[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Bedford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed split for the Transport section

[edit]

I propose that the transport section is split out into a separate 'Transport in Bedord' article as with Transport in Ipswich, Transport in Luton and Transport in Manchester etc to give space for additional information. PeterEastern (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the transport section of this article is already too big, it needs its own article. Bleaney (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, bolding doing now. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime

[edit]

I'm new at editing wikipedia and I was wondering about the crime section. It basically states that Bedford has a low crime rate, then goes on to list a few one off events. That seems a bit of an odd way of writing for an encyclopedia. Should it be re-edited to give some crime stats and more of an overview? Or am I missing something? BedsBookworm (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, it would be better to have some sourced statistics and an overview (perhaps crime and policing). There is no hard and fast rule on this but I would think only nationally reported crimes are notable enough to be mentioned.--SabreBD (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ive always thought it odd that Bedford has a separate 'crime' section, when other more notable crime hot spots do not! Bleaney (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the crime section seems to be little more than an indiscriminate collection of facts and the comment above indicates this is unusual, I've removed it for now. I hope this meets with approval. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I approve! Bleaney (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this have a place on the article

[edit]

A number of national news sites have been reporting civil disorder in Bedford last night (involving a group of 150 people) following the England vs Italy football match in Euro 2012. Is this notable enough to appear on this article? the links are links to news articles about this subject. [1] [2] 213.121.4.45 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the same think happens every time there's a major football tournament - BAN THREAT TO FOOTBALL YOBS, June 2000 Shritwod (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to modify the section on the history of lacemaking

[edit]

I intend to propose changes to the section concerning the role of the Flemings and Huguenots in the development of the lace industry in Bedford. This is in conjunction with what will be related proposals to the Wikipedia Huguenot entry. Before making any proposals I am conducting a discussion of the topic in the Talk section of the Huguenot entry and suggest any editors of the Bedford section with an interest in the topic read and join the discussion there. It is hoped that this will allow resolution of any conflicts that might otherwise arise. Socialambulator (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSED CHANGES

After extensive presentation of arguments on the Wikipedia Huguenot talk page, that page has now been modified, posing the question "Did the Huguenot refugees also contribute to the English lacemaking industry? " and making the argument that there is no evidence to support this. I therefore propose to modify the Bedford entry in concordance with this. Rather than repeat the discussion, my proposal is merely to simplify the entry. replacing:

"From the 1560s Bedford and much of Bedfordshire became one of the main centres of England's lace industry, with skilled lace-makers such as the Flemings[citation needed] and then later the Huguenots emigrating from Europe to settle in the town and surrounding county.[8] Lace continued to be an important industry in Bedford up until the early 20th century.[9]"

by:

"From the 16th century Bedford and much of Bedfordshire became one of the main centres of England's lace industry, and lace continued to be an important industry in Bedford until the early 20th century."

There are some other changes here:

(1) The dating "1560s" has been replaced by "16th century" and reference [8] dropped. Ref [8] provides no evidence for this date. Indeed it states (without evidence) that lace was probably made in the Eastern Counties before 1563, the latter date being when there was evidence that "25 recent widows, makers of bone lace, settled in Dover, Kent" (sic).

(2) Reference 9 has been removed, partly because it is incorrect, but partly because the correct url (http://www.bedford.gov.uk/leisure_and_culture/museums_and_galleries/aragon_lacemakers.aspx) appears to emanate from a local group of lacemakers, retailing nonsense about Catherine of Aragon teaching local villagers lacemaking while imprisoned in Ampthill.

What is needed for this entry to be of value is an account of the historical documentation of lace in this region, something which I have in mind, but will require some work. Contributions from others are encouraged. Socialambulator (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bedford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bedford. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bedford. 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) 23:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bedford. 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) 06:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bedford. 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) 12:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bedford. 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) 11:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

[edit]

I deleted a number of unsourced statements about the ethnic origin of Bedfordians, not because they are untrue but because they were unsourced and unquantified. Reinstatement will be welcome but only when these issues are addressed. See wp: reliable sources for more information. If help is needed, feel free to leave any questions here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the section using the Census data. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of Bedford

[edit]

