Talk:List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

1593:: the sooner we can fix that, the better!), you will see how people have repeatedly misinterpreted it, despite its prominent hat note. In the case of this article, there is no such health warning and worse still, it explicitly links to Knowledge (XXG) city/town articles that define a geographic area that may not be (and often is not) the same as the ONS one(s). Yes, I am well aware that there are many competing definitions and that different people hold different views about which is "correct" – sometimes vociferously. So it is essential to identify primary sources for what they are – and what they are not. It is not helpful to anyone to cloud the issues deliberately, as this article as it stands does. -- 1102:

larger 2011 built-up areas as a placeholder, or leave it blank pending release of the 2021 conglomerations data. (Late last year I asked ONS when it was due, and was told they were aiming to release the conglomerations around Spring 2024.) That way it's clearer to the reader that the built-up area data alone is only a partial picture, which helps to explain some of the things which feel odd if you look at the 2021 built-up areas in isolation, like Wythenshawe not being part of Manchester, Caversham not being part of Reading, and Bletchley not being part of Milton Keynes.

1075:

deemed towns / cities and where their links should be going. The built-up area data that's been used is part of a wider set of data that isn't yet complete - it's missing the built-up conglomerations data that's still awaited from the Office for National Statistics. The data used therefore excludes London, and any list purporting to show towns and cities in England by population which has to qualify itself by saying "but excluding London, because we can't work out what to say for it" (I paraphrase) isn't that useful to the average reader.

113: 92: 123: 218: 197: 1094:

parishes that have declared themselves towns which fall within a larger urban area, whether Greater Manchester (conglomeration) and Manchester (city / built-up area) should go on the same row, and what you do with the likes of Leighton Buzzard where the town council is called Leighton-Linslade but the built-up area is called Leighton Buzzard. Even if we could reach consensus on every such issue, the result would probably be

2061: 320: 302: 415: 394: 61: 228: 330: 32: 510: 2445:. Appreciate the effort you're putting in here. Wondering why the populations are in the last two columns. Wouldn't it be better to put the population columns next to the built up areas i.e. in the 3rd & 4th columns? At a glance, it could be misconstrued that the populations refer to the counties they are next to. 947:

hence a very high level indication of place sizes. BUAs are subdivided at gaps in the urban space as well as cartographically. The problem though of only using administrative geography is that not everywhere is parished, neither does a parish contain all settlements or might be subdivided across them.

2187:

include Kempston, Luton/Dunstable/Hockliffe is a single settlement with three centres, ditto Brighton and Hove, Bournemouth/Poole, Greater Manchester, Birmingham/Dudley/Wolverhampton. It is a nonsense to force major urban areas into a model designed for isolated rural towns: it just looks ridiculous.

1607:

I don't necessarily think the ESPON was "wrong" in as much as it aged long past relevance. What it defined was right for its very specific quotient of right - and was used across Europe - making for a consistent approach. In contrast mixing Urban Area, BUA, BUASD, Cities, Towns, Local Authority Areas

715:

For reasons best known to itself, the ONS has arbitrarily divided the city (as defined by the 1967 designation, which explicitly includes Bletchley, Wolverton, Stony Stratford in the "designated area") into two subdivisions: "Bletchley" (actually Bletchley and Fenny Stratford) and called the other it

606:

The population figures in this article are based on an Excel data download. Surely this is a primary source? Knowledge (XXG) articles are based on secondary sources. The population figures for districts are more widely reported, at least by the council's themselves, and the council areas have defined

1946:

Yes, that resonates with me. It takes us back to the fundamental question: why does this article even exist? IMO, the latest iteration is another attempt to polish... well you know the rest. I'm even more convinced that it is an unencyclopedic attempt to copy the ONS spreadsheets, but without any of

1367:

Now, IMO, I agree with JMF that the Milton Keynes BUA overall needs more BUASDs, none of which should be called "Milton Keynes" because it would be bonkers to apply the name of a prominent and growing city to just a segment of it. But if we really were going to define what the "settlement" of Milton

1087:

Expand the data to acknowledge the fact that many towns / cities have multiple definitions for which population statistics are compiled, and enlarge the tables to have perhaps three columns for: built-up area; conglomeration (temporarily using the 2011 data until the 2021 data is released); and area

772:

I know why, if a parish council decides to become a town council in England, it turns the area it governs into a town. Bletchley and Fenny Stratford has a town council (probably happened just before 2011 census), I assume the ONS added West Bletchley and called it Bletchley since it seems obvious to

626:

Primary sources are okay so long as they are not misused. We've for a long time used ONS direct references as authoritive statistical measures as their sources are complete and come with definition and analysis. The issue here is the source is (potentially) being misused by our own interpretation of

591:

a list of towns and cities in England by population, it is a list of ONS artefacts that use names that happen to be those of towns and cities in England but any area matches are coincidental. IMO, the article should be deleted per policy that says statistical divisions are not of themselves notable.

2330:

the ″boundary of MK″, whilst some local residents conversely argue that MK begins several miles down the A509. And Lavendon isn't even contiguous with inner MK. Where settlements are contiguous as part of one physical BUA, it becomes even harder to denote the differences in terms of human, physical

1691:

I am happy if it is renamed to "List of 2021 built-up areas in England" but also not bothered with changing it, I'll leave that to somebody else who feels the need to. The article title I am proposing is specifically what I accept unless somebody comes up with another many user agreed upon one. The

1101:

I'm therefore leaning towards the idea that the best solution would be to rename the article to be explicit that it is purely talking about built-up areas, not towns or cities, but to have two columns of data for built-up area and conglomeration. For the conglomerations column we can either use the

2153:

I've compared the ONS/CityPop columns of figures and except for London there are differences of at max. 50 between the two sets of figures. That's insignificant and caused by roundings and/or slight differences in methodologies. No need for having the CityPop figures currently included; it doesn't

1699:

Back to related settlements. At the moment not each individual part and definitely not what each does not include but just a small sample, let's say 5 undisputed areas in each row starting with the major table and build it up slowly. Ten can then be done and so on. Smaller places will be harder so

1646:

What about unlink all built-up areas in the tables and add a column along the lines of "Related settlement/s" or "Associated settlement/s". If built-up areas were un-linked and a second column wasn't added then users would keep coming in and linking things in the built-up area column all the time.

