Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 4

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

This is the archive for WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies

(Royal) Tunbridge Wells[edit]

Royal Tunbridge Wells (UK Parliament constituency) was a redlink, so have just created it as a redirect to Tunbridge Wells (UK Parliament constituency).

This appears likely to be a straightforward 1983 renaming, so I have noted that in the Tunbridge Wells (UK Parliament constituency) article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three CFDs[edit]

Three CFDs are curently underway relating to classifying MPs. These may be of interest to those editing constituency articles: see Category talk:British_MPs#Three_CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six good reasons[edit]

Why St George, Hanover Square should be distinct from Westminster, St George's.

  1. Policy is to link constituencies based on their names, not their boundaries. Hence, it does not matter that the constituency named "Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North" which existed after the 1983 election held absolutely no land and no voters that were part of the constituency of the same name which existed before that election. They are reported in the same article. Constituencies like Anglesey/Ynys Môn and Western Isles/Na h-Eileanan an Iar are different: they are where the same name has been rendered in a different language. The two names here are clearly different.
    • As in previous discussions, I disagree that the names are "entirely different": they both refer to the same St George's. The addition of the Westminster prefix relates to the change of local government arrangements, not to changes in the parliamentary constrituency.
      • No, it doesn't. As has been said on WP:AN/I, the names are prima facie different. The burden is therefore on you to prove the identity, not on me to prove difference. Your point about the local government difference is misplaced and actually harms your case - it shows that the St George's division was based on a different concept. The Boundary Commission were largely creating new constituencies based on the new arrangements of local government, which had fundamentally changed since 1885. They did not invariably follow the local government boundaries (see the Boundary Commission Report of 1917, volume III, statement 64, where the Boundary Commission recommend a single Parliamentary Borough covering the Metropolitan Boroughs of Finsbury and Holborn), so they could have recommended a separate St George, Hanover Square division in 1917 if they had wanted to. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The presumption about always solely following names is not correct. For examples of when articles have been kept together, despite renaming, see, for example: Truro and St Austell, Enfield Southgate, Plymouth Devonport, Maidstone and The Weald. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly dispute the linking of Devonport with Plymouth Devonport. I doubt any of those have been debated so you can hardly introduce them as precedents. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For exampes of when articles have been split despite the same name, see for example Croydon South (historic UK Parliament constituency), and Blackburn (the latter is my split between a 2-seat constit pre-1945 and a later single-seater). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ditto. You can't introduce your own opinion as having been accepted as policy merely because no-one has yet noticed. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is a clear precedent in Birmingham with Aston Manor. This area was administratively distinct from Birmingham in 1885 when the Aston Manor constituency was created. By 1918 it had been brought in to Birmingham. Hence Birmingham Aston (UK Parliament constituency), created in 1918, does not cover Aston Manor (UK Parliament constituency) (the latter is at the time of writing a redlink).
    • That may be because someone decided they should be split, or because someone creating Brum Aston didn't notice the previous Aston Manor; or did notice but didn't check what if any overlap existed. I don't see any record of a decision on that one, so it may just be interia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone created Aston Manor the local government district; the idea that this was not noticed given its position as a relatively prominent constituency is difficult to believe. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Even if the boundary was relevant, which as shown above it is not, then the two constituencies are still different. There were four boundary differences between St George, Hanover Square and Westminster, St George's and they involved thousands of electors: far more than the 5% threshold for minor changes.
    • I really wish you would list those boundary changes, and give us some idea of what you think the percentages are. For me that's the crunch factor in assessing whether the tweak of name and the other factors add up to enough to justify a split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've shown you where the map is. But why should I go out of my way on an irrelevant issue? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There was no continuity in Members of Parliament between the two constituencies.
    • I would hate to see continuity of MP being chosen as a factor in assessing whether a constituency had continuity, other than as factor in pointing to possible boundary changes. Even if their own constituency is barely touched, MPs can jump all round town doing boundary changes, or in some cases they go elsewhere or just retire.
      • It's relevant in the sense of showing that there was no automatic assumption that the MP for St George, Hanover Square would get the nomination for Westminster, St George's. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. At the time of its creation as a separate constituency, St George, Hanover Square was administratively entirely different from Westminster (under the Metropolis Local Management Act 1855). Westminster's two vestries, St Margaret and St John, were merged to one district board. St George, Hanover Square vestry was separate. Moreover, it had quite a different approach to politics and was intensely parochial (in fact to an absurd level, although that is another story). By 1918, local government in London had been reformed and the City of Westminster had been created.
    • I'm sure that you are right about the change in local govt structures, but I don't necessarily mean that we need to separate the two parliamentary constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It points to the fact that the two constituencies were built up on an entirely different basis. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. St George, Hanover Square was a single undivided Parliamentary borough. St George's was one of two divisions of the divided Parliamentary borough of Westminster. Although at present this is a purely nominal difference, from 1885 to 1918 it was not: it had a legal significance. Business voters could only vote once in the each Parliamentary Borough, regardless of division. In addition, voters qualifying under the residential franchise had to have a period of continuous residence in the Parliamentary Borough, but not necessarily in the division.