If anyone would like to work on the history, the Victoria History has all the details you would need. See https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/beds/vol3 . --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Citizens League

[edit]

These are an under-researched area, and the details I have found are here: User talk:Lajmmoore/sandbox/Women's Citizens League Lajmmoore (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 15:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Populations used in lead and infobox

[edit]

@JMF — the changes I made to the above are based on NOMIS sources, that have mapped boundaries displayed. Kempston is not in the settlement of Bedford. The difference between the 87k and 106k populations is Kempston. The only controversial part of the 87k is including Biddenham, but that is specifically stated in the text. Please clarify your edit summary. I will consider what you say. Rupples (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omitted to point out that Kempston has a town council. --Rupples (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that no Kempston areas/wards are listed in the Areas and wards of Bedford template at the bottom of the article.Rupples (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Bold, revert, discuss, it is for you to justify your change to a long-standing text. You have cherry-picked your NOMIS source, the existing text was fully cited from NOMIS.
But let me explain anyway. In the real world, Bedford is what the Office of National Statistics calls the Bedford Built-up Area, and yes, it does include Kempston and Biddenham because there is no meaningful distinction between the elements that constitute modern Bedford. The Built-up area that the ONS calls "Bedford "is smaller than the actual settlement as generally understood – it is a statistical artefact that has no real-word existence. The text of the article (before you tried to change it) said At the 2011 census, the population of the Bedford built-up area (including Biddenham and Kempston) was 106,940. You must think of the reader in Bedford, Ohio who wants to know the population of the other place. Maybe in 1823, Kempston was an independent village but not any more. Please do not give undue significance to artificial boundaries created purely for statistical purposes. (There is a wikipedia policy that says this formally somewhere, I will add when I find it.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for accusing me of "cherry-picking". Where's your justification? I'd argue that it's the existing sources that have been "selectively" used. You've merely reiterated your edit summary and haven't addressed the point that Kempston has a town council. What is this article about — A) the settlement of Bedford or B) the urban area of Bedford and Kempston?
You say the Built-up area that the ONS calls "Bedford "is smaller than the actual settlement as generally understood – it is a statistical artefact that has no real-word existence. That may be your view, what sources support this?
Yes, there may be readers from Bedford, Ohio as well as readers from Kempston and Bedford here in the UK. I am serving both by adding a reliably sourced population figure for the settlement or town of Bedford. Why are you opposed to this? Rupples (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not accusing you of anything: you defended your edit by saying that is supported by NOMIS – which is absolutely true, but it is not the only datum supported by NOMIS: the existing text is also supported by NOMIS and it is the ONS that defines the BUA called "Bedford" to be the top level, with Bedford BUASD and Kemston BUASDs subsidiary to it. But specifically and to be clear, I did not and do not allege a WP:Cherrypicking violation.
"Town status" has no significance: any civil parish council can simply declare itself to be a town council. Kidlington (near Oxford) is many times larger than Kempston but proudly asserts that it is a village. In a related example, the ONS defines a "Bletchley BUASD" distinct from its strangely delineated "Milton Keynes BUASD" (which, btw, contains Wolverton and Stony Stratford - two towns with town councils), but at least here the A5 and A421 road corridors provide a clear break in the contiguous built up area: in the case of the elements of the Bedford BUA, there are no such clear physical divisions.
It might be reasonable to add the data for the Bedford BUASD so that readers may choose the definition that suits their needs. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about "cherry-picking" it's just how your words came across to me as recipient, I wasn't even aware it was a 'violation'. Population stats are important and it's imperative to be clear on the area referred to. To me, it is illogical for the article to be on the town and quote a population figure for the urban area, when there is a population figure available for the town. I think you've hit upon a fair and valid compromise, and it's the one I was also going to suggest. Include both figures in the text. Well, there's three including the local authority — is that one of particular relevance here? Also, place both in the infobox and yes, you're right, let the readers choose which to use. Rupples (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight, I could have chosen my words more carefully. Good that we can resolve this to our mutual satisfaction. Will you apply text of the compromise?
No, I don't think the Borough of Bedford figure belongs there, as it contains settlements like Cranfield that are a long way away from the town. Same problem as is being discussed at "another place". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to the main discussion but Cranfield is not in Bedford Borough. Eopsid (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the honours shortly but do please check I've got it right. Rupples (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no, I'm still not happy that you have given undue priority to the ONS BUASD. How is Biddenham part of Bedford but Kempston is not? It is a logical nonsense. Yes, we should report what the ONS says but we don't have to give it any credence. And I don't see any issue with putting the BUA figure in the infobox provided that it is annotated. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My two pence worth - Biddenham and Kempston are distinct places from Bedford, and I would point out that they both have their own councils (parish and town respectively)... although places such as Brickhill which are definitely within Bedford have their own Parish Council too. It might well be worth mentioning the population of the conurbation, but how exactly do you define it. Kempston is certainly part of the contiguous urban area, but if you are going to include Biddenham then why not include Elstow? There's no green space between Elstow and Bedford... you'd be hard pushed to find the green space between places such as Biddenham, Bromham, Great Denham. Complicated, yes? So perhaps for the leading figure keep it simple and just include the part of Bedford that is actually Bedford? Shritwod (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that is precisely the problem: what is "actually Bedford"? When you write "the part of Bedford", you are recognising that Bedford in 2023 is a very different place from Bedford in 1923: it is a much bigger place now and its neighbouring villages are now contiguous suburbs. And what about all the new developments that were just fields 100 years ago? When the "green space between places" has been built on, we have a "contiguous built-up area". The ONS is fairly reliable at the top level BUA because they are guided by the OS to tell them the real-world geography; when they get to BUSAs, it becomes arbitrary (I ask again, why have they declared Biddenham "in" but Kempston "out"). That subsidiary places have their own parish/town councils is incidental to the physical geography though of course it is a critical element to the social geography. In the PG, Biddenham and Kempston are places in Bedford; in the SG yes they are distinct from. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ONS provided QGIS files and maps of the conurbation's boundaries for the 2011 census. It does include most of Elstow but not the part south of the A421. And whilst Great Denham is doubtless part of the conurbation today, most of it hadnt been built yet in the 2011 census. Eopsid (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposed text for the opening paragraph

