Jump to content

Talk:Buckinghamshire: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Calculations: If somebody would validate my calculations and sourcing, we can update the article accordingly.
Line 490: Line 490:


If somebody would validate my calculations and sourcing, we can update the article accordingly. (Personally, I fail to see the value of such arbitrary divisions: it just feeds racist conspiracy theories.) --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 21:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
If somebody would validate my calculations and sourcing, we can update the article accordingly. (Personally, I fail to see the value of such arbitrary divisions: it just feeds racist conspiracy theories.) --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 21:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

:I've gone through and checked the transcribed figures, additions and percentage calculations and didn't find any errors. Sources look fine too. Good work. Interesting that the editors who changed the figures came up with nearly the same percentages. Wonder whether they went through the same process or used a different source. [[User:Rupples|Rupples]] ([[User talk:Rupples|talk]]) 03:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:13, 7 December 2023

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleBuckinghamshire is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 5, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 20, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Henry VIII

Does the Henry VIII image add anything to this page? I think it could be removed, decluttering the article.

It was originally added to break up a vast mass of text and was put in next to the paragraph that mentions Henry VIII. I don't know why it was moved. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 07:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

tiny hamlets

A recent edit to this article "removed tiny hamlets with no articles". I have undone this edit. Most of the places in the list don't have articles yet, but we should aim to have articles for all of them. -- Oliver P. 23:50, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the editors of these pages. First off, they think they have the authority to decide which settlement types can be doled out, despite knowing absolutely nothing about them in the first place, effectively making up things - i.e. Bourne End. Secondly, half the villages in South Bucks are "apparently" now in the unitary authority of Windsor and Maidenhead - i.e. Taplow - which is incorrect too. I live in this area, and I am not happy that the editors are making such misinformed judgements such as this - to prove what? Please make amendments.

Make the amendments yourself, and do please STOP adding notes to the bottom of the page. If you wish to amend what the page says amend the main text. Notes added to the bottom of a page will ALWAYS be reverted. -- Graham  :) 15:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Postal purposes

Copied from page history: Milton Keynes district became a unitary authority in 1997, but remains part of the county for ceremonial and postal purposes.

I don't understand for what postal purposes Milton Keynes remains part of Buckinghamshire? If anything it's the reverse, parts of the existing county of Bucks have a Milton Keynes postcode (eg Buckingham is MK18). -- Graham  :) 17:50, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire (From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates)

Article on the county in England mainly developed to its current state by myself. I believe it's a good model for other county articles to copy. I finally decided to list it here because I've managed to find some artwork to display alongside Morwen's marvellous maps. Graham  :) 00:04, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow, that is tremendously comprehensive. Is it too comprehensive? Kingturtle 05:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Well there's nothing there that you won't find on any of the other county articles, except due to my local knowledge there is every single place in the county. I think it would be a travesty to not include those, but I suppose what you could do is to move the full list to a separate article and just have the key places in the main Buckinghamshire article. -- Graham  :) 16:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's great, there's a lovely sense of politics and geography shaping the county. I will second it if we can break the long list of places off onto its own page. I think a list of (say 20?) principle towns/cities should remain on this article (you'll need to pick them, I have no idea!), and there can be a link to the entire list of cities/towns/villages in Bucks. How does that sound? fabiform | talk 18:58, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • How is it now? -- Graham  :) 21:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Excellent work. Still, it seems too much. Maybe Famous people from Bucks should be List of people from Buckinghamshire, and Towns in Buckinghamshire should be List of towns in Buckinghamshire? Maybe? What do you think? Kingturtle 22:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • No I disagree, and I quite like fabiform's edits making the lists into two columns. -- Graham  :) 23:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with it now. The famous people seem fine on the main article to me. I've just tweaked the two lists of places so there's less white space. Anyway, I second this article now.  :) fabiform | talk 22:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely lavishing of locale-loving effort on what is at first blush an unremarkably-shaped county. Fine form for future neighborhood mavens to mimic. +sj+ 02:05, 2004 Mar 28 (UTC)
  • Added to Geography section. Gentgeen 05:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

County town

Are we certain Aylesbury is the County town? I had alweays thought it was Buckingham, and a search gives both in multiple different places, SqueakBox 19:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