Each of these reasons is quite unarguably true. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's another example which I can't quite remember the details for: it's to do with Scarborough. At one point either Scarborough changed to being Scarborough and Whitby, or vice versa, with no change in boundaries at all. Likewise, and here I'm slightly more confident of my memory, South West Staffordshire in 1983 became South Staffordshire without changing its boundaries. Each of those are in different separate articles. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to stay well clear from this disucssion for fear of being consumed in all this text for an area I know nothing about...however, I agree that in the Western Isles, and Anglesey cases, it is policy (and quite correct), to have separate articles; just as it is policy (and quite correct) to have separate articles for, to give an example, Worsley, and Worsely and Eccles South, even with the minimal boundary changes therin contained. If you are absolutely confident that you are right, and if BrownHairedGirl agrees to take a fresh look at this given the points you have made, I trust this unforunate episode can be solved without any further "bad blood" doktorb wordsdeeds 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think, given that a name change coincided with a large change in area covered, as is outlined, there is no reason not to split. I think, however, any policy which bases this only on names would be misguided: this implies we will have separate articles about Blaby (UK Parliament constituency) and South Leicestershire (UK Parliament constituency). In the field of historic local government districts, although I've not actually written anything saying this, I have tried to ignore renamings, and look at continuity of area: we have for example the same article about the South Mimms Rural District and the Potters Bar Urban District, as this was a simple renaming. I appreciate, though, that making an analysis as to whether a constituency is a new one by a different name, or a renaming, is at some level a judgement call, so maybe just basing things on names makes things simpler? ? Morwen - Talk 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morwen, I may have missed something, but I don't think that we yet have an estimate of how big a change was involved. Craig says 29,080 electors in 1918: do we have any estimate how many of those were new? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Local government is slightly different in that the local authority has the power to change its own name, subject to a supermajority (can't remember if it is two-thirds or three-quarters). It would be silly to have separate articles for the two London Boroughs that decided to incorporate a second locality in their name (Hammersmith and Fulham, Barking and Dagenham) and I would also disapprove where an entirely novel name is adopted (eg when West Derbyshire became the more picturesque 'Derbyshire Dales'). However, one could go too far down this path. Note, incidentally, that the West Derbyshire constituency with some minor boundary changes, becomes Derbyshire Dales in the 2006 review; separate articles again. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Fys for coming back to this disccussion. If we talk it through, I'm sure we can find a solution.
I think that Fys has made some points which seem to me to be tangential or not to stand up. I have annotated Fys's comments above, but here's a quick summary of how I asses that info:
  • Fys correctly cites prededent for keeping articles under the same name 100% boundary changes; however there are also precedents for a split
  • Fys points to an article split when there is a renaming, despite no boundary changes; I have listed several precedents for keeping articles together.
  • Fys notes the lack of continity of MP; I'm puzzled by Newton Moore's flight to Islington, but I don't see that it's much relevant to constituency names. Neigbouring MP Walter Long's Strand constituency had been abolished, and as a senior minister did he just have enough clout to move next door to continue enjoying the 90% conservative Westminster electorate, while Moore was exiled to Islington?
For me it comes down to this: we have been inconistent about whether a name change justifies an article split, or whether an article should ever be split if the name isn't changed. We could try to draw hard lines on that one, but I think a rigid policy either way would lead to weirdnesses such as Truro and St Austell being separated from Truro, despite no boundary changes. Maybe we should split them, but we haven't.
I think we have two factors pointing towards a split: the tweak of name, and the change in business voters (which is hard to quantify). I'd back a split if the boundary changes were significant, which is why I would have been asking those with the sources to estimate the proportion of electors moved in or out in between the October 1918 by-election and the 1918. In this case, if it's over 20%, I'd definitely say split; if it's under 5% I'd say keep togetger, and if it's inbetween I'll shut up (which would probably be a great relief to everyone!). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Long had been adopted for Westminster, St George's at the end of July, before the vacancy in St George, Hanover Square arose. Sir Newton Moore was offered the nomination for the byelection on condition that he would not press his claim to the St George's division for the general election.

It is also worth noting the chapter on St George's and the Empire Crusade in "Byelections in British Politics". Mine is the first edition of 1973 and the reference is on page 104: "In the period 1885-1910, before the Westminster St George's constituency was formed from St Georges Hanover Square and Westminster ...". Incidentally, a long time ago someone referred to the fact that the unofficial Conservative Association in the constituency was called after "St George, Hanover Square". I wouldn't put too much store by this; one of the ward Conservative Associations was still called that in the 1990s. Lots of Conservative Associations have names different to those of the constituency.

Another thing to consider is the other St George's in the constituency - the one at the top of St George's Square in Pimlico.

Getting electorate statistics is very difficult because of the significant franchise change in 1918, and also because in this period the local government franchise was significantly different. One of the most important differences concerned service voters and as the area of Hamlet of Knightsbridge which was taken from Westminster to Westminster, St George's in 1918 included Knightsbridge barracks (and another boundary change affected Chelsea barracks), getting accurate statistics may be elusive.

If we look at population we may get somewhere. Let us assume that the area around Constitution Hill held no population. In 1901, St George, Hanover Square had a population of 76,734. Westminster St George's also included Hamlet of Knightsbridge Ward (population 7,601); however this was only one part of the changes. The boundary between Belgravia and Chelsea moved to the middle of streets, marking a net loss of an unknown number of voters (probably several hundred). Then, Chelsea Barracks (formerly in Chelsea) was added; this must have been many hundreds if not thousands. The removal of a small amount of the Bayswater Road next to the St George, Hanover Square burial ground also took out a small number of electors. (NB that change in itself shows a difference: this was a detached part of St George, Hanover Square parish which was inevitably included in the constituency based on the parish; it was not included in Westminster, St George's but transferred to Paddington, South). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - if it is argued that similar concepts of constituency could be linked, then there is at least a case for linking the Foyle constituency since 1983 with the City of Londonderry constituency which existed before 1922: they were both attempts at creating a single-member constituency covering the same city. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's stretching it, Fys :) I would oppose joining Foyle to City of Londonderry, because apart from the wholy difft name, 1983 saw an increase in the number of seats in Northern Ireland (from 12 to 17, if memory is correct), so the boundaries are likely to have been v difft. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think every seat should be taken on a case by case basis. If there is a long standing relationship, say for example Cambridge where the current seat is on very different boundaries of those of 700 years ago but there is a clear decent, then the seat 'should' be in one article. The obverse of that is Lancaster and Morecombe where a large element of another seat is combined into the Lancaster seat, making it unwise to continue with the original article on just Lancaster, leading to a split and the creation of a new article. Between the 2 extremes though are several seats that we can discus in future. I don't think however that now is the time to do it as we have just had one long wrangle over one seat and any further discussion would just become a continuation of the same discussion, but with less relevance to the actual merits of the individual case. Galloglass 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I jumped in and merged Aston Manor into Birmingham Aston, without being aware of the above discussion. It seems to me in urban areas there are a number of cases (particularly in London) where the Borough changed but roughly the same constituency continued. There is no doubt the Aston Manor and Birmingham Aston constituencies overlapped, but equally they were not precisely the same. From the maps in Craig's book on constituency boundaries, Aston Manor was the larger constituency and extended in a roughly triangular shape north away from Birmingham, whereas Birmingham Aston was oriented more east-west. The same MP represented the seats before and after 1918. I believe this point could be argued either way. Different decisions have been reached in similar situations elsewhere.

I suggest, at this stage before we have some sort of article covering every constituency and I have produced my overall index of articles and what they cover, we do not worry too much about whether an individual article should cover more or less. --Gary J 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case for split seems to be proven[edit]

Fys, thanks very much for the figures above: I think that they do give us enough to go on.