946:

The BUA terminology only changed for this census but the general guidelines remains sound. The statistical geography extents don't always follow administrative boundaries which is what most locals recognise as the traditional definition of a settlement, which only give a general idea of extent and

931:

It is a list article indicating the largest areas by population. That UKSTAT needs updating as ONS haven’t supplied new data of larger areas since 2011(it reads like it was written for the 2001 census data). For the 2021 census the smaller ones (formerly known as BUA sub-divisions) were renamed to

1074:

There are several problems with this article. The title claims to be towns and cities, but the data is built-up areas, without fully explaining the differences in definitions. As such, we end up with inevitable differences of opinion as we've seen above on Milton Keynes as to what areas should be

2033:

That is another example that demonstrates that this article is without value or purpose. The ONS has still not produced a figure for Greater London, Greater Manchester, the West Midlands etc. The ONS lists the London boroughs individually. This list does not, leaving readers perplexed. The whole

1676:

More fundamentally, IMO, to have this list at all is at best premature: when the ONS finally gets round to publishing the conurbation/agglomeration definitions and associated data, then we will have an article of value and that will be meaningful to the uninitiated reader. What we have now will

656:

violation (if not a deliberate falsehood) arises when an editor cites the ONS to give the population of an area that is different from that delineated by the ONS. That can be done explicitly or, as in this case, implicitly by wikilinking the ONS name to our article name. It can also be done by

1755:@Chocolateditor, you haven't explained the criteria for this column? I don't have any great solutions to the conundrum set by the ONS's inconsistent methodology but listing a selection of the CPs or wards that the ONS included in its defined boundary wasn't one of them. I guess I had in mind an 1622:

I agree 100%. ESPON certainly was not wrong, for exactly the same reason as the ONS is not wrong: in each case, they have defined their terms very clearly. The problem is entirely one of our own making in articles such as this, with editors (and readers) shoehorning the source to fit some other

1414:

No conglomeration layouts or figures are available yet. Citypop.de are not to be trusted, seems they are trying hard to be first for the stats but I've seen where they are not using new nomenclature or inventing counts. Only reason they have been used in the past is that ONS data was not always

1093:

Conceptually, I think the third option would be most useful to readers for understanding at a glance the complexities involved, but I can also see it would be fraught with difficulty to compile as a sortable table. There would be questions such as how you arrange the overlapping definitions for

2283:

conurbation and there's likely little dispute over this. Where there is likely to be disagreement is calling the conurbation 'Birmingham'. A sort of parallel can be drawn with the Cornwall 'situation'. Some people on here insist Cornwall is not part of England for reasons of history, culture,

1627:

is more than merely problematic, it deliberately misdirects our readers. I don't mind either, indeed I don't look for consistency across UK geography. I only ask for consistency and honesty within articles, that we define our terms equally clearly, that we don't wikilink between inconsistent

1559:

Unusual and mis-defined is exactly how the UK works, the ONS is the same source as the district populations in the list of cities article. Towns and cities have a de jure (official) area and statistics as well as de facto (in practice). If we stuck purely to de jure a lot of articles would be

1275:

No, in fact at designation, Bletchley was the largest settlement in the area, and a town in its own right for at least 50 years. Milton Keynes was a tiny village near Newport Pagnell. The other "anchor" settlements were the towns of Wolverton and Stony Stratford. Legally, Milton Keynes

2226:

I'm trying to gain an understanding of what you've written above, and how it relates in terms of the ONS note. Is it fair to say you view Wolverhampton not as a separate settlement, but as an integral part of Birmingham? If so, do you regard Wolverhampton as a larger version of say,

1650:

Maybe (probably a silly thing rejected straight away but a suggestion not the less) add a few areas in this new "related settlement/s" column, (with a cap on how many) like Ashton, Edgbaston, etc with Birmingham. I'd just like to see small areas but can be easily disregarded.

2306:

Again, this is another instance where we have to remember that the boundaries of places are ambiguous. You mention correctly that there are signs denoting the boundary between historic Bedford and Kempston. But there are other instances where this is not the case. There are

2278:

Our settlement articles not only cover physical and human geography but also history, culture, sport, governance etc. Settlements linked by geography within the same conurbation can have quite different histories. Yes, both Wolverhampton and Birmingham are part of the

1665:

That would certainly help (indeed be essential), though how you hope to achieve it without weeks of work is "interesting" because in each case you have to say not only what it includes but also what it does not include. (Subsets, supersets, overlapping sets, the whole

1399:

BUASD is not used for the 2021 figures. Is there a ONS population figure available for "Milton Keynes built up conglomeration"? If not, is it preferable to wait until one is published by ONS/NOMIS and use that, rather than use citypopulation.de's calculated figure?

1121: 1305:

That the ONS defined a BUASD it calls Bletchley is not really a problem. The serious issue is that they defined a single BUASD for all of the rest the city (rather than the geographic four) and specifically that they called it "Milton Keynes". That is just sloppy.

1105:

Of course, even once the conglomerations data is released there'll be aspects that feel odd to locals as to how their areas have been treated, but we would be faithfully reporting what a reliable source has said rather than adding layers of our own interpretation.

1415:

directly referenceable, but am hoping the latest census data is more accessible enough so that they can be ditched altogether. Note that 2021 new-styled 'BUA' figures are available from ONS albeit rounded and those are currently being referred to in this article.

2085:

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.

1912:. Also, sourcing currently within the article does not satisfy notability requirements because while the ONS is a reliable source for its own definitions and data, notability requires independent coverage of the topic, outside of the ONS, the data compiler. 1355:

designation order. But today, that is largely irrelevant, especially considering the fact that the city has expanded outside of this boundary so much so that institutions, including the ONS, likely forget that the New Town boundary ever existed in the first

2081: 42: 1866:

in the BUA as it becomes opinion or mashing refs together like the UN example in WP:SNYTH. Looking at the report ref, it does include what is in the area because the areas are visible when you are zooming in on the maps that have the BUAs overlaid onto

1368:

Keynes is, then between the BUA and the BUASD, the former is much more accurate IMO considering the fact that the city continues to expand far outside of the 1967 boundary, and excluding those new developments from the population count of the city is

1363:

and roundabouts (the stereotypical depiction of the city), whilst Bletchley and NP are towns within the wider metropolis and unitary authority area of MK, but distinct from the modern "main" settlement, which they have hence decided to name "Milton

1394:

for using the word "bonkers" — first time I've seen it on Knowledge (XXG) :) But seriously, isn't it the case of the ONS merely changing the nomenclature? For 2021, aren't the 2011 BUASDs now BUAs and the 2011 BUAs now "built up conglomerations"?

