Talk:Woughton (parish)

Move to Woughton

A larger parish article makes a more worthwhile article than half a dozen little ones. Unfortunately, the Woughton article already existed so I couldn't do a proper "move" and had to cut and paste. --Concrete Cowboy 17:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Campaign for a new, smaller, Parish

The section on the campaign for a new and smaller parish which was added yesterday and re-added following my reversion contains references to a campaign to create a new parish for Wroughton. The inline link to a campaign website which is not the appropriate way to provide an external link. The link is for a campaign website is a primary source and does not meet the requirements of WP:RS which sets out that secondary sources should be normally provided. Such a topic will no doubt have been reported in local / regional and probably online media sources. The reference to Councillors of Milton Keynes Borough Council denying democratic rights of local residents is without doubt an emotive comment and in the particular circumstances does not present a neutral approach as worded which is the requirement set out in WP:NPOV certainly without a citation and providing a more balanced approach. Debate and decisions of the Borough Council will be recorded in minutes of the Council and for the purpose of this article would have been presumably been reported in the media. The events are of relevance to the article but need to be written in an objective way with relevant citations form reliable sources. I will remove the section referring to the Councillors and inline cite add a tag to encourage rewording and sourcing of reliable citations. Tmol42 (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The votes of Councillors were deliberately recorded so they could be published and are available in the Council document linked to the article: The fact LibDem and Labour Councillors voted against the proposals isn't a point of debate, it's a point of fact.

The anti-government contents of the Woughton Gazette isn't a point of debate either: It's linked to the article and the Chairman of WCC clearly uses public money to broadcast anti-government rants (which is not the job of a Parish Council).

The accounts for Woughton Community Council are available from the Council, fully itemised, with 60+ pages of itemised spending. Very happy to attach to this wiki page if I knew how! jbaker.mk —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a forum for people to vent local squabbles (WP:NOT) or to express contributor opinion (WP:NOR). Any material must be express objectively and neutrally (WP:NPOV). Any material must be of at least borough interest and not be just of interest to part of one parish. Any material that makes personal comments on individuals will be deleted forthwith (WP:BLP). All material must be reliably sourced (WP:RS). Recent material is sailing very close to the wind. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet Wikipedia is here to state facts. If Councillors of one party vote for X, and this is recorded in public documentation (ie meeting minutes), it can be placed in Wikipedia. If the Chairman of a Council endulges in an anti-government political rant using public money from an orgnisation that is supposed to be non-political, and that rant is publically listed and distributed, it can be placed in Wikipedia. I respectfully add that the recorded vote of the Council meeting minutes or the public annual accounts of a Council are facts, not 'sailing close to the wind'. jbaker.mk

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose reputation relies on the reliability of the information provided by contributors. The minutes do not provide the reader with information about the political parties of the Councillors. The Council voted and the decision was X is the extent to which the minutes can be relied upon to verify the facts. Your accusations about identifiable individuals is unacceptable content to be added to Wikipedia. As a new editor I have politely pointed this out to you on your talk page and referred you to the various relevant policies. User:John Maynard Friedman has also given you helpful advice on the relevant guidance. You have suggested that the statements about the Councils behavour and that of certain individual are 'facts' but you have not provided a relable source for this. Consequently, I am removing the content that is unsupported by relaiable sources as per WP:RSand also that which relates to an individual which falls foul of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. So far account has been taken of your editing due to you being a new contributer. Before reverting yet again or adding further such controversial content please take time out to follow advice that has been given and read the policies suggested and then bring your evidence here to this Talk Page so there can be discussion and consensus reached on what can be included without there needing to be a resort to sanctions for breaching Wikipedia's policies. Tmol42 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

1. MK LibDem/Labour Councillors voted against the views of residents and their wish to form a new Parish. This is recorded in Council meeting minutes - ie the names of the Councillors voting for/against are detailed. Please explain to me why you believe this fact to be flawed?

2. The Chairman of WCC used the local Parish newsletter for anti-government rants (and indeed, Parish Councils are not supposed to be political!). This was linked as a citation in the article. Please explain to me why you believe this fact to be flawed?