You're right that it's clouded by the franchise change, though that itself isn't a prima facie reason for a split (because it affected all constituencies), just something which clouds calculations. I'll try to tot them up anyway, acknowledging the fuzziness:

  • Knightsbridge Ward; assume 1/3 of population were voters (probably generous), so say 2,500
  • Belgravia and Chelsea: would 500 be a reasonable guess?
  • Chelsea Barracks: lets be generous and say 1,500
  • Hanover sq burial ground: say another 250 (beng generous)
  • Hanover sq parish: no estimate, but guess 1,000
  • Business voters removed: say 500 (complee guess)
  • Total of the above: 6,250. (very rough figues, of course)

Those are of course very rough guesstimates, erring (I think) on the side of generosity. But it amounts to over 20% of the 29,080 electors in the constituency in 1918, so I think you have proven your case, and I would now favour a split. What do others think?

BTW, I hope that much of the details you have posted here can be incorporated in the articles. Thanks to all your detailed sources, we have the makings here of a remarkably complete boundaries section on what I think will be two excellent articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can draw up any number of our own criteria for judging whether a constituency changed its boundaries and/or was renamed, or whether a new constituency was created. The discussion above seems to have been productive in doing so. For me, the key question is how observers, at the time or since, have seen it. Fys' evidence suggests that they saw this change as the creation of a new constituency, not a renaming and boundary change, so I support the split. Warofdreams talk 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The split seems reasonable. As WarofDreams says, the main factor is how people at the time saw it. And in this case they saw it as a new creation. So I too would support it. Galloglass 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connected to this decision...[edit]

  • What shall we decide about Cotswold (now TheCotswolds (UK Parliament constituency)) and/or Taunton (Taunton Deane (UK Parliament constituency) ? doktorb wordsdeeds 11:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would favour keeping The Cotswolds (UK Parliament constituency) as a redirect to Cotswold (UK Parliament constituency), because:
  1. the renaming is a technical one (to reflect normal usage and local govt district), rather than a substantive one (e.g. to Mid Gloucestershire or whatever)
  2. The boundary charges are reportedly v. minor
After the dissolution of this parliament, Cotswold (UK Parliament constituency) should be moved to The Cotswolds (UK Parliament constituency) and the text amended to say "formerly known as" etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taunton/Taunton Deane is less straightforward to call. The name change is from town to local govt district, which suggests a conceptual shift, and unless the boundary changes are trivial, it seem appropriate to split them.
As an aside, I don't much like the boundary commission's current approach to naming, which seems to me to be over-pedantic. There has been a Taunton constituency since 1295, and I don't see why the name couldn't endure even with more radical boundary changes; this all seems to be on a par with the creation of endless list-style names, which seem to me to be a form of pedantry which undermines clarity. {end rant!} --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stablepedia[edit]

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Geographical data[edit]

I have a file of geographical data on each constituency in Great Britain that I want to merge into the corresponding Wikipedia articles. (Unfortunately it doesn't include Northern Ireland.) However, I want to get people's views on this before I go ahead and request a bot to do a mass update of the 600-odd articles.

The file contains, for each constituency, the following data:

  • Latitude and longitude of the centre
  • Area in square kilometres
  • Latitude and longitude of the northern, eastern, southern and western ends
  • The number of parts. (This is how many separate land areas the constituency covers - most are just in one part, but some, such as Orkney and Shetland have a huge number of parts because of all the islands.)

(I've done a few sample checks and the data looks correct.)

I think obviously the latitude and longitude of the centres and the area are the most useful pieces of information. Perhaps the best place for the latitude and longitude would be at the top right such as I've done for Brighton Pavilion. Perhaps the best place for the area would be the UK constituency infobox.

As for whether the latitude and longitude of the northern, eastern, southern and western ends nad the number of parts are actually of value, I'm not sure.

I think a small amount of data cleansing would be required (which I'll just do myself) to match the names of the constituencies with the names in my file. (I don't want to make work for the person that will create the bot). Is someone able to come up with a list of the constituencies' article names to help me match things up properly? If so, it would help a lot - just pasting it onto my Talk page would be fine.

So: any ideas/views/recommendations? --A bit iffy 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently doing an index relating official names of constituencies to the names of articles. However I am doing this for all seats back to 1707 and many of them have had different boundaries at different stages of history (not to mention the problems caused by changing names and boundaries of local government units used as building blocks at different redistributions). I presume you need a list of the articles relating to the current constituencies (or the ones to be contested at the next election?) rather than all of them. Please clarify which data you need. If you want to check if what I am doing might be helpful to you see Official names of United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies in England and UK Parliament constituencies in England/Index of Articles. I have done all the English official names and the index for English articles A-F so far. --Gary J 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The constituency names I need are the Wikipedia article names for current constituencies, so they're ones in UK Parliament constituencies in England/Index of Articles (thanks Gary - I hadn't come across that page). The reason for wanting this is to map the Wikipedia article names to the names as given by TheyWorkForYou's API (on which my data is based), so that I can then hand my file over to some that can do the necessary bot. (I don't want to subject the bot writer to do work that he/she should not be expected to do (marrying up TheyWorkForYou names and article names). Probably I'll just wait till the rest of that page is done and then have a go at this. One problem I can see, however, is that it's not obvious how to get hold of a list of only current constituencies's article names.--A bit iffy 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article will take some time, but there should be a reasonably accurate list with links to the current constituency articles, in the article about members of the current Parliament. See MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005 - what you want is the article names from the edit screen, rather than the versions appearing in the article (Votertown Ballotbox (UK Parliament constituency) rather than Votertown, Ballotbox). I suggest you copy the entire article and paste it offline, so you can then delete everything except the article names. This should produce the list you want.--Gary J 10:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency names and articles - A more systematic approach?[edit]

I propose we adopt the methodology the Association of Cricket Statisticians used to draw up a generally agreed list of first class cricket matches. If it worked for a community of notoriously opinionated individuals, then it should help our relatively small group of Wikipedians.

The first step would be to draw up a List A of constituencies which present no problems. There are a large number of constituencies which had the same name throughout, where there is no dispute what that name was and the period or periods it covers. There would also have to be no other constituency name which is the same or sufficiently close to possibly cause confusion.

The second thing would be to draw up a List B cntaining the potential problems. The advantage of looking at the whole universe of constituencies in one process, is that similar cases can be identified and addressed as a bloc rather than our community getting hung up on each individual case and reaching inconsistent decisions (as we have been doing).

Ultimately it is more important that we are generally agreed than that we reach any particular decision. We can then put our energy into creating and improving the articles, rather than arguing about what the articles should be called and what each should contain.