[edit]

I propose this text as being a more objective statement of the real-world size of Bedford:

Bedford is a market town and former county town of Bedfordshire, England. At the 2011 census, the population of the Bedford urban area (which includes Biddenham and Kempston) was 106,940,[1] making it the second-largest settlement in Bedfordshire, behind Luton. On a narrower definition (excluding Kemston but including Biddenham), the 2011 population of Bedford was 87,590,[2]

Comment? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep it how it was, "At the 2011 Census, the population of the Bedford built-up area (including Biddenham and Kempston) was 106,940,[1] making it the second-largest settlement in Bedfordshire, behind Luton, whilst the Borough of Bedford had a population of 157,479." was perfectly fine. There is no benefit giving a population figure that excludes Kempston, its part of the town. The only thing that makes it distinct is that it has its own town/parish council but so does Brickhill. Eopsid (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, 87,590 was not the population of Bedford narrowly defined, it was the population of Bedford and Biddenham (ish). So if we really consider it worth while to give the population of "old" Bedford, we should have to find the population of Biddenham-in-Bedford (i.e., excluding any of the ward/parish outside the contiguous built-up areaand thus fall foul of WP:OR) and subtract it from the 87,509. Which takes me back to my very first objection: 87,590 is just the population of an ONS artefact, is meaningless in the real world, and we should not give it any credence. So I withdraw my compromise text and support Eopsid's proposal that we revert to the status quo ante. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez — had no idea putting in an additional population figure would be so controversial. My initial edit did not remove any data. I repeat, this article is about Bedford, not its built-up area — unlike Milton Keynes, where existing towns including Bletchley among others were incorporated into the new town. The nearest readily available population figure for the town of Bedford itself is Bedford BUASD. BUASDs are used in many Wikipedia articles to show a town's population. Whether, Biddenham is included in the BUASD and not Kempston is not our concern; the 87,590 is an officially sourced figure and that is what counts.
What this article currently shows is an inflated population for Bedford. It would be better for readers to see the two differently specified population figures for comparison or none at all, rather than having one preselected for them. (Exclude the irrelevant Borough figure; it should be restricted to Borough of Bedford). Rupples (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is controversial because it hinges completely on definition. If "Bedford" is defined to be the settlement that can be identified from 20,000 feet, then the population is the BUA figure. OTH if it is defined according to its extent in 1823 ("Old Bedford", if I may call it that), then the population figure must exclude that of Biddenham – but we have no reliable source that can provide that figure and we can't derive it ourselves without violating WP:OR. The ONS defined BUASD it calls "Bedford" is none of the above, it is an artefact: yes, it is an officially sourced figure but it is not the population of Bedford by any reasonable definition. It barely deserves mention in the article: it certainly does not belong in the lede or the infobox.
Milton Keynes is not especially relevant (though the same issue of ONS artefact arises) because the ONS has caused the same problem at multiple places – Reading for example – and appear to be about to make it worse with Census2021. See WT:WikiProject UK geography for a list of examples because it is about to cause chaos.
So it appears that your change does not have consensus. Is there any other reason not to revert it per WP:STATUSQUO? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing because I thought we had a compromise. I was OK with having the 106k figure in the infobox so long as the 87k figure was in the text as well. I don't agree with your reasoning for excluding it nor that it violates WP:OR — how can it, when like the BUA figure it's using data from the 2011 census? I don't know why you're using the year 1823 as an example, if I was advocating the same built-up area as then the population would be about 5k.
The text could say "in 2011, the population for the Bedford built-up area sub-division was 87,590 and for the wider built-up area including Kempston, 106,940" with no change to the rest.
I've noticed a tendency for Wikipedia articles on UK places to include larger population figures. Looks like some editors prefer the "urban area" definition; however, its use is not consistent. Britannica uses the 87,590 figure for Bedford. Rupples (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it is disappointing because I thought at first that it was a reasonable compromise, but I was wrong. On reflection, I realised that that the ONS figure is not the population of Bedford (historically defined) but something else, and we can't agree to make an statement that is simply not true. I have no objection – indeed I think it is probably essential – to explain in the body how the ONS arrived at the 87k figure. But it is no more than a statistical curiosity, whose only significance is that the ONS defined it, mislabelled it and thus misled other authorities like Britannia in so doing. It is not key information that meets the WP:LEAD test for lead or infobox content.