3. The publicly available accounts of the Parish are available from the Parish Council on request. Please confirm you've requested a copy and detail why you believe the content you removed wasn't factual?

jbaker.mk —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

Responding to your points in turn. 1. The council minutes do not denote which political party a councillor represents. Therefore it is not possible for a reader of the article to refer to the citation (the minutes) to verify the voting patten. Names of Councillors do not provide this and it is not up to the the reader to have to look up the MKBC website to determine this. 2. Assuming that the Woughton Gazette is the parish newsletter you refer to. I cannot see anything unusual in any part of the newsletter. Maybe there are examples in other newsletters but that is your personal contention and is irrelevant in Wikipedia terms. In any case the interpretation of the term 'rant' would not meet the 'neutral point of view' requirements of WP:NPOV. By the way there is nothing preventing or wrong with parish councils being comprised of councillors representing political parties, many are so and meanwhile many others are comprised of independant councillors. By their nature all councils are political as it is about 'decision making' on behalf of the 'people'. 3. If you have read point 1. above you may even have guessed what's coming.... Its not for me to go requesting a copy of the accounts to ensure what is written in Wikipedia is correct, let alone is it necessary to confirm to you that I've requested a copy. That is frankly absurd! Even if I had access to a copy, or even a copy was available as a pdf or similar in the article it would not be satisfactory for you to include accusations about an individual misusing public money. No doubt if such has occurred the matter including court proceedings would be all over the media. You are clearly very unhappy and have an axe to grind about what you feel has been going on in Woughton. Please note Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances. Tmol42 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1. The Council's meeting minutes list the Councillors by name. It may not categorise by party but this information is available. It's as much a fact as who won a general election or the political make up of a Council.

2. "The cuts in public services are significant and deep and damaging ..". It's not for the Parish Council to spend vast sums of public money ranting about the government.

3. I'm afraid that the accounts are public and a reader is at liberty to retrieve a copy if they wish. And I'm afraid your comments about Libel/Court Proceedings are not relevant (nor your problem). I'm very happy to put them online if you would like to provide some hosting.

So with that in mind, I will revert the article back because your points do not justify the suppression of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbaker.mk (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits as your explanation here justifying your edits are a blatant disregard to Wikipedia policies. You clearly have no intention of following the rules and guidance on how to edit on Wikipedia and your explanations are an insult to the intelligence of other editors. Enough is enough! Tmol42 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your justification is unreasonable: I included a link to the WCC budget, on their own website, and you are stil of the belief it is not factual. If you have an issue with the way facts are presented - ie the way a Local Authority presents a recorded vote in a document intended to allow conclusions on how members voted - you can take it up with the LA. This is not about breaking wikipedia policies but presenting facts, and on that note, you have yet to accurately specify what was wrong with the content (picking random policies that do not align with the facts isn't justification).

Your argument appears to be that you're happy to allow a political rant by the (what should be a politically neutral) Chairman of the Council, but disapprove of factual information that to any other third party, is considered matters of fact. Are you seriously trying to suggest that documents that are in the public domain are not factual?

Perhaps you could take the time to present the facts as you feel are suitable before I revert it and/or create a separate page that goes into far more detail.

I'm beginning to wonder if you work for WCC? You may not agree with the facts, but they remain facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.27.27 (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2011 (UTCproviding no information about political )

I have already stated most of the reasons already above, but for your convenience here they are again! 1. regarding the minutes - they do not provide information about which political parties Councillors belong to so cannot be used to verify which parties voted "en block" one way or another. I never said I had an issue with how the minutes were presented by MCBC only that they, like other such minutes, don't refer to political parties. see WP:RS. 2. the newsletter provided as a cite does not have appear to have anything noteworthy in it. Even if it or others do contain a Chairman's commentary regarding the government, it does not support your contention that it and other editions of the newsletter contain a 'rant' by the Chairman etc. Your edits on this just amounted to your personal view, an expression of an opinion, not facts verified by secondary sources, and as such are innapropriate to be included in Wikipedia. see WP:NPOV 3. I have no issue with the accounts being a factual document its just they do not support your interpretations and contentions about excesses, misuse of public funds and the like, etc; again see W:POV. Finally please note it is inappropriate to make personal comments about other editors, It is a requirement that editors assume good faith. Implying I must have a connection with /work for Woughton Cmmunity Council is beyond the pale and assigning beliefs to me etc are serious allegations. Both statements I request you should withdraw immediately. see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Tmol42 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

.

Old Woughton parish

With the dividing of the Woughton Parish into two and the creating of a new parish comprising Woughton on the Green and Woughton Park a new article has been created for the parish of Old Woughton and sections relating to this new parish have been transferred to this new article. Tmol42 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Flat roofs on Beanhill houses

The material that the anon editor added was broadly true but I agree that a source such as ancient copy of the Citizen would need to be found both to provide the precise details and to provide a citation that someone else could verify. Perhaps the Council has a record of it but the approx date would still be needed to start the search. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Name of parish?

Since the Parish Council website says that its own name is "Woughton", what is the basis for this change? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman:. The source I was following was this page in the ONS database that is the central official repository for such names and boundaries (which the Ordnance Survey also follows, eg [1]). The downloadable version of the database gives a somewhat precise date of 22 May 2014 for the name-change (from "Woughton") to have apparently come into effect.