It actually says in the article when it swapped over from Buckingham to Aylesbury. Not only that but I work for the County Council at its headquarters in Aylesbury (a big 15 storey tower block called County Hall), and Aylesbury is where, you may have noticed from one or two utility pages, is also where I live. So I should know.</tongue-in-cheek> -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: Henry VIII was also responsible for making Aylesbury the county town over Buckingham, which he did to curry favour with Thomas Boleyn so that he could marry his daughter Anne. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a lot of peopple don't realise. It was my mum who first told me as a kid, and I suspect there is some kind of false rumour that has been going around for years, judging by the internet. It's good to know we have the right place. And you are right, knowing you live there I should have trusted that you would know. A good thing too, I think, as Buckingham is too remote from the south, SqueakBox 20:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Don't let people from Buckingham hear you saying that... -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An apocryphal story has it that a coach load of Americans arrived in the centre of the town and demanded to know where to find the Palace. --Concrete Cowboy 21:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard that one but I have heard the one about the American diplomat who asked the Queen why she had Windsor Castle built so close to the airport... -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard a story that Aylesbury replaced Buckingham as the county town in the middle ages as someone was once hanged in Buckingham and then subsequently proven to be innocent. Due to the laws of the time, Buckingham was then stripped of its civic positions and so Aylesbury became the county town. Has anyone else heard that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antshi (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing happened a lot, and it wouldn't normally be enough to have a town stripped of its civic status. The Henry VIII story has a lot more support in the available literature. -- roleplayer 11:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical county infobox reversion

This article is about Buckinghamshire today, with a brief summary of the history article. For the Buckinghamshire that existed in history, see History of Buckinghamshire. The trad county exists but only in historical texts and memories - it is legally irrelevant. It is absolutely appropriate to mention that "Alphaton is in Betashire and was formerly in the traditional county of Gammashire". It makes a dog's breakfast of articles to put every minor bit of trivia in a featured infobox. Infoboxes provide a capsule description of the key current economic and political indicators. To append some arbitrary material that has been pickled in aspic at some arbitrary time that User:Owain's POV says was the "Golden Age" is simply obsessive.

The second map is certainly more useful (in the History of Buckinghamshire article) than the England map. It could do with having the anglo-saxon Hundreds marked on it, and it needs a commentary to explain the outliers and inliers for those unfamiliar with such things. Quite clearly, you are capable of contributing material that readers would welcome - but please put it in the history articles. It is more than welcome there - it is not welcome in the current affairs version. --Concrete Cowboy 22:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more useful on a Buckinghamshire (traditional) article. It shows the traditional county; I make no claims as to whether or no it shows the Anglo-Saxon county or anything else other than what the government and courts call the Ancient or Geographic County.
As for your removing information; if you believe it should be in another article, move it to another article. Don't just delete it and rely on someone else to actually do the work that you've just created, or the information may get burried and lost, which would be a loss to the wikipedia poject in general, and not a very satisfactory way of carrying on. 80.255 22:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I have moved it - it is in History of Buckinghamshire which is the most logical place for it since I can't see anyone writing the article you suggest. --Concrete Cowboy 22:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see people writing the article I suggest. The trouble is purely that some people took exception to its existence the last time I suggested this solution. So don't blame me for the lack of article, blame the people who try to exterminate such articles whenever they are created! 80.255 23:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my thoughts on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Trad counties of England infoboxes and feel the discussion ought to be continued there as it affects more than the one county. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It just takes up too much space. It is a distraction from the main points that need to be made about the current county. The fact that the county boundaries have been changed can be mentioned in a few lines here and more detail can be given in the History article. Wikipedia articles are about giving readers useful information, not about promoting an agenda, however valid it may be. This is just one small aspect of one sub-topic about Buckinghamshire, and it doesn't deserve this prominence. Osomec 23:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facts altered

Certain facts in this article seem to have been altered. Can someone please confirm that the altered versions are correct. If not, please revert the changes.
—gorgan_almighty 14:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial county

Could someone who knows about such things write a short para on the ceremonial county? There are two many articles in category:Milton Keynes that say that they are in modern Buckinghamshire when they haven't been so for over 10 years. Thanks --Concrete Cowboy 17:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says in the lead paragraph: Buckinghamshire ceremonial county includes the modern administrative county plus the Borough of Milton Keynes. (Milton Keynes and district ("North Bucks") became a unitary authority in 1997). - is any more than that really necessary? If anyone wants to find out more they can click on the ceremonial county link. -- Roleplayer 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I need it so that I can use [[Buckinghamshire#Ceremonial county|Ceremonial Buckinghamshire]] rather than just [[Buckinghamshire]] since that is the admin county. --Concrete Cowboy 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally it would be better if there were separate articles for administrative, ceremonial and traditional, but until that happens a separate section you can link to is the best solution. Owain (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've made a start though I highly suspect someone will want to change it. I've placed it under 'History' and before 'Economy'. -- Roleplayer 11:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although to be honest there are various sections of the article that need swapping around, for example the section on places that used to be in the county but are no longer, but I don't have time to do that now. -- Roleplayer 11:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As Owain knows, there have been long arguments in another place about splitting these county articles three ways but the consensus seems to be to leave them alone. --Concrete Cowboy 12:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beef and bread

I have removed the following text from the article:

Most English counties have nicknames for people from that county, such as a Tyke from Yorkshire and a Yellowbelly from Lincolnshire; the traditional nickname for people from Buckinghamshire is 'Buckinghamshire Beef and Bread', deriving from the hearty medieval diet of the natives!

