Editing Talk:Milton Keynes (section)

== "Large" town ==

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

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

According to this BBC report, MK is a "large town" by some margin, since the threshold set by the reliable source is 135,000.<ref name=BBC>{{cite news |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51577853 |title=Housing crisis: Where are the most new homes being built? |date=  25 February 2020}}</ref> So what makes a random Wikipedia editor's opinion more valid? --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 08:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:'Large' does not define itself and as such should be avoided without some sort of qualifier. 'Reading is a large town compared to other settlements in the county' is fine, but 'Reading is a large town' is not. There are indeed places where anywhere above say 40k is a city, and a settlent above 2k is a large town - it is all relative. I think the IP has a valid point and I am surprised this has not been picked up before. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 09:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::So would your concern be satisfied by providing a definition of "large", citing the BBC report? (In the case of this article, using the footnote [b] in the opening sentence that explains why the term "city" can't be used, despite local usage. The equivalent for Reading may need a bit more thought.)  --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 10:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

:::I would prefer to avoid introducing disputable size descriptions into all settlement articles, except as part of an expanded discussion of the settlement's size, within the body of the article (i.e. it's not OK in the lead sentences of an article to just summarily describe a settlement as "large" or "small" or whatever). One person's "large" is another person's "average" and so on. [[User:PaleCloudedWhite|PaleCloudedWhite]] ([[User talk:PaleCloudedWhite|talk]]) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: Agree. The lead should always avoid subjective judgments such as "large", "small", "affluent" – especially in the lead. The body of the article can address these by quoting actual population figures and or other suitable statistics such as "... the 10th town in England by population ..." — [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]] <sup>[[User talk:GhostInTheMachine|talk to me]]</sup> 12:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

::::::Are you arguing that because a certain source defines the word "large" in a particular way, for their own particular purpose, then you can use that definition as if it is something factual? That is most certainly not the case. I very much agree with the arguments others have made for not using an unquantified relative adjective. [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.40|37.152.231.40]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.40|talk]]) 18:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::No, I am arguing that the [[Centre for Cities]], the nationally recognised centre of expertise on large settlements in the UK, is unarguably a reliable source; that it defines the term "large town" as one with a "population greater than 135,000"; that it describes [[Luton]], [[Middlesbrough]], MK, [[Northampton]], Reading and others as "large towns" as measured that metric;  and that here, as in everything else, we should follow the sources. In ''this'' context "large town" is not a relative term because the RS gives a precise definition of "large town". Provided the article cites that source and quotes its definition, it is an absolute term not a relative one. --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::I've never heard of the Centre for Cities, nobody recognises them as having any expertise on the meaning of the word "large", and they are not a reliable source on dictionary definitions. In the context of their own publication which defines the terms they use, "large town" has the meaning they give it. Here, it does not. [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.40|37.152.231.40]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.40|talk]]) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::If you have never heard of the [[Centre for Cities]], that says more about you than it does about them. I suggest you read the article. Their public reports about urban economies are widely cited. --[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 23:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::They might be widely cited within the academic field of urban studies, but this is a general encyclopaedia. You cannot take a technical definition used in a publication by an obscure organisation and present it as some kind of generally accepted fact. That is ridiculous. I really don't get what your aim is in arguing this. [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.40|37.152.231.40]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.40|talk]]) 11:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::A very silly exchange which has become irrelevant unless people want to start discussing whether MK is a “small” city. 
:::::::::::But within MK designated area there are “small” towns. Wolverton, Stony, Newport Pagnell, Bletchley. The larger Milton Keynes town (as it was) encompasses all of these towns, so it stands to reason that it is large. [[Special:Contributions/81.99.178.220|81.99.178.220]] ([[User talk:81.99.178.220|talk]]) 06:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The Centre for Cities is not a [[wp:RSS|reliable secondary source]] - it is primary! I think so many of the disputes on WP arise from people misunderstanding, misquoting and generally misusing sourses. [[User:Roger 8 Roger|Roger 8 Roger]] ([[User talk:Roger 8 Roger|talk]]) 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
:I agree with that. I have very often seen people insisting that a particular word or phrase must be used, because a source uses it; and (as here) arguing that a subjective statement should be presented as if factual, because a source uses it. [[Special:Contributions/37.152.231.40|37.152.231.40]] ([[User talk:37.152.231.40|talk]]) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
::The source I cited was a secondary, the BBC.<ref name=BBC /> But of course it will be argued that, since the BBC article was written by CforC staff, it doesn't count. I would have to go look for other secondaries but to be honest, I won't waste my time unless any new contributors to the discussion consider the game worth the candle.--[[User:John Maynard Friedman|John Maynard Friedman]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 23:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC) 


<!-- gap left above for further debating points -->
{{Reflist talk}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[User:DragonofBatley|DragonofBatley]] ([[User talk:DragonofBatley|talk]]) 16:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)