I had intended to raise this idea when I had finished the large project on constituency names and existing articles I am currently in the middle of. However having come here, after a few months since my last visit, I see that there is a need for an agreed, systematic approach now.

I look forward to comments, to see if it is felt that my suggestion would be useful. --Gary J 10:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The straw poll above indicates quite clearly that a standard for constituency names has been debated and agreed. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood what I was proposing. I am not seeking to re-open the discussion on the standard practice for constituency names. In most cases the article names in use do reflect what I understand to be the consensus. What I want to do is to produce a list, which I hope can be generally agreeed, which applies the naming conventions. This process will inevitably throw up some inconsistencies in what has so far been done and a few doubtful points or special cases on which further discussion may be necessary.

The list I am working on at the moment highlights departures from standard practice. Having looked at quite a number of existing articles recently, I can confirm that although most constituencies have some sort of article, the practices adopted on naming and coverage have not been entirely consistent. Dealing with all these issues once and for all should prevent the periodic outbreak of disagreement which has bedevilled this Wiki project. There is after all a relatively restricted set of a few thousand constituency names to be slotted into articles, so preparing a complete list should be possible.

Perhaps the way forward is for me to complete the exercise I am doing and then raise here any points I feel still need discussion, in the light of what has been thrashed out in the past. --Gary J 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, I cannot find the article at the moment but there already exists an "official names of UK constituency" article. As for a list of naming conventions, we use the names as agreed by the Boundary Commissions, and all articles have the "UK Parliament constituency" suffix. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the official names rule breaks down as you go into the past or consider fine detail. Before the Representation of the People Act 1948 a clear official name was not given to every constituency in every redistribution. There are inconsistencies within the same statute sometimes, particularly about how to distinguish borough and county constituencies with the same name in Ireland. The Representation of the People Act 1832 and the Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832 have different versions of the name for some constituencies - and the one which was generally used in some cases comes from one statute and in others from the other. We also have minor variations with things like hyphens and commas, which I presume no one would want to give rise to split articles (especially as we tend to leave out commas from the official names in situations which strictly are only correct in the last few Scottish redistributions where commas were not used for named divisions of Edinburgh and Glasgow). Is it right to treat 'The Hartlepools' and 'Hartlepool' as the same constituency? How about 'Radcliffe-cum-Farnsworth' and 'Farnsworth'? There are areas which retained the same particular name but were in different boroughs in successive redistributions - when should they be treated as needing the same or a different article? Battersea and Clapham, Battersea and Battersea and Clapham, Clapham are clumsy names; but they are the correct ones applying our standard practice. In fact the Batterea and Clapham articles ignore the Borough prefix. I have seen a useage in London seat articles where there has been more than one borough prefix used for essentialy the same seat, to just use the particular name and ignore the boroughs. Battersea is an example of this. However the Clapham constituency only existed in the 1885-1918 era - is it right to ignore the Borough prefix for that seat? The decisions individual editors gave made are inconsistent. There are the London Borough prefixes in the 1974-1983 redistribution, which in most cases have been ignored despite being part of the official name.

I appreciate that there was an earlier list done, but I have looked at original legislation to re-do the exercise from the ground up, because I queried whether the names we were using for the older constituencies were the official names. Having looked into this I found the sort of problems I highlight in the previous paragraph. --Gary J 15:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Doktorbuk has already said above Gary, we have discussed this into the ground on several occasions and the current formula is what has been agreed. By all means re-open the discussion but please read what has been said on the several earlier discussions first as its no fun for the rest of us to go over the same ground again and again. Thanks Galloglass 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will shut up about this now and just work on my list of what we have got so far. At the very least it identifies gaps in the existing article coverage. --Gary J 16:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the belated reply, but just a quick note to say that I think that this is an excellent idea. We have reached a fairly clear consenus on most of the major issues of naming, but I have no doubt that a list will throw up a few glitches. It's not a small task, but if you have heb energy, Gary, good luck! I don't think that many of us would have the energy to rehash the issues discussed before, but it'll be very useful to review how our current approach works in practice and see whether any tweaks are needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ealing, Southall[edit]

I have tried to re-move Ealing Southall from its current article name (which has a comma) but I have been blocked from doing so. Can someone fix this? doktorb wordsdeeds 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Warofdreams talk 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for establishment and abolition[edit]

An increasing number of constituency articles are now categorised under the Category:Establishments by year and Category:Disestablishments by year hierarchies. By no means all of them are so categorised (though it woudn't be hard to use AWB to add the rest).

However, the categories are now getting a bit clogged with constituencies (see for example Category:1885 establishments and Category:1974 disestablishments), so I think it would be best to create a specific subcategories for the major points constituency changes (i.e. an establishment and disestablishment pair for each of 1832, 1868, 1885, 1918, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1974, 1983, 1992 and 1997).

My inclination is to name them after the the year in which the changes took effect, rather than the year of the underlying legislation, so I suggest the format of:

How does that sound?

(I prefer to discuss these things before creation, because revising categ names at WP:CFD involves a lot of work for a lot of people). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Are you just planning on creating cats for the main redistributions - for instance, how would you deal with the abolition of Milton Keynes or Yorkshire West Riding? Warofdreams talk 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking of creating cats for the years of the main redistributions, plus 1992 for Milton Keynes (I know it'll be a small category, but small cats are usually considered OK if they are a part of a series which otherwise consists of more heavily-polulated categories).
Wasn't the division of Yorkshire West Riding part of the 1868 redistribution?
I reckoned that there was no need for per-year cats for the various 19th-century disenfranchisements for corruption etc. Do you think that covers it all? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have just remembered that we will also need a 1922 abolitions category, for all the Irish constituencies abolished then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan, although you may need to include a category for Yorkshire West Riding as it was abolished in 1865, not 68. There were four constituencies created that year, too - the two divisions of the Riding, plus two I can't remember offhand. Warofdreams talk 05:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, will do abolition and creation categs for 1865. I also forgot to list 1801 creations, since that will be needed for all the Irish constituecies created in 1801. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a fairly complete list of nineteenth century constituencies disenfranchised and enfranchised at times other than the general redistributions of 1832, 1868 and 1885, It is in the second part of Number of Westminster MPs (as User:BrownHairedGirl may have noticed when she did some work on it). I am not sure it is ideal doing a category for each year where only a few seats were affected, but I see that is what has been done for 1865 and 1992. Overall I think splitting up these establishmennt and disestablishment categories is very useful. --Gary J 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)--Gary J 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that list, Gary. From that and Craig's British Electoral Facts, I have created Category:Parliamentary constituencies disenfranchised for corruption, and will make a list too.
I deliberated a bit over creating the categs for 1865, 1870, 1992 etc, but decided that there might be an advantage in having them as part of the series, just so that they show up in the list which appears on each category page. Ther does seem to be a general principle that poorly-poulated categories can be created as part of a series that is otherwise well-populated, but if folks disagree, I guess that the samll categories could go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have a category for Birkenhead, which was created in 1861? This and the extra seat given to South Lancashire are the other constituencies I thought might have been given seats in 1865. Warofdreams talk 15:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In for a penny, in for a pound :) I have just created Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1861, and placed Birkenhead in there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1885-1918 constituencies[edit]

Do we have anywhere a complete list of the 1885-1918 constituencies? Or can anyone generate one (in whatever format) without too much work?