The only reference I can find for this from a google search is a single, unreferenced, website that is possibly open source. I have lived in Buckinghamshire for 27 years and I have never heard of this. -- Roleplayer 20:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

The history sections looks just as long as History of Buckinghamshire. The section in this article should be no more than a succinct summary of what is contained in the satellite article. MRSC 12:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various Comments

1. The above comment is correct ^ There is a lot of history- but little else about the county.

2. The County Arms appear to have a motto - but what is it? Why isn't it in the article?

3. Why is the ONLY picture of Buckinghamshire in the entire article a picture of the worst, ugliest building in the whole of Bucks? Someone put some pictures in to demonstrate why it is known as "Leafy Buckinghamshire" please.

4. Should the Verneys be included as famous inhabitants? They are rich landowners who have lived in Bucks since the thirteenth century. Just proposing they be considered for inclusion.

1. The History of Buckinghamshire article was a copy and paste of what was in the article. If you know anything about the history of Bucks, expand the other article and make it longer.
2. The motto is in the article, under "coat of arms" - Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
3. It was supposed to be a picture of Buckinghamshire County Council. There are other pics, if you find one that represents the whole county, include it.
4. Feel free to put the Verneys in somewhere.
-- Roleplayer 00:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlets

Please see WT:UKGEO#Bucks Hamlet. Simply south (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EH icon.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

Why is the image of the flag of Buckinghamshire wrong? The flag has the white swan on it and the image does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.81.88 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image of the flag because it was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.88.83 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA/FA push

This article has, unsurprisingly, been identified as an important article for WikiProject Buckinghamshire so some editors are looking at taking the article all the way back to featured. This article was featured years ago but the criteria has changed somewhat since then. There are currently two county articles that have featured status: Dorset and Somerset. I think we can get this through GA ourselves, then get more people involved via UK Geography with a fresh eye. SeveroTC 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties as a guideline. SeveroTC 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of name

The head of the article (in code) describes the pronunciation as: {{IPAc-en|icon|ˈ|b|ʌ|k|ɪ|ŋ|ə|m|ʃ|ər}} or {{IPAc-en|ˈ|b|ʌ|k|ɪ|ŋ|ə|m|ʃ|ɪər}}<!--has an /r/ even in non-rhotic dialects-->

Can someone provide some evidence for this? It seems like an exception to both non-rhotic pronunciation rules and the pronunciation of all the other counties. I've certainly never heard that pronunciation (not that that's evidence). Perhaps it's a strictly local pronunciation rule? -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part are you questioning? The /r/ on the end or the /ɪər/ at the end of the second pronunciation? You don't make that clear. -- roleplayer 10:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The /r/ is phonemic is strict RP (that is, it is pronounced before a vowel), even if most RP speakers no longer make a distinction between this and formerly substandard intrusive [r]. — kwami (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Roleplayer - having an /r/ on the end at all was what I meant, but never mind, I'm wrong either way. I was initially surprised, and compared it to the first other article I thought of (Cheshire) which actually doesn't use the final /r/ in the IPA. In fact that's the odd one out! You're both quite right, there is a final /r/, I'm not quite sure why I got confused. I think it was the comment tag that actually threw me; I seem to have read it as suggesting that there's always an /r/ pronounced at the end of the word even in non-rhotic dialects, rather than there's an /r/ which may surface in the right environment i.e. before a vowel. If I hadn't been looking at the code in the first place (while writing the gv.wiki article) I'd probably never have got confused. Sorry. --Shimmin Beg (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh you got the response you needed from someone else anyway. Incidentally what language is gv wiki? I couldn't work it out. -- roleplayer 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Manx Gaelic wiki: gv is (I assume) from the long form of the language name, Gaelg Vanninagh (Gaelic of the Isle of Man). -- Shimmin Beg (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no /r/ at the end of either pronunciation. The sheer pronunciation probably ends with a schwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the IPA system as it is far too codified... but to cut to the chase, the two ways of pronouncement of the ending of the county's name is shire, sheer or sure, the latter two being the most common where I live. How that is reflected by IPA I will let other editors consider! Warren (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the one and only double land-locked county?