2247:

On the ground, you cannot distinguish where (historic) Bedford ends and Kempston ends. Ditto Luton and Dunstable. Ditto Birmingham, Dudley, Wolverhampton etc. Conversely, there is a clear gap between Bletchley and the adjacent districts of MK

1774:

Agree. Criteria need to be set to decide inclusion. As it stands it seems to include city/town centres plus a somewhat random list of suburbs/other places. But more than this: what does "Related places" mean? Does the ONS even use this term?

1261:. Designations can change. Looks as though Bletchley was previously viewed by the ONS as little more than a suburb of Milton Keynes, but has revised this view and now treats it as a town in its own right, within the City of Milton Keynes. 649:, then we accept that as true. A problem arises when they use a name that is widely used to mean a differently delineated area, especially one significantly smaller than common understanding or even legal definition of the area concerned. 2088:

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

1125: 776:

I linked Milton Keynes to the part of the article explaining Milton Keynes's towns maybe you don't didn't know that with a link if you put an article name, a # and a header in the article it sends you to that part of an article not the

630:

Council district numbers published by the council themselves would be just as equally a Primary source, not all councils publish suxh numbers, or at the same time etc. Which is why the comprehensive ONS has been preferred in the past.

2409:, they should be listed in an article too - like this one, but with a more realistic definition of a ″built-up area″. That way, we could have several different articles clearly denoting which version of a ″settlement″ they relate to. 1736:(the "ONS" is essential, as we found with the ESPON article, and hopefully there will soon be an OS list defined by actual cartographers). I have also revised the hat note. I'll leave you to do the unlinking and new colunm adding. -- 795: 716:

calls "Milton Keynes". The latter is just a fragment of the city: whether the ONS calls it a BUA or a BUASD is irrelevant: it is still a subdivision. But the key point is that it would deliberately mislead readers if we link it to

491:

The comment above the 75,000-99,999 list states that Reading is a city, despite the opposite being stated earlier in the article and Reading not being in the list below. Could someone work out which city is meant to be referenced?

1560:

removed. The 2011 BUASD statistics were widely used and the 2021 version is a clear successor. Citypopulation.de clearly does seem a bit iffy with its sources but if you question the ONS we would have no sources at all.

1533:, we have a broader issue on wikipedia at the moment that (much like the aged source that was the ESPON totals) regarding multiple sources being used for different measures of what are (or should be) the same thing. 1033:. Maybe this article should be deleted? A list of settlements by population should follow articles in reliable sources where such lists have been set out. Has the ONS produced a listing that agrees with this one? 2256:

they are not otherwise distinct in terms of human settlement, they are each part of the West Midlands conurbation. This is 2024, not 1724. We are dealing with physical and human geography, not football teams.

2183:) is the digested version, which matches the "view from 20,000 feet" and doesn't get bogged down in political boundaries, minor streams, long-lost hedgerows and childish loyalties. In the real world, Bedford 1947:

their explanatory material. As for any coverage of BUAs in books or newspapers, I've never seen any and tbh I could only envisage a news article about the concept being used to generate a clickbait headline.

1088:(if any) officially holding town or city status. Not all places would have figures in each column - for example London isn't a single built-up area, whilst Halifax has no area that formally holds town status. 847:

Of course what this case demonstrates is this whole article is fundamentally unsound: it is a list of ONS statistical areas, not a list of cities and towns. Even the ONS does not claim that it is, indeed

1053:"urban area" from Citypopulation.de (in the note), where the table in which it is included shows populations of over 2.7m for Manchester, 2.5m for Birmingham and doesn't include say, Wolverhampton and 1165: 780:

No BUASDs exist in the 2021 Census you say it is irrelevant then contradict yourself in the next paragraph by trying to use it sound as if the ONS did it to specifically make Milton Keynes smaller.

1351:

and are physically connected to the wider core built-up-area of MK. The only difference is that NP became integrated with MK around a decade or so later than Bletchley, and wasn't included in the

1870:

Still half way on large table with related areas, with large table some are reduced down with the amount of areas(not for lack of looking), will definitely unlink all BUAs by the time I am done.

2176:) is just a mirror of the ONS spreadsheet – the trivial differences are just down to when the snapshot was taken. So it adds no value whatever to the list as it stands, it is entirely redundant. 1129: 1291:

have defined BUASDs defined by the A5, A421, A422 and the flood plain of the River Ouzel. But now they have painted themselves into a corner and hoping that the OS will dig them out of it.

1081:

Delete the article - there aren't huge numbers of articles linking to this page, but equally it is a potentially useful topic that one might reasonably expect there to be an article about.

1221:

for that, and the same is true for civil parishes, cities and unitary authority areas. The boundaries of places are subjective, and they should be listed on WP based on a set of criteria.

1120:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who contacted the ONS about when the conglomeration data would be released. I for one am leaning towards deletion of this article for the same reasons that

1673:

But the name of the article is still a huge problem because it is simply untrue. If the article is to be kept, the name must change to match its content: a list of ONS built-up areas.

1376:

may prefer us to even use the unitary authority area definition, but getting consensus for that would probably be harder than trying to fly to Mars, so that's for another debate...).

2271:

On certain parts of the ground like main roads, the artery along which most travellers between two places cross settlement boundaries, signs have been placed at the boundary, so one

1496:

The current title of this article is dishonest. It is not a "List of towns and cities in England by population". It is a list of ONS built-up areas and should be named accordingly.

2276: 1343:

That Bletchley was part of the 1967 MK designation probably isn't relevant enough to the ONS today because it's relation to MK is, for all intents and purposes, almost identical to

917:, although the BUA/SDs have been used to create county settlement tables in articles, those are intended to be very high level and give a very general indication of largest areas. 712:. Nor can we quote the ONS population figure without an explanation of what it is and, more importantly, what it is not. To do otherwise is deliberately to mislead our readers. 2224:

exception is Greater London, where different settlements are not able to be separately identified and where the geography instead follows administrative borough boundaries. . .

1396: 2252:

those districts are themselves equally isolated by the same road corridors. So back to your question: there is no doubt that Birmingham and Wolverhampton have distinct centres

1553:

If you really really want to rename it use "List of 2021 built-up areas in England", the 2031 census will probably have another term can the ONS settle on terminology honestly.

801:

Milton Keynes consists of constituent towns, villages and other settlements – not unlike Greater London. The fraction that the ONS calls "Bletchley" consists of two parishes, "

2066: 2051: 1733: 1976: 1608:

and such is way more problematic. I ultimately don't care which of them is selected, so long as it's then applied across all articles so we can be internally consistent.