I have been trying to expand the lists of MPs elected in UK elections for that periods, but none of them has a complete list of constituencies.

The most complete appears to be the 1895 list of MPs, so I have been expanding the others by adding the constituencies from that one. (Working alpahabetcally, I have got as far as K).

However, it would be great to have a complete list to work from. I know I could assemble one from the other lists, but I was hoping to avoid that work.

(While we're at it, lists for 1832-1868 and 1868-1885 would be very useful too: that way we could create the skeleton lists of MPs with all the constituencies in place, which would be a lot less work than trying to patch them in after people have started adding MPs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with constituency names in that the articles do not always match the official names. This is an outgrowth of the problem that this project did not agree a definitive list before we all rushed around producing articles. Despite well meaning efforts inevitably there are inconsistencies. I have been trying to at least identify what articles there are and what they include. This does produce a list from which the information about particular periods can be extracted. See Wikipedia:Index of article on UK Parliament constituencies in England and Wikipedia:Index of articles on UK Parliament constituencies in England N-Z. I have reached S so far. Perhaps when I have finished a list for each major period could then be prepared, to confirm or dispute the choices which have been made by the compilers of lists for particular Parliaments. I would certainly hope that we would reach the position in the next few months when every constituency in every period has been allocated to an article which is in existence even if in need of further attention. This may not be too helpful if you want to do something now --Gary J 02:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gary, for the useful work you have been doing on this. (as you may have seen, I have ben following the progress of your list, and trying to resolve a few of the more straightforward problemns you have identified. (Though it's already clear to me that you work has identified a number of naming issues, which I will try to list later this week).
The reason I wanted to make a complete list of 1885-1918 constituencies (and 1832-1868 and 1868-1885) is that progress on creating articles on MPs seems quite fast: everything from 1964 onwards is complete, and a look at e.g. the 1918 MPs shows a lot done there (1929 MPs is about two-thirds done).
Since many MPs from the 1920s will have been first elected before 1918, I reckon that it'd be good to help editors to link them into the pre-1918 lists where appropriate, and reasonably soon. So I'll see what I can piece together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Order - Newest Results - Top or Bottom of article[edit]

I noticed a while ago that Halifax (UK Parliament constituency) election info boxes had been inverted by Brownhairedgirl. I did ask why at the time and was promised an answer but never actually got one. Also I've noticed another 2 or 3 pages with the same reversed order. The Halifax one is the only one that's an active, non historical constituency. The point that concerns me most is that reversing the order like this places the main information that people are looking for when they come to the page; the most recent GE result, right at the bottom at the most remote place in the article. A more secondary point is that we have over a thousand other constituency articles that do exactly the reverse and place the most recent results top.

On a related issue, we have our lists members of parliament with the oldest at the top and most recent at the bottom. Now this is fine for small lists like West Lancashire (UK Parliament constituency) as well as historical constituencies with no current member. But when the lists get quite long, such as Rochdale (UK Parliament constituency) then I get the impression we should be placing the most recent (and current) members at the top of the list and running it in reverse order down as has been done with Orkney and Shetland (UK Parliament constituency) for the same reason as above, ie that its their current members name that people are looking for.

Now I know this really doesn't matter to most people but I try and add the relevant results to several constituencies a month so it would be nice if we could all agree how the articles should be laid out as going back and re-doing all these pages would be no fun at all :) So thoughts people please. Galloglass 08:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The results tables should be most recent first, then back through time in order. The percentage change boxes should be standardised too, ensuring that parties which did not compete in previous years are marked as either blank or N/A, not a positive change each time. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Galloglass, I meant to reply before now on this one. It was only today when entering the results for Smethwick that I remembered I hadn't done so, so I'm glad to see this issue being raised.
However, I do think that all these lists are much more useful if ordered with the first results first. If this was a news service, then focusing on the current stituation might make sense, but it's not a new service: it's an article about the constituency and its history, and history flows forwards in time, not backwards.
Sure, some readers will be looking for the latest results (thugh I disagree with the assumption that means most), but on most of these articles (certainly the ones I have edited), there is a link in the table of contents to each decade of results, so a reader wanting to go directly to the most recent result can do so.
As reverse-ordering the lists of MPs, I think that's unnecesary. Every current constituuency has in any case an infobox which shows the name of the curent MP: the casual reader can find the MP's name without ever reading the body text.
Running the MPs list backwards would also lead to some weird glitches when MPs switch parties. Look at the list of Smethwick MPs; if that was reversed, it would give the casual reader the impression that Mosley was in the New Party before joining Labour, which is of course the reverse of what happened.
I can't think offhand of any other area of wikipedia where chronologies are routinely inverted, and it seems odd to me to want to make an exception for MPs. Look, for example at the lists oif office-holders in Category:Lists of government ministers of the United Kingdom; they are all in chronological order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks for your input BrownHairedGirl. I do take your point on the naming of members of parliament and accept that it would cause one or two problems, so probably best to leave things as they are there.

On the election boxes though I have very grave doubts about the re-ordering. Perhaps its as a historian that I'm more familiar with using lists that start with the present and work backwards but I cant see the logic of putting 19th century election results at the top of constituencies like Halifax which when such old results are only of interest to 'anoraks' like ourselves and wit the most recent relegated. This gets even worse in places like Cambridge where when we add the older results will mean we have a host of medieval results at the top of the page and the 2005 election right at the bottom. Very poor design practice from a usability point of view though.

Am a little surprised that you think giving the present result and working backwards is not wiki practice. For example this page: New York's 19th congressional district shows how its done in the US. I've not been able to find any example of one that starts with the oldest results and works forward on any US election wiki page, although I'm sure if I spend enough time there most be at least one or two. Canada too: Peterborough (electoral district) also has its most recent results at the top with the older elections below them. Again I'm not able to find an example of any Canadian election boxes with the older results first. If someone can actually find any from around the world that do begin with the older first, then please do post them.