It seems to be the one and only double land-locked county in England. Am I right? --RokerHRO (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would if it was but it's not and it isn't.Tmol42 (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously: Depends on how you treat Greater London/Middlesex, which is on a tidal river. In any case, Bedfordshire is also cited as such and I think more plausibly, though again calling Cambridgeshire 'landlocked' is a bit of a stretch when half of it's practically underwater. I think this is a stupid category. Blythwood (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures!

This article was pretty sad with no pictures except for an old map and two of the ugliest buildings around, so I've added some representing a range of topics. Let me know if you feel they should change. I feel like my choices lean a bit towards the picture-postcard (and Instagram filter in the case of the Medmenham one...) so I might add some others: maybe a photo of the regular, ordinary suburbia of the county summing up what most people know, and maybe some picture of some banker-belt housing to emphasise its reputation as a hellish expensive place to live! Who knows. Need to find some matching those though. Blythwood (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I'd like to echo Haldraper's concerns about the intro. There are a lot of aspects to Buckinghamshire and it feels monotonous to devote almost the entire lead section to what feels like practice notes for a pub quiz night on local government. Especially when all that content is repeated in the politics section anyway. I think listing the largest settlement only for three ways of defining sections of Buckinghamshire again feels like pub quiz trivia: what is needed is a list of major settlements of Buckinghamshire all round. (A lead section introduces the article: it's not the Guinness Book of Records.) I intend to write a draft for the intro in the next few days for discussion, using as a model the article on Oxfordshire, which does this a lot better. Blythwood (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - I'll look forward to it. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that reversion was a bit quick! So maybe we need to discuss here first what the lede should say and hopefully agree a consensus version. Blythwood proposed this
which struck me as neat [I'd have dropped Dorney Lake and would argue about how best to represent MK] but David J Johnson immediately reverted to the original long-winded version. I can understand David wanting all the historic/geographic detail but I wonder if we can find a better place for it than the lede.
So may I propose this?
Its maybe a bit terse but we don't want the whole article in the lede. Though I do think we need to include something about population density. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the revision proposed by John Maynard Friedman and thank him for his efforts. Apologies that I've been unable to contribute - very busy at the moment. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't actually yet proposed anything! I've been working on a more extended intro, which I feel might introduce aspects of the county that immediately come to mind when I think of it. Obviously would add citations to some of this.
[draft follows below] Thoughts? Blythwood (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blythwood, no one is asking you to claim credit, I was simply agreeing with John Maynard Friedman's proposed new lead, which is much better than Haldraper's wholesale cutting - the second time he has tried this tactic and who has a poor editing history. I find your proposed draft of new text acceptable, except for one error - Thame is in Oxfordshire!! Thank you for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea what I was thinking there. Amended. Blythwood (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I confused Haldane and Blythwood - apologies to you both!

Restarting indents

  • I suggest that my first sentence has the advantage that it doesn't get readers too bogged down in different types of county before they've drawn a breath; it needs to be terse. I like your second sentence.
  • MK was a New Town 50 yearsa ago, it is time to drop that moniker now, certainly in the lede; also the B of MK is much larger than MK (e.g., Olney). Btw, don't you mean 'several large companies have offices in Milton Keynes' - but I wonder if it is fair to single out MK, maybe we should say 'have headquarters in the county'.
  • I propose that my For local government purposes, the larger (southern) part of the county is controlled by Buckinghamshire County Council as 'non-metropolitan county' and remainder by the Borough of Milton Keynes, a unitary authority gives as big a précis of the administrative stuff as we would ever want in the lede.
  • I like your Some of the most populous areas of Buckinghamshire, but with the LG and types of county filleted.
  • Including Silverstone in the lede is cheeky as only a little of the track is on our county: all the buildings are across the county line. Also, is Dorney really that important three years after the Olympics? - there are many other sporting facilities that could claim equal importance nowadays. We might, I suppose, include the two professional football teams but I wouldn't press it.

Thoughts? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've slept on it and made the phrasing more competent.

Buckinghamshire (/ˈbʌkɪŋəmʃər/ or /ˈbʌkɪŋəmʃɪər/, abbreviated Bucks; archaically the County of Buckingham) is a ceremonial county in South East England. It borders Greater London to the south east, Berkshire to the south, Oxfordshire to the west, Northamptonshire to the north, Bedfordshire to the north east and Hertfordshire to the east.

