need to make an exception in this case. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * West Gorton was a CP in its own right so probably should have an article, Knowsley Village redirects to Knowsley, Merseyside that deals with the village and parish, the normal convention is to cover village and parish in 1 article, Birmingham deals with the unparished area and the distinct covering 2 other parishes, West Midlands conurbation deals with the larger urban area. Note though that Harlow (the new town) and Old Harlow do have separate articles, the question for Milton Keynes is do we need separate articles for the original village and Middleton or not and if not what should the single article be called?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And the clear consensus is that we do not. I have yet to see any good reason to split other than to shoehorn it in to some arbitrary hierarchy that simply doesn't work in this case and doesn't need to work given that there are redirect articles that do the same job. As I've said earlier, if the enlarged district had been able to take the name of the core village (as it has done in the other 18 similar cases in (overall) MK), the question would never arise. English geography rejoices in such anomalies and long may they last. If the ideal model clashes with reality, it is the model - not reality - that must change.
 * This pointless debate has gone on for six weeks now, the consensus and wp:STATUSQUO are clear. It is time to close this discussion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

District
The word "district" is not really confusing or ambiguous. In most of the world it is a neighborhood or similar. It just happens that some UK local government areas are called "District". There are none such in Bucks any more.

Conversely, the word "area" is rather meaningless. It has a precise geometric definition or a very vague handwaving gesture for something undefined: Middleton has very definite boundaries.

So I am reverting your edit to Middleton. If you disagree, please open a WP:BRD. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for your message. What I would ask you then, is whether the term "district" is one used either in an official context, or indeed in a significant number of sources, do describe this location. If there are, then fine - we can declare that there's a common usage to that term that makes it appropriate for the Milton Keynes setting. However, if this is just intended to be a general word to describe areas or suburbs of the city, then the term district should be avoided for that. This has been discussed over the years in a List of areas of London context, noting that that page stopped using the term "district" in 2012, for precisely the same reason. In England, a district means a local-government district, so even if it can refer to suburbs, it's best to avoid doing so to ensure readers aren't confused. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This boils down to "District" v. "district". The former, at least in England is an area (sic!) controlled by its own local authority; the latter is a WP:common name for a well-defined large neighborhood (suburb perhaps but the districts of MK are definitely not suburbs). If the article where the word is used is a local authority, that will be immediately obvious – infobox, politics, etc. If not, then the common sense interpretation is valid. Compare Central Business District, Garment District (disambiguation), even Lake District.
 * We could use the local term "grid square" but few outsiders would understand! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks, but what I'm sensing from your answer is that these aren't commonly called districts. If they aren't, then I just don't think there's any case for Wikipedia to use that term to denote them. It may sometimes refer to arbitrary delineations as you suggest, but given the potential for confusion, and the fact that sources simply don't use this term, it is not fair on our readers for us to do so. You say the term isn't applied to Milton Keynes, but if we look at List of English districts by population we can see that Milton Keynes is actually given as one of them. While Middleton isn't. So yes, we can think about other terms - suburb or area is all fine, but if it's a formal delineated unit then it must have an actual name we can use. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * (I've moved the discussion here from my talk page, as this seems the correct place to discuss this) - further to the above, I have located two sources (one from the council itself and one from the MK city discovery centre) which definitively call the entities under discussion, including Middleton, areas: I've not particularly seen sources other than Wikipedia mirrors calling them districts though. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amakuru that "district" more commonly refers to local government districts and something like "suburb" would be better.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If MK City Discovery Centre (MKCDC at Bradwell Abbey) says "area", then I concede, as they are the platinum standard for info about MK. Though I would still argue that the government's nomenclature is exceptionally obtuse. But 'suburb' is wrong on many levels, completely fails to understand that MK is "different by design". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)