If you don't mind me asking BrownHairedGirl, what example was it that gave you the idea to begin these changes? Galloglass 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK here's what happened. The first time I created results boxes myself, I ordered them in forward order, because as a historian that's how I am used to historical data being organised: an event may influence what happened after it, but cannot influence what happened before it. That's why historical narratives are written to run forwards in time (unless you are Martin Amis).
Then, when editing other constituency pages, I found some results ordered backwards, and sorted a few of them: they felt perverse and difficult to use, because I wanted to track what had happened in successive elections, and to that I had to scroll back up the page to go forward in time. That's counter-intuitive, and means that to read an article from start to end, the reader has to jump to the end of a section, read upwards back to the top, then jump forward to the next section. That's a pain-in-the neck to read.
As to the examples from elsewhere, I checked the New York congessional districts, where the results all appear to be the work of one editor (Bjoel5785). However, it's simply wrong to say "that's how it's done in the US"; the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Congressional districts is for the results to be ordered "In chronological order from earliest to latest". That's what has been done in many other congressional districts such as Alabama's 1st congressional district and Texas's 23rd congressional district.
I'm sure we could both find plenty of examples of both approaches, and don't think that collecting lists of precedents will shed any more light on the matter. What I'd prefer to do is to look at what we are trying to achieve by our different approaches, and see what whether we can come up with a win-win solution.
  • My objective, as stated above, is to have to present the results so that a reader scrolling down through the article can follow the events in the order in which they happened.
  • Your concern, if I understand it correctly, is that a reader seeking only recent results can get to them without scrolling through half-a-million screenfuls of ancient history.
It seems to me that we can meet both those objectives, by:
  1. ordering the results with earliest first;
  2. incoporating a mini-TOC at the start of the results section, to allow the reader to jump to whatever section they are intersted in.
I have just implemented this at Halifax (UK Parliament constituency)#Election_results. I think that it works very well, but what do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mini-TOC is an interesting idea but my feeling is it just duplicates the listings box at the top. The more I look at the effect that having the historical results first, the more I doubts I have. I can't say I'm happy with the idea or the practice. When any page layout is considered either in print or on the screen then consideration that the reader starts at the top left and finishes at the bottom right should be allowed for. Burying the most important and recent information at the bottom goes against this. Sorry BHG, I do see where you're coming from on this but I don't really like the destination. I think we need input from other people to say which approach is the correct one. Galloglass 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galloglass, I'm sorry that an idea which allows both approaches to work together doesn't please you :( Plenty of reference books use the same approach, by having a multi-level TOC at the start and a chapter TOC on each chapter, and it works well: the opening TOC accommodates the reader who wants to go straight to the section they want, which the mini-TOC accommodates the reader who goes from one chapter to another and needs to junp to a particular section. (e.g. someone who has just seen that the seat changed hands in a particular year, and wants to see what happened with the voting).
Hoever, I think the core of this is your statement that "burying the most important and recent information at the bottom goes against this".
For a start, if the information is accessible through a clear link from the top, it's clearly signposted rather than buried. But I strongly disagree that the most recent results are the most important.
For a start, less than half the constituency articles are on current constituencies, and on former constituencies, I don't see how the last result in, say, 1945 or 1983, is more important than any other. In Smethwick, for example, I would argue that the most important results are 1959, 1964 and 1966, i.e. the election when Patrick Gordon Walker lost his seat and the ones before and afterwards. The same goes for current constituencies: in Enfield Southgate, he most important result is probably 1997, when Miachel Portillo lost the seat; in Darlington it has to be the 1983 by-election, in Orpington the 1962 by-election.
Sure, from a news point of view, the most recent results take priority, but Wikipedia is not a news service. More recent material is more readibly available, but this is acknowledged as a form systemic bias, and is a form of recentism. Surely it's more in the spirit of an encylopedic venture to specifically avoid prioritising the recent, and to structure articles from a historical rather than a news perspective?
Otherwise, shouldn't we have all chronologies, such as List of monarchs in the British Isles, reverse-sorted? And if not, why exactly should election results be an exception? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think all lists should be in chronological order, from earliest to latest. I have tended to sub-divide the longer election results sections by type of Parliament (England, Great Britain, United Kingdom). It may be that is too long, but I consider decades to be too short. Perhaps the compromise on that would be to subdivide on an intermediate timescale, breaking when there is a major change in the composition or constituency boundaries of Parliament.

  1. 1660-1707 (England and Wales) - 14 Parliaments.
  2. 1707-1800 (Great Britain) - 18 Parliaments.
  3. 1801-1832 - 10 Parliaments.
  4. 1832-1868 - 9 Parliaments.
  5. 1868-1885 - 3 Parliaments.
  6. 1885-1918 - 8 Parliaments.
  7. 1918-1922 (Ireland) - 1 Parliament.
  8. 1918-1950 (Great Britain) - 8 Parliaments.
  9. 1922-1950 (Northern Ireland) - 7 Parliaments.
  10. 1950-1974 - 7 Parliaments.
  11. 1974-1983 - 3 Parliaments.
  12. 1983-1997 - 3 Parliaments.
  13. 1997-2005 (Scotland) - 2 Parliaments.
  14. 1997 to date (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) - 3 Parliaments.
  15. 2005 to date (Scotland) - 1 Parliament.