Buckinghamshire is a home county bordering London and some of the most built-up areas of the county are part of its commuter belt, in the east and southeast. This includes towns such as High Wycombe, Amersham and the Chalfonts; development in this area is restricted by the Metropolitan Green Belt. Other large settlements include the county town of Aylesbury, Marlow in the south near the Thames and Princes Risborough in the west near Oxford. The largest town is the modern new town of Milton Keynes in the northeast, which with its surrounding area is administered as a unitary authority separately to the rest of Buckinghamshire. Some areas without direct rail links to London, such as around the old county town of Buckingham and near Olney in the northeast, are much less populous. Many parts of the county are quite affluent and like many areas around London this has led to problems with housing costs: several reports have identified the market town of Beaconsfield as having among the highest property prices outside London. The majority of the county is controlled by Buckinghamshire County Council as a non-metropolitan county. In national elections, Buckinghamshire is considered a reliable supporter of the Conservative party.

A large part of the Chiltern Hills, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, runs through the south of the county and attracts many walkers and cyclists from London. In this area older buildings are often made from local flint and red brick. To the north of the county lies rolling countryside in the Vale of Aylesbury and around the Great Ouse. The Thames forms part of the county’s southwestern boundary. Notable service amenities in the county are Pinewood Film Studios, Dorney rowing lake and part of Silverstone race track on the Northamptonshire border. Many companies have offices in Milton Keynes. Heavy industry and quarrying is limited, with agriculture predominating. Chequers, a mansion estate owned by the government, is the country retreat of the incumbent Prime Minister.

Now comments...With regard to amenities, I'll think about this so mostly didn't change it. Ideas? I do think a new town means a specific thing rather than implying that a town is literally new but appreciate that younger readers may not grasp this. I've put 'modern new town' with link as a clunky explainer. Actually not a lot of big public companies have headquarters in Bucks! Obviously you shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia but I just looked through the FTSE 100 and a sample of the 250 to check and the listed headquarters tends to be London or Slough or Reading. I think they tend to put a lot of back-office stuff you can't fit in London easily at MK. (Obviously you can find plenty, but nothing that dominates the economy the way Tesco does around Cheshunt, I think.) The only FTSE 100 company with headquarters in Bucks is InterContinental Hotels in Denham and the only FTSE 250 company I found was Essentra in MK. So offices is probably best. Blythwood (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as Abbey [National] is no more and surprise surprise the top brass at Network Rail declined to move out of London to Quandrant MK - it's practically Scotland! So its really just the Open U. THe sentence still needs work though since e.g. the big accountancy firms have offices everywhere. So how about 'national companies have important back office centres in MK'.
I still think that 'new town of' is too detailed for the lede.
How about this (changes in bold:
Great. I've added a few minor copyedits to avoid repetition but otherwise have posted it. Blythwood (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I came back here to suggest that the local government sentence ought to be within a larger para and I see you have already done that, cheers. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demography  – citations needed

Our next task is to provide citations for the forward projections of population. [And for the Lord Lieutenant & High Sheriff, which need anyway to be moved to a different paragraph]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Buckinghamshire. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Buckinghamshire. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Buckinghamshire. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox about to run into the sand

As of 1 April, Buckinghamshire County Council ceases to exist, being replaced by Buckinghamshire Council, a Unitary Authority. The ceremonial county will thus have two UAs and no CC. The infobox for the ceremonial county (at present combined with the BCC information and minimal BoMK information) will cease to be valid. I tried to fix it but the effect was for a load of valid information about the BC area to disappear. So would editors contribute to Template talk:Infobox English county#Only one admin_hq allowed?, please? (The "Only one admin_hq allowed?" issue turns out to be just the tip of the iceberg).

I see that User:Gwdihŵ took it all out anyway. (see any version in the history before today for the long version). Is that a satisfactory outcome? Does it mean that a new article for Buckinghamshire Council is needed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or could we have two or even three infoboxes? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure the Coat of Arms is being discontinued? We are still quoting the motto at the top of the box. David J Johnson (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collateral damage. It goes with the Liutenancy, not the administration. So I suspect that it is fallout caused by the template not being designed for this eventuality? But it must have come up before now e.g. at Bedfordshire? I will look tomorrow. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bedfordshire has lost its crest too. Whoops! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Sticken as incorrect, the coat of arms was for the Council, not the county. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Buckinghamshire Council has been created with an infobox containing the info, so it seems that there is no longer an issue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement Split Proposal