179: 2522: 1590: 1280:

Bletchley, Wolverton, Stony Stratford, the villages and the new neighbourhoods. It is polycentric, the original "15 minute city". No suburbs in the conventional sense.

274: 2532: 2507: 1472: 817:, the original Bletchley, a small village outside Fenny Stratford before the railway junction arrived). The fraction that the ONS calls "Milton Keynes" consists of 169: 1556:

If anything combined authorities are effectively the current metropolitan areas since they've absorbed the residual metropolitan county bodies and added new areas.

1586: 1500: 1150:

a deletion of this article, largely because there's thousands of definitions as to what can constitute a "town" or "city." Using Milton Keynes as an example, the

557:. The source it uses explicitly excludes London but this article includes it. The source also doesnt refer to these areas as towns or cities but built-up areas. 2517: 2512: 1167:. Yet, others will argue that the actual "city" of Milton Keynes is either its 1967 designated area, or the slightly wider Milton Keynes built-up area (some 657:

calling the article a "list of towns and cities in England by population" when it is no such thing – it is a list of ONS-defined built-up area subdivisions.

2070: 975:. Are you saying the ONS creates a new built up area for a newly formed town council? If so, are you able to provide a source for this? Could be important. 145: 2502: 645:

Fundamentally, the ONS is a reliable source for its own definitions. If the ONS says that the population of an area that it clearly delineates on a map is

1162:

unitary authority area. Hence, by default, in official sources "Milton Keynes" usually refers to, by default, the UA and not the contiguous built-up area

284: 1975:

article is based on the city and metropolitan borough but the population figures in this article, according to the shaded mapped areas on the ONS website

1692:

probably inaccurately named urban areas of England deal with conurbations not this article, I'm going to propose a merger of some articles in a bit on

1218: 818: 469: 1228:

is indeed 100% an integral part of Milton Keynes, and it's relation to MK is indistinguishable from that of any modern area of the city, including

136: 97: 2475: 2547: 2537: 459: 1904:

as we'd be choosing which separate BUAs to include. Why we're running into problems here is because by my reckoning the article is based on

250: 1526: 2355:. Small historical differences may be relevant historians and archaeologists, and for celebrating a place's culture, but most urban areas 360: 2552: 2106:

I know we edit conflicted when you added the message to the top of the article and had to fix it. I was typing in talk when I saw this.

435: 2527: 1340:(unitary authority area). However, over time the differences between these have blurred since the city has, and continues to, expand. 747:) into a least four fragments – which of course it has not done. The ONS is a reliable source for its own definitions; it will be a 2542: 1233: 1979: 2018:

I know the list has now been amended but I cannot see London or any of the boroughs in the list? Has she declared independence?

241: 202: 343: 307: 72: 1209:

The fact that these ambiguities exist means that any attempt to define what a town, city or settlement is is likely based on

431: 427: 422: 399: 1822: 1798: 802: 531:

Oops I copied the sentence and edited it to fit each section, missing it, the section Reading is actually in is correct.

2487: 2469: 2454: 2418: 2301: 2266: 2240: 2197: 2167: 2147: 2115: 2100: 2043: 2027: 2023: 2005: 1991: 1960: 1937: 1893: 1879: 1854: 1784: 1768: 1745: 1709: 1686: 1660: 1641: 1617: 1602: 1569: 1542: 1515: 1424: 1409: 1385: 1333: 1315: 1300: 1270: 1244: 1141: 1115: 1069: 1042: 1020: 998: 984: 956: 941: 926: 900: 878: 789: 766: 751: 725: 683: 669: 640: 620: 601: 581: 566: 540: 526: 501: 2074: 611:

requirements of coverage in secondary sources, unless it can be looked upon as a navigational aid to finding articles.

38: 2284:

legislation etc and a consensus has come about to use "town/village is in Cornwall, England, United Kingdom", as with

1982:, so if we're attempting a reconciliation we would need an "Areas included" column as well as an "Areas omitted" one. 1324:

I think the problem is that there are various legal entities called "Milton Keynes", i.e. the 1967 designated area of

849: 740: 973:

I know why, if a parish council decides to become a town council in England, it turns the area it governs into a town

736:. We have no article that maps to the ONS division, nor are we ever likely to have, since it is not at all notable. 1257:. The Wolverhampton 2021 BUA excludes Bilston, so the ONS see Bilston as separate from Wolverhampton but within the 17: 2414: 2323: 1700:

the amount might trickle down. If the idea is disliked, I won't do it but I will probably unlink BUA columns soon.

1460: 1381: 1373: 1240: 674:

Presumably then, this article if retained, should be titled "List of population by ONS Built up areas in England".

1759:

list: places that the ONS has excluded but the man in the Clapham omnibus might have assumed would be included. --

2405:

and shouldn't be disputed. And then if and when the ONS does come round to publishing its list of BUAs as of the

2111: 1875: 1705: 1656: 1585:

in repurposing that definition to describe something other than those definitions. If you look at the history of

1565: 994: 937: 785: 773:

put it with it and not the other parishes of Milton Keynes and Bletchley was the common name of the two parishes.

700:

History of Milton Keynes § 1960s plans for a new city in North Buckinghamshire, 1967 designation of Milton Keynes

577: 536: 1329: 1284: 1155: 699: 78: 2474:

Thought column moves would be pretty straightforward, but it looks as if the data has to moved manually per

2019: 1420: 952: 922: 729: 2385:. Sure there are certain city LAs that encompass an area significantly beyond the contiguous BUA (like the 2373:

concerns, then IMO it's best to result to the political boundaries (i.e. cities are CPs/LAs with official

1464: 1163: 2460:

Since, the CityPop column as now stands is of no value IMO, it would only require moving the ONS column.

1921: 2410: 2390: 2316: 1910:

5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them

1391: 1377: 1348: 1337: 1258: 1236: 1229: 1172: 1159: 989:

I was trying to come up with reasons as to why BUAs are split unfortunately, it does make sense though.

888: 826: 733: 721: 359:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

249:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

144:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

128: 1900:

Unless stated in sources, an "omits" column would be our own interpretation of the data and amount to

1884:

I dont think its synth to include whats not in the BUA if whats not included is its own seperate BUA.

1859:

Ref in the lead or key is the full report with a map of the BUAs, the spreadsheet ref derived from it.