The reason to prefer the "urban area" figure is that is soundly based because it uses the Ordnance Survey's database of real physical structure on the ground. The BUASDs seem to be an attempt to facilitate longitudinal studies, to answer questions like "how has Bedford evolved since the first census of 1801?" But fundamental to that question is "what is Bedford?" because in 1801 it didn't include Kempston nor Biddenham nor Wooton. But neither did it include Putnoe, Brickhill or anything much south of the river. So anyone doing serious analysis would have to ignore the BUASDs and dig down to the enumeration districts. Not our job.
So to summarise: the lead and infobox go back to what they were but a new section in the body needs adding to explain the ONS definitions and their associated numbers.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note to the infobox that clarifies what the population figure represents because I suspect readers (including myself) gained a misleading impression of what the figure represented if we merely glanced at the figure from the infobox and didn't read the lead.
Not taking this any further for now but in order to clarify my understanding of your position would you agree with the following:
• If the ONS had not included Biddenham in the BUASD, and the resultant defined population came out at say, 84k, it would have been appropriate and indeed preferable to include that figure in the lead and infobox as the closest defined population for the town of Bedford? Rupples (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would at least be what it says on the tin, so we wouldn't be trying to use a false figure. So to answer your question, in that case we should have to give both figures and let readers choose which suits their purposes. But we should not collude with the ONS's sloppy nomenclature: if it is self-evidently false, we cannot use it outside the body text where it can be properly qualified and explained. Until the ONS sorts itself out and begins to use the OS GIS properly, we will have a torrid time. I strongly suspect that a similar "full and frank exchange of views" is going on behind closed doors in the ONS, between the traditionalists and the modernists, and between the social geographers and the physical geographers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I do get your point now. It leaves me wondering why ONS decided to subsume Biddenham into Bedford. Could be automatic based on certain parameters. Perhaps related to pupils from west Bedford and Biddenham attending the upper school right on the boundary, which does give a more concrete sort of link between the two places. Also, the golf course that partly divided the two was "moved" southwards and is being built over, so nearly all the green space is being wiped out. Conversly, the planning authority has tried to keep distance between Great Denham and Queens Park, Bedford by restricting traffic to buses and cyclists on the road that links the two. Rupples (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are giving them far too much credit. Their "Bedford" BUASD is simply what's left of the Bedford BUA after taking out Kempston! It is the same sloppy thinking that lead them to use the name "Milton Keynes" for the BUASD left over after taking out "Bletchley" BUASD, and from comments made at wt:WPUKG, it is a widespread problem. If they had called it "rest of Bedford", we wouldn't be in this mess.
BTW, its not just Biddenham. Brickhill Civil Parish is just as [in]distinct: should it be mentioned too? (it doesn't have an article).
Q: why have they selected Kempston for special treatment? A: because until 1974, there was a local authority called Kempston Urban District. Why anyone thinks that it is still relevant 60 years later is beyond me. That logic presumably explains Bletchley but there was also a Wolverton UDC but they stopped giving that one special treatment after C2001.
And the magic word you were looking for is wikt:coalescence. It is the favourite word of NIMBYs everywhere. Or BANANAs [Build Nothing ANywhere Near Anybody]. Do a news search for coalescence planning. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brickhill was built on farmland in the 1960s — no identity distinct from Bedford — so in its case, the parish created in 2004 has no relevance historically. With Kempston I'm coming round to your viewpoint. Always thought of it as a separate town distinct from Bedford, but historically (which I hold great store by) it derives from a village or "ends", was not a market town and to me it visibly doesn't look like a town. It is inextricably linked to and developed from Bedford. It could be argued that Kempston is not much different to Goldington, except that unlike Goldington, Kempston wasn't formally merged into Bedford, but retained independence through its urban district council until 1974 and to a lesser extent by its town council thereafter. Rupples (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Bedford Built-up Area (E34004993)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 26 July 2019.
  2. ^ UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – Bedford Built-up area sub division (E35001257)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics. Retrieved 6 September 2023.

