Talk:Buckinghamshire

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)

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)

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)

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)

But nothing excuses citing entirely irrelevant but superficially convincing URLs.

I will apply the update now. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Population figure in the infobox is wrong

The 808,666 figure is a 2018 estimate. The correct figure is 840,138 (= 553,078 + 287,060). I am trying to get it corrected. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)