2442: 2340: 2107: 1871: 1701: 1652: 1561: 1029:

article it may not necessarily apply for this article. Reading above there's serious questions as to

990: 968: 933: 906: 781: 708:

the reason why we cannot link the statistical area that the ONS calls "Milton Keynes" to our article

705: 607:

boundaries so it would be feasible to have a table for those. Even so, the list itself should fulfil

573: 532: 1905: 869:. We must not put content in articles that we know to be false: that principle is not negotiable. -- 31: 1837:

too, I suspect but as the spreadsheet has no maps, who can tell?). Would that work? Does it breach

1647:

Then would that solve the issue or would unlinking all built-up areas be the only thing acceptable.

1111: 2365:, as I believe that it reflects reality much more accurately than the other one. But if we want a 2320: 1693: 1530: 910: 493: 2386: 1613: 1538: 1416: 1191: 948: 918: 636: 2135: 1901: 1838: 1582: 1095: 1030: 653: 608: 554: 2397:, etc), and there are some non-city urban areas without either a town charter or council (like 2483: 2465: 2450: 2297: 2236: 2163: 1987: 1933: 1780: 1405: 1266: 1187: 1122:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population

1065: 1038: 1016: 980: 679: 616: 497: 1007:

Whatever population figure is used, it should be consistent with the land area stated in the

2394: 2344: 1889: 1195: 1137: 562: 356: 112: 91: 2370: 2158:

Is your suggestion to include a column for the other set of CityPop figures you linked to?

1214: 1210: 866: 1802: 1344: 887:

to continue with the fiction that this is a list of cities, then the city in this case is

830: 794:

You really don't understand Milton Keynes, do you? (You are not at all unusual in that!) "

2402: 2401:), for which we could have exceptions for, but at least these will be backed up by solid 2082:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

1525:

page. Now it's some unusual mis-defined content and conflicts with other sources such as

2406: 1806: 1503:(which began as "metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom", which it clearly was not. 1203: 1183: 1179: 1107: 1058: 810: 744: 233: 141: 1550:"Towns and cities, characteristics of built-up areas, England and Wales: Census 2021". 913:, but statistical geography is down the pecking order a fair bit. Have to agree with @ 2496: 2262: 2193: 2143: 2096: 2039: 2001: 1956: 1850: 1818: 1764: 1741: 1682: 1637: 1609: 1598: 1534: 1511: 1360: 1325: 1311: 1296: 1250: 1050: 1026: 1008: 896: 874: 841: 814: 762: 717: 709: 665: 632: 597: 522: 335: 2206:, note 3 to the BUA release on which this article is based states (my emboldening): 743:, it would have had five BUADs for MK. And it would have divided its own home city ( 2479: 2461: 2446: 2382: 2378: 2293: 2232: 2159: 1983: 1929: 1810: 1776: 1667: 1401: 1321: 1262: 1168: 1084:

Rename the article - 'List of built-up areas in England by population' or the like.

1061: 1034: 1012: 976: 850:

https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets/c0db0e8c67d04935bcf1749ca6027fef/about

675: 612: 217: 196: 1996:"If you are in a hole, stop digging". Climb out, fill it back in and walk away. -- 1126:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of localities in England by population

2374: 1885: 1814: 1133: 558: 319: 301: 1628:

definitions, that we don't cite the ONS for anything other that an entity that

798:": it simply cannot be squeezed into the strait-jacket of historic definitions. 1972: 325: 223: 118: 2363: 2180: 2131: 840:

Yes, of course I am aware of links to sections. So what makes you think that

2228: 1826: 1625:

Mixing Urban Area, BUA, BUASD, Cities, Towns, Local Authority Areas and such

1225: 1199: 1025:

Actually no (conferring with myself). While that should be the case for the

834: 414: 393: 1632:

defined. This article as it stands offends against all those principles. --

1359:

To the ONS, the "core settlement" of "Milton Keynes" is a modern utopia of

2173: 2127: 2348: 2312: 2289: 2258: 2203: 2189: 2155: 2139: 2092: 2035: 1997: 1952: 1846: 1794: 1760: 1737: 1678: 1633: 1594: 1507: 1307: 1292: 914: 892: 870: 758: 661: 593: 518: 2398: 2352: 2336: 2332: 1834: 1254: 246: 2476:

Knowledge (XXG):Advanced table formatting#Moving or exchanging columns

2212:

to recognise the boundaries of built-up area development and identify

1465:"2021 Census Area Profile – Milton Keynes Local Authority (E06000042)" 1235:. So the "Milton Keynes" BUASD is completely nonsensical in any case. 2285: 1924:

coverage is there to sustain the article, such as published lists of

1830: 1623:

definition, deceiving themselves with a coincidence of nomenclature.

909:- if you haven't read the guidelines on BUA figures have a look at 2369:

article (where this discussion stems from) that isn't plagued by

1011:

infobox to enable correct calculation of the population density.

2362:

Nevertheless, of the two CityPop lists, I would prefer this one

2275:

distinguish where for example, Bedford ends and Kempston starts.

809:

towns with one town council for administrative convenience) and

352: 348: 2331:

and (often times) political geography. If we are to argue that

1178:

And there's countless examples of these problems. Is "London"

54: 26: 891:

and its population at the 2021 census was 287,060 Cakeism? --

2292:, where for settlements outside of Cornwall we omit the UK. 2315:, a village in the Milton Keynes UA 10 miles (16 km) NE of 1130:

Settlements in ceremonial counties of England by population

2322:. Now here we have an instance where the local authority, 2069:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

434:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 865:

I reiterate: we must not mislead readers with deliberate

1232:, because it's been part of the city since its founding 140:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 2377:

and towns are settlements which either hold historical

2065:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

1522: 2034:

article is irretrievably flawed in concept. Delete. --

1574:

To be clear, I am not questioning the ONS as a source

1521:

Would tend to agree. Until relatively recently it was

1506:

So options now are move to an honest title or delete.

1287:) but as the city developed, they lost the plot. They 1132:

article and its child articles have the same problem.

1049:

Is it valid to selectively pick out the population of

1677:

mislead anyone who doesn't understand the nuances. --

1285:

Milton Keynes urban area#Built-up area sub-divisions

1059:

http://www.citypopulation.de/en/uk/cities/englandua/

347:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 245:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 18:

Talk:List of largest cities in England by population

2359:

in fact grow by swallowing up distinct settlements.