How best to report the 87,590 figure

[edit]

We agreed above that the article needed to include some reference to the "Bedford BUASD" figure, since some sources quote it as the population of Bedford (others use the Borough-wide figure of 157,479 but I don't think we need to intercept every conceivable error).

So I have attached a footnote to the 106,940 (Bedford BUA) figure. I think that this is the best place for it because it immediately qualifies the figure without disrupting the flow of the lede.

A few immediate questions for discussion and consensus:

  1. is this the best place? Or is there a more suitable place in the body?
  2. If editors agree to the footnote method, the quiet single-letter superscript an appropriate markup created by {{efn}} or would editors prefer the more "assertive" style of "note tag" (which displays a note or nb "call out").
  3. I'm sure my text could be improved even though I have revised it about ten times before posting!

Comments welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. Happy with both the format and placing. Only suggestion is to shorten the wording to something like: The Office for National Statistics also defined a "Bedford built-up area subdivision", as the Bedford built-up area minus Kempston. The population of this area at the 2011 census was 87,590. Rupples (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is almost exactly how I drafted it first But then I felt I had to introduce it with a context because of the insane decision by the ONS to use the same name for two different things. I was also concerned to make clear that the ONS was responsible for both definitions. Do you see those as real issues or am I being too picky? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Get where you're coming from but as a reader I'm finding the longer text/explanation slightly hard to read/follow. So yes, my preference is for a more concise wording nearer to your original draft. While we see the issue here, I doubt the average reader would have any great interest. Rupples (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, feel free to revise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Climate table

[edit]

If anyone has the time and inclination, the climate table needs updating. The latest Met Office source now goes to 2010: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-climate-averages/gcr9j7q0s 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some minimum and maximum sources at Woburn, Bedfordshire#Climate which maybe could be mined? esp the 2022 heat wave. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding numbers?

[edit]

The section on the universal park says they purchased 480 hectares but another news article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6p2vrqgp9do) says 476. was the number rounded? SillySarah321 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bedford&oldid=1259614936"