According to the rows in the downloadable database, the name for the original parish was apparently officially "Woughton on the Green". With effect from 1 April 2011 there was a modification to the boundary (under The Milton Keynes (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2011), but the name remained "Woughton on the Green". Then there was the split, with effect from 1 April 2012 (under The Milton Keynes (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2012), and the name of the new CP was "Woughton". Then, with effect from 22 May 2014, the boundaries apparently remain the same, but the name is to change to "Woughton on the Green".

Unhelpfully, the ONS database cites The Milton Keynes (Electoral Changes) Order 2014 as authority for the name change -- but the name doesn't appear to be in the PDF.

Conceivably, there might be an 'official' name for legal purposes that there might have needed to be continuity in, for the purposes of some legal trust or bequest or something. Or the ONS may just have got it wrong, I don't know.

Commons (I think) tries to have category names that quite closely track the Ordnance Survey names, so that it can find and use official boundaries to move incoming pictures that have coordinates (eg from Geograph, or from smartphones) into the right categories. So I was trying to make sense of "Woughton on the Green" there, and then reflect what I had learnt to Wikipedia and Wikidata.

But I agree it does seem very confusing, and if you can make any more sense as to what's been going on, I'd be very grateful. Jheald (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I should maybe add that it's not unknown for a parish council to use a name to call itself by for public purposes that may be slightly different to the name it is formally legally incorporated with -- eg some PCs include additional villages in their names, that aren't technically part of their legal names. So while the by-name the PC uses for itself is certainly important (and may well be the most relevant primary name for a Wikipedia audience), it shouldn't necessarily be taken as a definitive statement for the parish's official name. Jheald (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

When there is a conflict between reliable sources, i believe we should go with the majority view - especially as in this case when they are the ones more likely to know. (You are right, though, about peculiar names. See Campbell Park!) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

• Woughton (parish) → Woughton on the Green (parish)
• Woughton → Woughton on the Green

– Per the sources in the article the civil parish is called "Woughton on the Green" even though the council is called "Woughton Community Council" and calls the parish "Woughton". I think we should look at what third party sources use like the Ordnance Survey per WP:WIAN. The settlement of Woughton on the Green isn't in Woughton on the Green parish but Old Woughton[2] parish and is described in that article but that text should be merged as there isn't an area called "Woughton" alone[3][4]. Note that parishes should indeed in general have a separate article when they doesn't include the settlement, see User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose Sorry but the problem is the sources. Without a shadow of doubt, there is no such modern civil parish as "Woughton on the Green" (though such may have existed historically). In the 70s, one parish - Woughton - was established. That was split a few years back by hiving off a new parish, Old Woughton, centred on Woughton on the Green. The remainder kept the original name. In this case, the sources are not reliable and need to be replaced. We can't replace reality. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Milton Keynes Council, who would know, this is the list of civil parishes in the Borough. Some are called town councils, one calls itself a Community Council. There is a Woughton PC, there is no Woughton on the Green PC. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a list of parish councils, so it includes joint parish councils and not their parishes, and some names may be different. Peter James (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Historically, tbere was a CP called Woughton on the Green, whose boundaries were coterminous with 1970s Woughton CP (or the two modern parishes combined). See also Vision of Britain. So if someone desperately wants there to be an article about a defunct parish called Woughton on the Green, go right ahead but it is not this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose In the 1870s it was called Woughton on the Green (https://visionofbritain.org.uk/place/6110); from https://www.lgbce.org.uk/resources/database-of-local-government-orders/south-east/buckinghamshire it's the same in a 1988 statutory instrument, but in 2010 the parish council changes from Woughton Parish Council to Woughton Community Council, and the parish is just "Woughton" in the 2012 community governance order. If the name has officially changed, the ONS, LGBCE and Ordnance Survey appear to be unaware of it; could it be that it was never officially renamed, or that it just wasn't recorded correctly somewhere? ONS data is usually correct, but not always - for example "Area not comprised in any Parish-Lundy Island" as a civil parish (http://statistics.data.gov.uk/atlas/resource?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fstatistical-geography%2FE04003303). As official sources are not consistent, we should probably use the common or most recognisable name unless there's a good reason, such as ambiguity, to avoid it (and "Woughton on the Green" would not be an improvement). Is there a reason for a separate Woughton page? Peter James (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact that LGBCE link, about 12 from the end says "Milton Keynes - Woughton parish to community style change 2010" (which was after the split, btw). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

And the LGBCE links to Milton Keynes (Parishes) Order 1988, in which the parish was then called ... Woughton on the Green! (though everyone just called it Woughton). I can't find anywhere in the list a record of a formal change of name! So the nomination was not totally off the wall. But The Milton Keynes (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2012 says:

(a) A new Parish, comprising the area shaded blue, designated by the reference "Area (B)" on the attached map, shall be shall be constituted within the Borough being the areas of Woughton-on-the Green, Woughton Park and Passmore created from within the Parish of Woughton

(b) In consequence of paragraph 1(a) of this Schedule, the area of the new Parish shall cease to be part of the existing Parish of Woughton.

and two lines down, we have "Milton Keynes - Parish Name Change (Ouzel Valley to Old Woughton)" confirming the change of name.