I oppose the recent proposal to split off this section of the article. There isnt enough there to warrant its own article. Maybe wait til the 2021 census results to see if they give another definition for settlements Eopsid (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The table is not really that big, removing it would make very little difference to the article. Also oppose. The article is over-long but this is too trivial to resolve that issue.
Greyzxq, you made this proposal more than a month ago yet you have given no justification for your proposal. You need to do so asap or the RtS will be closed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have proposed that this section be moved into it's own article is so it follows the rest of the articles in Category:United Kingdom lists by population. I believe it is the only county missing, as well as Oxfordshire, so it doesn't make much sense for just these two counties to not have a list. Greyzxq (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see any of the Yorkshire's on this list (East Riding, North, South and West Yorkshire). Are they included in other sections of the category? The joy of all things (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are articles like this for each Yorkshire county, they just haven't had the category added, which I'm about to do. Greyzxq (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added all 4 to the category, but note that List of settlements in East Riding of Yorkshire by population and List of settlements in North Yorkshire by population are both redirects to the main county article too. Greyzxq (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to oppose. The table is useful in this article in context. The idea that it should be taken out into a new article (that would struggle to pass WP:GNG) just so that it would complete someone's set of lists of lists is, quite frankly, risible. If you must, the create a redirect article with an anchor here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why I suggest this is because for someone looking to find this information, it would be easier for it to have it's own article rather than be a part of a much larger article which less people would immediately think to go to. Greyzxq (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Create a redirect? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why we don't just make another article instead. To answer, there is already a redirect. Greyzxq (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A year has gone by with no consensus for change. Somewhat arbitrarily as I am not an uninvolved editor, I am declaring this RtS as closed, no split. Obviously if anyone objects we can invite an innocent bystander to do it but the outcome is still obvious. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image selection

I disagree with the selection of an picture of the (reproduction) Concrete Cows to represent the City of Milton Keynes. The choice should be made by a consensus of interested editors, not one person. Here are some possible choices:

and more. Let's at least discuss the choice. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I hardly think that the concrete cows are representative of Buckinghamshire. Certainly Bletchley Park, Chiltern Hills etc. There is too much pics of Milton Keynes and nothing of Aylesbury, High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Beaconsfield etc. David J Johnson (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox collage

Right, @Chocolateediter and @JMF (when did you finally get that changed?), welcome and let's get this sorted. In the red corner we have my collage, in the blue we have Chocolateediter's, and in the yellow is JMF.

Some points:

  • None of us have changed the first image of the Chilterns, so I assume we're all happy with it.
  • JMF retained my image of the Gothic Folly at Stowe in his image, so I assume he's happy with that.
  • The major issue is therefore the cows, and to a lesser extent the folly.

I suggest we talk it through here, and if we can't reach an agreement put it to UK Geography or a third opinon. Is that alright? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I can give my original reasoning for choosing those three images:
  • I typically construct my collages so that the top image is wide and, of the two below, one is narrow and one is square. This allows all three to be relatively clear at a small size.
  • The Chilterns are a distinctive geographical feature of the county and lend themselves to a landscape perspective, hence them being first.
  • The Gothic Folly is tall, which makes it suitable for the 'narrow' position as it fills the frame, and Stowe itself is a nationally famous garden.
  • The concrete cows are from Milton Keynes, and I always try to represent a large settlement somehow. I understand that they're regarded affectionately in the city, and are an example of art in the county. They're also just quite fun, and Wikipedia needs a bit of that.
A.D.Hope (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