For current constituencies, with a long history, the latest 'sub-section' could be put in a different section (called say 'Recent Elections') nearer to the top of the article than the older results (called 'Historic Elections' or 'Elections 1295-1997' perhaps). --Gary J 11:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is though when people come to these constituency pages they are looking for the 2005 election above all. The way we currently have them structured allows access to this info straight away. Placing the 2005 election at the very bottom is all very well for the history buffs like ourselves but really really sucks for the vast majority of wiki users. Are we really going to place the candidates at the next general election right at the bottom of the page, because thats what will happen if we reverse the order on all the pages. History as they say, goes forward and onward, thats is why we should continue with the most recent results at the top. Galloglass 13:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galloglass, I think it's a good idea to focus on the accessibility of the data, but I think thar you are wrong to say that "the way we currently have them structured allows access to this info straight away".
If readers are looking for the 2005 results, then they won't find that at the top of the page unless we restructure all the pages much more radically; at the moment we usually have a boundaries section first, then a history section, then a historic list of MPs. Even if those earlier sections are very short, then the reader is unlikely to encounter any results before the second scren, but if the article goes into more detail about the history and boundaries or has a long lst of historical MPs, then the latest results will be at the bottom: in Buckingham, the results section start at the 6th screenful on my current browser setup.
That suggests to me that there is no way to avoid a lot of scrolling, unless we provide links to anchors within the page. That's why I think that the best way so far of achieving that is to have both the standard TOC after the lead section, and a mini-TOC at the top of the articles section. I think that readers are likely to be used to the idea that history starts and goes on, but that sometimes it's most useful to be able to fast-forward. The useability issue is whether they have a clearly accessible fast-forward button.
I don't think, though, that we should feel apologetic for not making the most current stuff the most prominent. Wikipedia is not a new service, and while we can and should make these articles relevant and usel for those following current events, that's a different matter to structuring them to prioritise recent material.
I'm not wholly persuaded by Gary J's idea of breaking up the results by clusters. For constituencies such as City of London, with a very long historical list of results, then a coarser division is a good idea to avoid creating a ridiculously long TOC at he top of the page ... but the other factor is that even in a three-horse race, the results boxes are rather bulky, which leads to a lot of scrolling. Divinding tentieth-century results by decade gives an average of about 2.5 boxes per decade, which is a bit more than a screenful; that feels about rght to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should do some sort of user survey, to see what consumers of constituency articles want highlighted and what layouts cause them difficulty. I am not sure if Wikipedia has a facility for that sort of thing. --Gary J 16:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried the subdivision by decade idea for Bristol. It seems to be quite convenient for navigating the historic article. 10 categories goes from the 1790s to the 1880s. The longest possible run of election results is from 1660 to the present day (as far as I am aware there are few extant full results before 1660). That is a maximum of 82 general elections (84 Parliaments, but the first British and UK Parliaments did not involve an election). With by-elections that is probably about a hundred elections. Perhaps for the relatively few constituencies which have that history 20 or 30 year divisions, to keep the index to a manageable size, would be useful. However for most articles 10 year gaps would fit fine. --Gary J 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears we are deadlocked, with myself and Doktorbuk favouring the current system and Gary J + Brownhairedgirl favouring reversing the order we use. I'm not too sure where we go at this point. What I would suggest though is that we leave the existing order on extant lists and the new ones we make, then we do those to our own preference. That way we can avoid any serious 'falling out' with each other as has been occasioned on certain subjects over the past few months(and more importantly losing us good people). I would then say that we should re-visit this subject again in a few months to see if we can break this disagreement. Galloglass 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seens ok to me. Either way the information will be available somewhere. We can always revisit the point when we have all the articles in place. --Gary J 22
42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


I think we do need to stay calm on this - as has been mentioned, there is always a danger of more falling out over what can surely be easily resolved. I suggest the most recent election box should come first, and then maybe the historical election results in natural order...a comprimise? Anyway, yeah, let's take a break and come back...We've still got a good two years before the election could cause a lot more serious upheaveal ! doktorb wordsdeeds 11:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, can we perhaps agree that whatever the order, there should be a heading for each decade of results, of the form
=== Elections in the 1950s === etc?
It seesm to me that whichever order is adopted, the headings will help the reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the next election[edit]

A slightly more pressing issue popped up in one or two constituency articles I edited this week. These were in constitruencies where some candidates had been selected for the next election, and an editor had created a results box already: candidate names and parties listed, but results left blank.

I think that info on the candidates for the next election is a useful thing to have, but I dislike the idea of creating a results box years before there will be any results: apart from the pre-emption, candidates can be deselected etc in the meantime. It would be more useful to keep the info on prospective candidates in a more discursive form, such as

"For the next general election, the Conservative Party has selected as its candidate Sam Spade, the former MP for Borchester South Central, who lost his seat in 1853. Labour has chosen Dave Spart, a long-serving district councillor from Felpersham and full-time official of the National Union of Revolving Door Salesmen. After a bitter selection battle, the Liberal Democrats chose ...." etc.

I suggest that this should be done in a section called "Next general election", placed between the list of MPs and the election results; and that results boxes should not be created until the election is called. Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a new "Next general election" heading is a good idea with candidates in text rather than the election boxes they are currently in. Only minor quibble is I'd prefer to see them higher up the article than the list of MP's rather than below it. That said either would be acceptable. Galloglass 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is another manifestation of my general approach to keep to a broadly forward-moving historical order versus your inclination to prioritise the recent or current ! <grin>
I looked for guidance in the MoS and subpages, but couldn't find anything relevant :( ... so I guess we have to figure out this one ourselves.
As per my general aversion to approaching the constituency articles as a journalistic current events document, it seems to me to be wrong to have a high-level section near the top which breaks the logical sequence by focusing on the current developments. So I suggest that we try to work this stuff into the existing structure.
Most articles have a "History" or "Politics and history" section near the top, so I suggest adding the "Next general election" as a sub-heading in the "Politics and history" section (renaing it from "history" if necessary). That puts the next ekection stuff near the top, and also keeps the material in the place it should be after the next election. Just an idea, but how does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable tables[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-11-20/Technology report has some discussion on the new class "wikitable sortable" facility, which (unsurprisingly) allows tables to be sorted by the user. It doesn't yet seem to work very well (see Bradford North (UK Parliament constituency)#Members_of_Parliament), but if development continues, it could be very useful for he lists of MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to fix the feature, but it's not a very attractive result. The problem is that it doesn't allow for colspan arguments. In some tables, it already works ok - see (for example) President of the Trades Union Congress. Warofdreams talk 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When to split or not to split constituency articles[edit]

One of the issues we haven't fully resolved is when to combine articles, and I have spotted a few constituencies where the issues seem to me to be unsatisfactorily or inconsistently resolved:

I think that this can be broken down into the following situations:

  1. New name for new boundaries: the renaming reflects new boundaries (e.g. Barnsley East and Mexborough/Barnsley East)
  2. Name clarifications: no boundaries are chnaged, and the renaming is done solely to better reflect the composition of the constituency (e.g. Truro/Truro and St Austell)
  3. Local govt renamings: there may be some boundary changes, but the renaming eflects a change in the local govt structure (e.g. Southall/Ealing Southall; Whitehaven/Copeland; and Deptford/Lewisham Deptford)
  4. Change of constituency type: when a constituency whose boundaries are not massively altered is reclassified from a county to a borough constituency (e.g. Handsworth/Birmingham Handsworth)
  5. Reason unknown, where the article says nothing about the reasons for the change (e.g. Esher/Esher and Walton; New Forest/New Forest and Christchurch; Maidstone/Maidstone and The Weald)

My current thoughts are that we should have a basic principle that different names means separate articles, with a few exceptions, and treat these as follows:

  • New name for new boundaries: split
  • Reason unknown: if in doubt, split
  • Local govt renamings: if it's just a prefix added (e.g. Deptford), then combine because in popular usage, the prefix may be ignored anyway; but if it's a complete remamming (e.g. Whitehaven/Copeland), then split
  • Name clarifications: I'm leaning towards a split, but I'm not sure
  • Change of constituency type: we should separate by name, not by type.