2319:, at the far northern end of the Beds/Bucks border 2067:

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

2052:

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

1734:

List of ONS built-up areas in England by population

1078:I can see a few ways of trying to improve matters: 1862:Yea I think it might be "synth" recording what is 1793:might be better? Some examples: ONS Bedford omits 1283:Back in 2001, the ONS had a logical approach (see 2343:are part of London, then why can't we argue that 1920:be viewed as secondary coverage, but what other 1591:List of metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom 2172:Yes. The list that Chocolateediter has chosen ( 2132:UNITED KINGDOM: Countries and Major Urban Areas 1587:ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom 1501:ESPON metropolitan areas in the United Kingdom 720:, just as much as it would if we linked it to 1916:lists the data in a reader-friendly way, and 8: 1217:. If we want to list BUAs, then there is an 2014:So has London or the boroughs left England? 1347:. Both are towns within the administrative 426:, an attempt to structure and organize all 2208:BUAs are derived from a process that uses 2181:https://citypopulation.de/en/uk/cities/ua/ 1978:include areas under the governance of the 852:they say explicitly] that it is precisely 388: 296: 191: 154:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United Kingdom 86: 60: 58: 2071:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines 842:Milton Keynes#Original towns and villages 553:I'm concerned that this article contains 430:. If you wish to help, please visit the 2523:Low-importance England-related articles 2218:equating to cities, towns, and villages 2174:https://citypopulation.de/en/uk/cities/ 1576:for their self-defined geographic areas 1452: 660:A misleading waste of space. Delete. -- 390: 298: 193: 88: 2533:List-Class WikiProject Cities articles 2508:Low-importance United Kingdom articles 2367:list of towns and cities in England... 2347:is part of Birmingham, or indeed that 1928:populations in newspapers, books etc? 1909: 1624: 972: 844:is a valid match for the ONS artefact? 2126:Chocolateediter, why have you chosen 704:It appears that I need to explain to 7: 2214:individual built-up area settlements 1527:List of cities in the United Kingdom 420:This article is within the scope of 341:This article is within the scope of 239:This article is within the scope of 134:This article is within the scope of 2518:List-Class England-related articles 2513:WikiProject United Kingdom articles 932:Built-up area. Explain high-level. 259:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject England 157:Template:WikiProject United Kingdom 77:It is of interest to the following 2503:List-Class United Kingdom articles 796:Milton Keynes: different by design 757:if it is used for something else. 369:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Cities 25: 2079:The article will be discussed at 1589:(which is a redirect target from 587:I would take it further. This is 487:Error On 75000-99999 List Comment 444:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lists 2059: 1980:Metropolitan Borough of Solihull 508: 413: 392: 328: 318: 300: 226: 216: 195: 121: 111: 90: 59: 30: 464:This article has been rated as 279:This article has been rated as 174:This article has been rated as 37:This article was nominated for 1547:The original release is called 1473:Office for National Statistics 1224:Also FYI, as JMF pointed out, 517:, thanks for picking it up. -- 1: 2128:the page that mirrors the ONS 1799:Bletchley and Fenny Stratford 803:Bletchley and Fenny Stratford 428:list pages on Knowledge (XXG) 363:and see a list of open tasks. 253:and see a list of open tasks. 148:and see a list of open tasks. 41:on 1 May 2024. The result of 2548:Low-importance List articles 2538:All WikiProject Cities pages 1334:Milton Keynes (civil parish) 726:Milton Keynes (civil parish) 262:Template:WikiProject England 1813:CPs; ONS Northampton omits 1492:Move or delete this article 1249:Another MK-type example is 375:WikiProject Cities articles 372:Template:WikiProject Cities 2569: 2553:WikiProject Lists articles 2324:Milton Keynes City Council 2044:22:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 2028:11:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 2006:22:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1992:22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1961:22:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1938:21:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1894:20:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1880:19:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1855:18:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1797:; ONS Milton Keynes omits 1785:16:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1769:08:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) 1746:13:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 1710:12:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 1687:10:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 1661:00:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 1642:21:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 1618:20:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 1603:10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 1570:01:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 1543:22:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 1516:21:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 1425:11:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 1410:08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) 1386:00:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) 1374:Milton Keynes City Council 1316:12:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 1301:12:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 1271:10:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 1245:23:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC) 1142:09:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 1128:were deleted. I think the 1116:08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 1070:02:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 1043:02:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 1021:01:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 957:01:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 942:01:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 927:01:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 901:00:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 879:00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) 813:(not a town, but includes 790:23:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 767:20:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 697: 684:10:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 670:08:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 641:05:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 621:02:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC) 602:21:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 582:16:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 567:10:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) 541:19:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) 527:16:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) 502:14:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC) 