The Cows, although well known nationally due to a wilfully uninformed London DJ, are far from being the best examples of public art in MK. It really is the lazy cliché option. It just plays to the gallery.
IMO, the choice of a pic to represent the city must come from one of the six in the MK infobox since that is the consensus view of MK editors (two religious buildings, two modern architecture, two of pre-designation architecture. I have also posted above some other pics that appear in the MK article. I accept that it would be best for an outsider to choose which one but not the Cows!
Aguably, Stowe plus MK are two pics from North Bucks. What about High Wycombe? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that legibility is key: elsewhere I have criticised the terrible infobox for Cardiff, for example.
The Peace Pagoda in MK is also tall and narrow? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I can be bold, I don't think we need to be bound by the decision of the MK editors. We're creating a collage for the county rather than the city, and their requirements and ours don't necessarily overlap.
On High Wycombe, I've increasingly moved away from townscapes in other articles' collages except as the first image, as they tend to be indistinct. If you look at East Sussex, Lancashire, or Devon you can see that I've focussed on 'big' landscapes, individual buildings, and the odd pony as they work well at small scale. My approach isn't in any way binding, of course, but I think it generally works.
Looking at the images you posted in the earlier section — which I'm sorry I ignored, it was unintentional — the Peace Pagoda is probably the strongest. The hoard is certainly interesting historically, but I'm not sure torques, and that image in particular, have the visual pull needed to be featured in the infobox. I am in favour of including artworks though, just look at Kent. The others aren't really doing much for me, I'm afraid, although if we had a better image of the gallery it could be a contender.
The cows just strike me as a bold, interesting image which also have the advantage of representing Milton Keynes. I'm not sure they're as clichéd as MK inhabitants perhaps think, but I could be wrong. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, we are proud of the Cows, just not as an emblem of the city.
  • True that there is no binding principle but there really needs to be a convincing reason to claim to know better than those who know it best.
  • Yes, I agree re streetscapes and buildings in infoboxes. The image should be in some way unique, intriguing and give a real sense of what makes the place tick. Having the first Peace Pagoda in the West is an example of the latter and the image ticks the other boxes too. Of course I prefer the view over Campbell Park but Nancy Rice Davies applies .
  • I see no reason to limit ourselves to three images. I like the 1:2:2 layout. I hate 2:2 or 2:2:2. And as for a row of three... 😝 --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's difficult to say without sounding disparaging, but I just don't think the selection of images in the MK collage is that good. I can see the principle behind it and think it's sound, but my philosophy is generally to let the quality of the available images guide what's included rather than the reverse.
    • How emblematic is the pagoda of Buckinghamshire as a whole? I've no objection to it, but is it more MK-centric?
    • I have a strong preference for 1:2 or 2:1 because it's what I've been using elsewhere and I'd like to maintain that consistency, plus it was hard enough to find three quality images from the county which met the requirements. I do think the UK Geog discussion is going to fall in favour of up to four images over three rows, however, so I could live with 1:2:1 or similar. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've looked through the discussion, got a vertical pagoda pic ready, the Chiltern one is fine and I'm hunting down a pic for High Wycombe or one around there or Buckingham (stopping myself from slipping in the palace). I'll add them in the info-box when I do find one and if you want to find and other HW or Buckingham area pic you can change it but be warned the same picture may be brighten up by me.
      I got side-tracked lightening up the pics for Milton Keynes, give it a little bit for the colour adjustments to come through, I've started doing colour adjustments on commons pics if anybody wants some adjusted.
      Chocolateediter (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      CE, please wait for consensus. As it happens, I am content with your selection [though the Aylesbury pic is boring] but please don't preempt discussion. I have reverted your change until ADH has their say. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to be awkward, but they're not images I'd choose myself. I've explained my stance on urban images above, and the angle of the pagoda image makes it a little unclear at that scale. I must admit I didn't know anything about the Peace Pagoda before editing this article, but I assume it's a good representative image of Buckinghamshire? If we could find the right image it would work very well, I think. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a reasonable representation of MK, well known, many out of area [Buddhist] visitors, indicative of an open-minded attitude. And it has a great site overlooking Willen Lake. Unique and if it incites curiosity and link following, then objective achieved. The secular architecture, taken in isolation, is not unique. The Cows are 'just so', no real incentive to linger.
Aerial view of Waddesdon from the north
Aerial view of Waddesdon from the north

I've been having a think, and I'd like to suggest the Chilterns, the pagoda, and the rotunda at Stowe. The pagoda and rotunda really complement each other in form and represent different aspects of the county. I'd prefer a rotunda picture from similar vantage point to the pagoda image and a sunnier pagoda, but when it comes to Wikimedia you take what you can get. I'm not opposed to the old gaol in Buckingham or Waddeston, but I do think the pagoda-rotunda pairing is quite pleasing. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.D.Hope (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok by me. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the agreed
Chiltern Hills - geograph.org.uk - 4531979.jpg
I've done some hunting on Flickr and found:
Stowe - rotunda cropped.jpg
and
Milton Keynes peace pagoda.jpg
The pagoda is from the back but surely it represents it perfectly fine. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I saw either those images or similar ones when I was looking. The common themes between the pagoda and rotunda are the golden statues and general round shape, so I'd be keen to use images which show both statues. The Stowe image is great at that size, but cropped down to a rectangle it might look a bit blurry? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum order for the lead (BRD)

I boldy edited the lead to read

Buckinghamshire (/ˈbʌkɪŋəmʃər, -ʃɪər/), abbreviated as Bucks, is a ceremonial county in South East England. The largest settlement is the city of Milton Keynes, and the county town is Aylesbury. The county has an area of 1,874 km2 (724 sq mi) and a population of 808,666. Besides Milton Keynes (256,385), which is in the north-east, the largest settlements are in the southern half of the county, and include Aylesbury (94,238), High Wycombe (75,814), and Chesham (21,483). The north-west is rural and its largest settlement is Buckingham (12,890). The county is divided administratively into two districts controlled by the unitary authories, Buckinghamshire Council and Milton Keynes City Council. The county is surrounded by Northamptonshire to the north, Bedfordshire to the north-east, Hertfordshire to the east, Greater London to the south-east, Berkshire to the south, and Oxfordshire to the west

This change was largely one of sentence order, though I also discarded the historic county detail as failing WP:LEAD (at best it belongs well down the batting order, not the first para).