Therefore I suggest that

• until 2012, the combined parish was legally called Woughton on the Green CP, despite everyone (including its own Parish Council) calling it Woughton.
• the 2012 order splitting the parish not only created Old Woughton (née Ouzel Valley), it also created Woughton CP in law.

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It refers to the existing parish as Woughton, which continued to exist after Old Woughton was split from it. Looking for references for List of civil parishes in Buckinghamshire I found there was an order in 2011 that created two parishes (Fairfields and Whitehouse) and changed the boundaries of others (including Woughton), which is missing from the LGBCE list and possibly now unavailable online, so their records are not complete. I assume this refers to it as Woughton on the Green as that is the name used at http://statistics.data.gov.uk/atlas/resource?uri=http://statistics.data.gov.uk/id/statistical-geography/E04012198 - ONS has it as Woughton from 2012 until 2014, then changing back but cites a statutory instrument (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/22/made) that doesn't mention it. Peter James (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, m'learned friends might have a few weeks in court sometime to argue that the name was never legally changed making the 2012 order technically invalid. But thankfully, Wikipedia operates wp:common name and the two names in common use are Woughton (for the western, uphill, CP and Old Woughton for the eastern, downhill, CP). If the proposal were to go ahead, it would make us a laughing stock. But the discussion has been useful in drawing out some citations and created "an editing opportunity" to add a new section at Woughton on the Green about the historic CP of that name. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

@John Maynard Friedman: I'm not sure changing the target of the Woughton on the Green (parish) redirect makes sense since as noted the OS uses this name for this parish not Old Woughton. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

True, but the OS is not correct: "Woughton on the Green CP" no longer exists because the 2012 Order created two CPs, Woughton and Old Woughton. We can argue for ever and a day about validity of that Order but it doesn't change the facts on the ground as determined by the UA Council, by both CP councils and as reported in the local media. If it amuses you, I guess you could send an FoI request to Milton Keynes Council to ask when and how Woughton on the Green CP was abolished: I suspect that they will reply "the 2012 Order" and then we get into "oh no it didn't", "oh yes it did". But I have little doubt that a minimally competent barrister would have no trouble proving a cockup.

So my idea to create a new section at Woughton on the Green that describes both the historic CP, the lack of an obvious record of any order formally renaming it, and the two modern CPs that have replaced it – would surely meet the needs of readers who pursuing the same trail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Most importantly, for Wikipedia's purpose, "correctness" does not matter: what matters is WP:COMMONNAME and it is beyond reasonable dispute that the names in common use are Woughton and Old Woughton. It is irrelevant for our purposes whether the renaming was done in strict accordance with the law – all the matters is that was done and the outcome is widely accepted as being the facts on the ground. My proposal of a new section under the village section of Old Woughton is intended to offer a compromise between those who want legal certainty v those who prefer to follow Wikipedia policies. As a move towards that compromise and since the simple redirect to Old Woughton is disputed, I have changed Woughton on the Green (parish) to a disambiguation article. But it really needs the background explaining and that is not permitted in disambig articles. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drop the "(parish")"?

There may be a case to merge the disambiguation article into this one and drop the "(parish)" disambiguator. Most of the places (like Woughton Campus) are in the Woughton CP, so really its only purpose is to 'advertise' Old Woughton and Wouoghton on the Green. These could go a {{about}} or the See also. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It should probably be reserved for Woughton (on the Green) settlement since that is in Old Woughton parish. Then an about or see also could point to the (on the Green) parish article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, so I have made this an independent section. We should probably transfer this topic to talk:Woughton?

Per local wp:common name, the modern area is called Woughton. Compare Wolverton/Old Wolverton, Bletchley/Old Bletchley, Amersham/Old Amersham. The die is cast. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

When did Woughton on the Green Parish change its name?

In historic documents and even the current OS map, the original parish [before the split] was called "Woughton on the Green". The 2012 Order that divided the parish refers to "Woughton parish" being divided. Can anyone provide a source for the name being changed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)