470:project's importance scale 447:Template:WikiProject Lists 285:project's importance scale 180:project's importance scale 137:WikiProject United Kingdom 2528:WikiProject England pages 1529:. Per my concerns raised 1171:may even argue that it's 463: 408: 313: 278: 211: 173: 106: 85: 2543:List-Class List articles 2309:Welcome to Milton Keynes 2073:or whether it should be 1841:to report what a source 1330:Milton Keynes urban area 1198:or does it also include 1156:Milton Keynes urban area 741:its declared methodology 739:If the ONS followed its 265:England-related articles 2488:19:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2470:19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2455:17:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2419:21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 2302:12:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 2267:10:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 2241:06:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC) 2198:23:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2168:19:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2148:15:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 2116:16:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 2101:16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC) 999:22:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 985:21:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC) 730:Milton Keynes (village) 160:United Kingdom articles 572:Taken on your points. 67:This article is rated 2391:City of Milton Keynes 2317:Central Milton Keynes 1971:A further point. The 1732:I have renamed it as 1349:City of Milton Keynes 1338:City of Milton Keynes 1259:City of Wolverhampton 1230:Central Milton Keynes 1173:Milton Keynes Village 1160:City of Milton Keynes 889:City of Milton Keynes 827:Central Milton Keynes 819:a bunch more parishes 734:Central Milton Keynes 722:City of Milton Keynes 698:Further information: 129:United Kingdom portal 71:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2341:Kingston-upon-Thames 1825:; ONS Reading omits 1194:? Is Luton just the 2326:, argues that that 752:failed verification 242:WikiProject England 2387:City of Colchester 2134:? It looks a very 2020:Davidstewartharvey 1951:per WP:PRIMARY. -- 1154:"City" is not the 971:, re your comment 549:Synthesis concerns 355:and various other 344:WikiProject Cities 73:content assessment 2210:satellite imagery 2179:The second list ( 2122:Citypopulation.de 1914:Citypopulation.de 1372:misleading. (Now 1192:"London Airspace" 1188:London urban area 484: 483: 480: 479: 476: 475: 423:WikiProject Lists 387: 386: 383: 382: 295: 294: 291: 290: 190: 189: 186: 185: 53: 52: 16:(Redirected from 2560: 2411:Anonymous MK2006 2403:reliable sources 2395:City of Bradford 2345:Sutton Coldfield 2154:add any value. @ 2063: 2062: 1484: 1483: 1481: 1479: 1457: 1392:Anonymous MK2006 1378:Anonymous MK2006 1237:Anonymous MK2006 1196:Borough of Luton 1158:, but the wider 756: 750: 648: 516: 512: 511: 452: 451: 448: 445: 442: 417: 410: 409: 404: 396: 389: 377: 376: 373: 370: 367: 338: 333: 332: 331: 322: 315: 314: 304: 297: 267: 266: 263: 260: 257: 236: 231: 230: 229: 220: 213: 212: 207: 199: 192: 162: 161: 158: 155: 152: 131: 126: 125: 124: 115: 108: 107: 102: 94: 87: 70: 64: 63: 62: 55: 34: 27: 21: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2493: 2492: 2443:Chocolateeditor 2439: 2124: 2108:Chocolateediter 2090: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2016: 1872:Chocolateediter 1803:Newport Pagnell 1753: 1730: 1702:Chocolateediter 1653:Chocolateediter 1578:. The issue is 1562:Chocolateediter 1494: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1477: 1475: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1345:Newport Pagnell 991:Chocolateediter 969:Chocolateediter 934:Chocolateediter 907:Chocolateediter 831:Stony Stratford 782:Chocolateediter 754: 748: 706:Chocolateediter 702: 696: 646: 574:Chocolateediter 551: 533:Chocolateediter 509: 507: 489: 449: 446: 443: 440: 439: 402: 374: 371: 368: 365: 364: 334: 329: 327: 264: 261: 258: 255: 254: 232: 227: 225: 205: 159: 156: 153: 150: 149: 127: 122: 120: 100: 68: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2566: 2564: 2556: 2555: 2550: 2545: 2540: 2535: 2530: 2525: 2520: 2515: 2510: 2505: 2495: 2494: 2491: 2490: 2472: 2438: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2360: 2177: 2130:, rather than 2123: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2058: 2057: 2055: 2050:Nomination of 2048: 2047: 2046: 2015: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1944: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1868: 1860: 1807:West Bletchley 1752: 1751:Related areas? 1749: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1697: 1674: 1671: 1648: 1557: 1554: 1551: 1548: 1545: 1523:a dismbig type 1493: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1444: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1365: 1357: 1341: 1318: 1303: 1281: 1222: 1207: 1204:Houghton Regis 1184:City of London 1180:Greater London 1176: 1103: 1099: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1076: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 881: 860: 859: 858: 857: 845: 838: 811:West Bletchley 799: 778: 774: 745:Newport, Wales 695: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 658: 650: 628: 585: 584: 550: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 488: 485: 482: 481: 478: 477: 474: 473: 466:Low-importance 462: 456: 455: 453: 418: 406: 405: 403:Low‑importance 397: 385: 384: 381: 380: 378: 361:the discussion 340: 339: 323: 311: 310: 305: 293: 292: 289: 288: 281:Low-importance 277: 271: 270: 268: 251:the discussion 238: 237: 234:England portal 221: 209: 208: 206:Low‑importance 200: 188: 187: 184: 183: 176:Low-importance 172: 166: 165: 163: 151:United Kingdom 146:the discussion 142:United Kingdom 133: 132: 116: 104: 103: 101:Low‑importance 98:United Kingdom 95: 83: 82: 76: 65: 51: 50: 43:the discussion 35: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2565: 2554: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2544: 2541: 2539: 2536: 2534: 2531: 2529: 2526: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2516: 2514: 2511: 2509: 2506: 2504: 2501: 2500: 2498: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2436: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2379:town charters 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2361: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2281:West Midlands 2277: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2087: 2084: 2083: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2013: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1974: 1970: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1943: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926:built up area 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1908:data sources 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1819:Milton Malsor 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1750: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1728:Renaming done 1727: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1698: 1695: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1626: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1504: 1502: 1497: 1491: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417:The Equalizer 