As my edit has been reverted, best I explain in more detail than the edit summary my reasons for believing that this is a better order and indeed why the other county articles should adopt the same order. In a nutshell, my logic is that the sentences should be presented in order of importance: I notice that the Google capsule info takes just the first two or three sentences, these are the "welcome mat" that persuades visitors to come in. So we should consider carefully the order in which we present information. So, in order of decreasing criticality,

  1. < county >, abbreviated as < abbr > is a ceremonial county in < region > This is the most important info, has always been first and should certainly remain so. But the neighbouring counties supplement that information, so we don't need to list them just yet, cetainly not second.
  2. The largest settlement is < city > and the county town is < town > (or as in mist cases (I suspect), The largest settlement and county town is < city >. Again, this is critical info.
  3. Area and population
  4. Other significant settlements. The order of these two is a subjective judgement call.
  5. Administration Boring but needs to be said – especially in cases like Bucks where one of the UAs is called Buckinghamshire despite having responsibility for just a part of the county.
  6. Surrounding counties Now is the time for the "also ran" info, but it is still in the first para.

I suspect that this discussion will need to move to the Wikiproject but I suggest we park it until the discussion about how to name UA areas/districts is concluded. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree, however I'd make the first paragraph much shorter and put the surrounding counties fourth rather than sixth as they basically explain where Buckinghamshire is in more detail, which is one of the first things a reader is likely to want to know. For example:
Buckinghamshire (/ˈbʌkɪŋəmʃər, -ʃɪər/), abbreviated as Bucks, is a ceremonial county in South East England. The county has an area of 1,874 km2 (724 sq mi) and a population of 808,666. The largest settlement is the city of Milton Keynes, and the county town is Aylesbury.
Buckinghamshire borders Northamptonshire to the north, Bedfordshire to the north-east, Hertfordshire to the east, Greater London to the south-east, Berkshire to the south, and Oxfordshire to the west. It is largely rural, with the exception of Milton Keynes (256,385) in the north-east. The largest settlements in the remainder of the county are Aylesbury (94,238), High Wycombe (75,814), and Chesham (21,483). For local government purposes the county comprises two single-tier areas, Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes. It historically had slightly different borders, and included Slough.
If Buckinghamshire had a proper lead paragraph on its history then the historic borders information could go in there, but at the moment it doesn't so the second para is the best place. Once the UA discussion has finished I'd suggest copying this over to the WikiProject, to get the ball rolling. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like your choice of second sentence. I don't like your text on the local government arrangements, it is just too detailed and too jargonish for the lead ("comprises two single-tier areas"? Seriously?). But the lead does need to make clear very early that there is a Buckinghamshire Council that is only responsible for part of the county. Conversely, we can't use the word "district" since it links to Non-metropolitan district, where the term is clearly defined as sub-divisions of non-metropolitan counties (colloquially shire counties) in a two-tier arrangement and thus "does not apply". So how about For local government purposes, the county is divided into two areas, each with its own unitary authority: Buckinghamshire Council (south and central Bucks) and Milton Keynes City Council (north Bucks).
Would that work for you? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity in infobox

A discussion has opened at talk:Bedfordshire#Ethnicity in infobox about attempts to change the ethnicity figures without providing a valid citation (in fact an irrelevant "citation" was given). The same has happened to this article. But in opening the discussion, Rupples correctly observed that the existing figure is not cited either. Consequently, I will now hide those lines in this article while I calculate and propose new figures here for approval. We have the advantage of having only two UAs'-worth of figures to add up. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calculations

Here are my calculations.

Sources: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2021/report?compare=E06000060#section_5 for Buckinghamshire Council; https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2021/report?compare=E06000042#section_5 for City of Milton Keynes


Buckinghamshire Council
Group Number %
All usual residents 553,078 100
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh 68,318 12.4
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African 14,269 2.6
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups 19,570 3.5
White 442,164 79.9
Other ethnic group 8,757 1.6
City of Milton Keynes
Group Number %
All usual residents 287,060 100
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh 35,645 12.4
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African 27,851 9.7
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups 11,725 4.1
White 206,114 71.8
Other ethnic group 5,725 2.0
Buckinghamshire (all)
Group Number %
All usual residents 840,138 100
Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh 103,963 12.4
Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African 42,120 5.0
Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups 31,295 3.7
White 648,278 77.2
Other ethnic group 14,482 1.7

If somebody would validate my calculations and sourcing, we can update the article accordingly. (Personally, I fail to see the value of such arbitrary divisions: it just feeds racist conspiracy theories.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and checked the transcribed figures, additions and percentage calculations and didn't find any errors. Sources look fine too. Good work. Interesting that the editors who changed the figures came up with nearly the same percentages. Wonder whether they went through the same process or used a different source. Rupples (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buckinghamshire&oldid=1188699914"