1413: 1412: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1398: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1366: 1362: 1361:Concrete Cows 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326:Milton Keynes 1323: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1304: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1279: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1251:Wolverhampton 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1092: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1079: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051:Milton Keynes 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027:Milton Keynes 1024: 1023: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1009:Milton Keynes 1006: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 987: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 958: 954: 950: 949:The Equalizer 945: 944: 943: 939: 935: 930: 929: 928: 924: 920: 919:The Equalizer 916: 912: 908: 904: 903: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 863: 862: 861: 855: 851: 846: 843: 839: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 816: 815:Old Bletchley 812: 808: 804: 800: 797: 793: 792: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770: 769: 768: 764: 760: 753: 746: 742: 737: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 718:Milton Keynes 713: 711: 710:Milton Keynes 707: 701: 694:Milton Keynes 693: 685: 681: 677: 673: 672: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 629: 625: 624: 623: 622: 618: 614: 610: 604: 603: 599: 595: 590: 583: 579: 575: 571: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 556: 548: 542: 538: 534: 530: 529: 528: 524: 520: 515: 506: 505: 504: 503: 499: 495: 486: 471: 467: 461: 458: 457: 454: 450:List articles 437: 433: 429: 425: 424: 419: 416: 412: 411: 407: 401: 398: 395: 391: 379: 362: 358: 354: 350: 346: 345: 337: 336:Cities portal 326: 324: 321: 317: 316: 312: 309: 306: 303: 299: 286: 282: 276: 273: 272: 269: 252: 248: 244: 243: 235: 224: 222: 219: 215: 214: 210: 204: 201: 198: 194: 181: 177: 171: 168: 167: 164: 147: 143: 139: 138: 130: 119: 117: 114: 110: 109: 105: 99: 96: 93: 89: 84: 80: 74: 66: 57: 56: 48: 44: 40: 36: 33: 29: 28: 19: 2440: 2437:Column order 2383:town council 2381:, or have a 2366: 2356: 2327: 2308: 2280: 2272: 2253: 2249: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2207: 2184: 2125: 2091: 2080: 2078: 2054:for deletion 2017: 1948: 1942: 1925: 1922:WP:SECONDARY 1917: 1913: 1863: 1842: 1811:Woburn Sands 1790: 1756: 1754: 1731: 1668:Venn diagram 1629: 1579: 1575: 1505: 1498: 1495: 1478:18 September 1476:. Retrieved 1468: 1455: 1447: 1443: 1369: 1352: 1288: 1277: 1169:Baby Boomers 1151: 1147: 1054: 884: 853: 822: 806: 738: 714: 703: 605: 588: 586: 552: 513: 490: 465: 432:project page 421: 342: 280: 240: 175: 135: 79:WikiProjects 47:no consensus 46: 2407:2021 census 2375:city status 2351:is part of 2311:signs near 1823:Grange Park 1815:Collingtree 825:are towns: 821:, of which 627:the source. 357:settlements 2497:Categories 1973:Birmingham 1906:WP:PRIMARY 1448:References 1146:Yes I too 1057:Bradford? 1055:Sunderland 436:discussion 69:List-class 2229:Erdington 2136:WP:POINTy 2089:finished. 1827:Caversham 1789:Possibly 1694:wp:UK geo 1499:See also 1461:UK Census 1390:Kudos to 1226:Bletchley 1200:Dunstable 1108:Stortford 911:WP:UKSTAT 883:PS if we 835:Wolverton 2349:Kempston 2313:Lavendon 2290:Penzance 2138:choice. 1902:WP:SYNTH 1839:WP:SYNTH 1795:Kempston 1757:excludes 1696:'s talk. 1610:Koncorde 1583:WP:SYNTH 1535:Koncorde 1463:(2021). 1364:Keynes." 1353:original 1336:and the 1096:WP:SYNTH 1031:WP:SYNTH 732:or even 654:WP:SYNTH 633:Koncorde 609:WP:NLIST 555:WP:SYNTH 39:deletion 2480:Rupples 2462:Rupples 2447:Rupples 2399:Telford 2353:Bedford 2337:Bromley 2333:Croydon 2294:Rupples 2233:Rupples 2220:). The 2160:Rupples 2075:deleted 1984:Rupples 1930:Rupples 1845:say? -- 1843:doesn't 1835:Woodley 1777:Rupples 1402:Rupples 1397:Point 6 1322:Rupples 1263:Rupples 1255:Bilston 1219:article 1152:de jure 1148:support 1062:Rupples 1035:Rupples 1013:Rupples 977:Rupples 867:WP:EGGs 676:Rupples 613:Rupples 494:TGwydFr 468:on the 283:on the 256:England 247:England 203:England 178:on the 2371:WP:NOR 2286:Bodmin 2259:𝕁𝕄𝔽 2190:𝕁𝕄𝔽 2140:𝕁𝕄𝔽 2093:𝕁𝕄𝔽 2036:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1998:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1953:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1949:Delete 1886:Eopsid 1847:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1831:Earley 1829:(also 1761:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1738:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1679:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1634:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1595:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1508:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1370:wildly 1356:place. 1328:, the 1308:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1293:𝕁𝕄𝔽 1186:, the 1182:, the 1134:Eopsid 893:𝕁𝕄𝔽 871:𝕁𝕄𝔽 759:𝕁𝕄𝔽 662:𝕁𝕄𝔽 594:𝕁𝕄𝔽 559:Eopsid 519:𝕁𝕄𝔽 366:Cities 349:cities 308:Cities 75:scale. 1918:might 1809:and 1791:Omits 1469:Nomis 1289:could 856:that. 823:three 441:Lists 400:Lists 353:towns 2484:talk 2466:talk 2451:talk 2415:talk 2393:and 2339:and 2298:talk 2288:and 2263:talk 2237:talk 2222:only 2194:talk 2185:does 2164:talk 2144:talk 2112:talk 2097:talk 2040:talk 2024:talk 2002:talk 1988:talk 1957:talk 1934:talk 1890:talk 1876:talk 1851:talk 1833:and 1821:and 1781:talk 1765:talk 1742:talk 1706:talk 1683:talk 1657:talk 1638:talk 1630:they 1614:talk 1599:talk 1566:talk 1539:talk 1531:here 1512:talk 1480:2023 1421:talk 1406:talk 1382:talk 1312:talk 1297:talk 1267:talk 1253:and 1241:talk 1213:and 1202:and 1138:talk 1124:and 1112:talk 1066:talk 1039:talk 1017:talk 995:talk 981:talk 953:talk 938:talk 923:talk 897:talk 875:talk 833:and 805:(NB 786:talk 777:top. 763:talk 680:talk 666:talk 637:talk 617:talk 598:talk 578:talk 563:talk 537:talk 523:talk 514:Done 498:talk 45:was 2273:can 2254:but 2250:but 2204:JMF 2156:JMF 1867:it. 1864:not 1580:our 1215:NOR 1211:POV 1190:or 915:JMF 885:are 854:not 807:two 589:not 460:Low 275:Low 170:Low 2499:: 2486:) 2478:. 2468:) 2453:) 2417:) 2389:, 2357:do 2335:, 2328:is 2300:) 2265:) 2257:-- 2239:) 2231:? 2196:) 2188:-- 2166:) 2146:) 2114:) 2099:) 2077:. 2042:) 2026:) 2004:) 1990:) 1959:) 1936:) 1892:) 1878:) 1853:) 1817:, 1805:, 1801:, 1783:) 1767:) 1744:) 1708:) 1685:) 1670:.) 1659:) 1640:) 1616:) 1601:) 1568:) 1541:) 1514:) 1471:. 1467:. 1423:) 1408:) 1384:) 1332:, 1314:) 1299:) 1278:is 1269:) 1243:) 1175:). 1140:) 1114:) 1068:) 1041:) 1019:) 997:) 983:) 955:) 940:) 925:) 899:) 877:) 829:, 788:) 765:) 755:}} 749:{{ 728:, 724:, 682:) 668:) 652:A 639:) 619:) 600:) 592:-- 580:) 565:) 539:) 525:) 500:) 351:, 2482:( 2464:( 2449:( 2441:@ 2413:( 2296:( 2261:( 2235:( 2216:( 2202:@ 2192:( 2162:( 2142:( 2110:( 2095:( 2038:( 2022:( 2000:( 1986:( 1955:( 1932:( 1888:( 1874:( 1849:( 1779:( 1763:( 1740:( 1704:( 1681:( 1655:( 1636:( 1612:( 1597:( 1564:( 1537:( 1510:( 1482:. 1419:( 1404:( 1380:( 1320:@ 1310:( 1295:( 1265:( 1239:( 1206:? 1136:( 1110:( 1098:. 1064:( 1037:( 1015:( 993:( 979:( 967:@ 951:( 936:( 921:( 905:@ 895:( 873:( 837:. 784:( 761:( 678:( 664:( 647:x 635:( 615:( 596:( 576:( 561:( 535:( 521:( 496:( 472:. 438:. 287:. 182:. 81:: 49:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index