Any other thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely propose combining where there is a name clarification - it would seem strange to split Na h-Eileanan an Iar (UK Parliament constituency) and Western Isles or Ynys Môn (UK Parliament constituency) and Anglesey. Warofdreams talk 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On thinking about this issue, which we seem to do a lot (!) I think I am leaning towards some kind of "middle ground" here...For example, the Western Isles/Na h-Eileanan an Iar situtaion above, makes sense to have the latter as the article, the former as a redirect to the article, with a clear explanation to the name change. In all cases where there has been either a simple name change (Cotswolds/The Cotswolds; Anglesey/Ynys Mon) this seems the better solution.
I would always prefer two split, separate articles for what I often label "new constituencies" even if this is not strictly the case. For example, I would prefer the new Barnsley East to be separate, just as it was accepted that the new Wentworth and Dearne should not be redirected to Wentworth; or Salford and Eccles not being a redirect to Salford...
I agree that we should separate by name, not type, but name clarifications may remain a more "grey area". doktorb wordsdeeds 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both for your thoughts. I think I'd place the likes of Ynys Môn (UK Parliament constituency)/Anglesey and Na h-Eileanan an Iar/Western Isles in a separate category, as translations: in both cases I would suggest that it was the same name, just in different languages.
I agree about Cotswolds/The Cotswolds; but what about Truro/Truro & St Austell? No boundaries changed, just a significantly different name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to follow the name, unless the change in that name is very minor, rather than having to minutely investigate whether the boundaries were the same or not. However in some cases, mostly in London, you do have instances like 'Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley' and 'Poplar, Bow and Bromley' being included in one 'Bow and Bromley' article. In some cases, such as Tower Hamlets in the nineteenth century, the borough name is not included in the article title for its divisions, even if the same constituency name is not reused with a Municipal Borough prefix later on. You then have the problems with the London Borough prefixes in 1974. This produces situations like 'Acton' being the article to 1983 (even though strictly the official name of the constituency was Ealing, Acton in 1974-1983), whereas a new 'Ealing Acton' article starts in 1983. These approaches have been generally followed and make some kind of sense, so I would not disturb them. It follows that Deptford and Lewisham Deptford should be left as they are.
While there are disadvantages in cutting up the story for one area, where the name changes but the boundaries are much the same on too frequent occasions, there are also advantages in producing more manageable and shorter articles when the same area gets a new name. I think we should welcome the opportunity to split caused by the Taunton/Taunton Deane sort of situation. That produces one long historic article and one short current one. We should be more easily persuaded to combine when the alternative is two or three short articles. --Gary J 10:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gary, I like the logic of that strict split-by-name, thoug I think there is some room for leeway in the borough prefixes. E.g. strictly speaking, we should have Camberwell Dulwich and then Southwark Dulwich, but unless/until the articles have more complete info the boundaries, I think that the conevience of combining them should win.
Maybe we could use your excellent Wikipedia:Index of article on UK Parliament constituencies in England as the starting point for drawing up a longer list of potentially problematic cconstituencies, and making decisions one-by-one? (actually, ISTR that what you intended the list to be for). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl, it was my original thought to pinpoint inconsistencies for review, but there seemed to be little enthusiasm for my idea of a systematic approach. As it is I have tried to locate what was out there at the moment. You have already begun sorting out the relatively simple issues, like getting the proper county word order with the compass point before the county name rather than after it. We probably need to use the sort of listing of possible problems you started this section with, as well as having a list of the articles affected by each problem, so if the consensus is to make a change it will be easier at that stage to make changes. --Gary J 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Kent: A reason to keep the split? or maybe not[edit]

I have spotted another little nuance. Mid Kent (UK Parliament constituency) (1983-1997) and Mid Kent (historic UK Parliament constituency) (1868-1885) are split, contrary to our usual practice of combining them.

I was about to jump in and combine them, but then spotted that Mid Kent (historic UK Parliament constituency) had usefully been given a lot of geographical categories which would not apply to the newer seat. This strikes me as being a useful benefit, so I have held back so far from merging them ... But but but but but

The split between xxx (historic UK Parliament constituency) and xxx (UK Parliament constituency) is a difficult one to manage, because it greatly increases the possiblity of misdirected links. If we are going to split that way, I'd much prefer the two constituencies to be called something like "(new UK Parliament constituency)" and "(historic UK Parliament constituency)", so that xx (UK Parliament constituency)" could be a dab page. That would be clearrer to readers, and allow the use of popups to separate the two sets of incoming links.

However, this all seems to me to be getting over-complicated. The same situation could be crtaed for all those article nmaes where a 2-seat 19th century constituency had the same name as a samler 20th-century single-member seat. So if we take Mid Kent as a precedent, then logically we should be prepared to split all the other "north/south/east/west/ county" seats. I thonk this would get horribly messy.

Also, when I thought about this, there are a lot of other constituencies where the same problem could be created: e.g. Newcastle upon Tyne North (UK Parliament constituency), where there was no overlap between the pre- and post-1983 boundaries. And when I think about the city where I live, I can see that many of the districts have been included in several difft constituencies over the years.

So I conclude that very precise geographical categories won't work for constituencies unless we create a new article after each boundary change, which would be a nightmare.

On that basis I think that Mid Kent (UK Parliament constituency) (1983-1997) and Mid Kent (historic UK Parliament constituency) (1868-1885) should be merged after all, and the categories trimmed. Any other thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The norm for what has been done so far is for the larger pre-1885 and smaller post-1885 constituencies of the same name to be included in one articles. There are far fewer split articles than combined ones of this kind. It really seems to me that the casual consumer of these articles would find it easier to have one article per constituency name. --Gary J 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think on all of these it has to be 'case by case' approach rather than any single set of general rules. Where there is clear 100% geographic continuity such as Anglesey and the Western Isles or 100% name continuity such as Cambridge and York, even though the boundaries have changed greatly over the years, then in these cases it should all be in one single article. Apart from these we need to take a long hard look at each one and decide on the individual merits of each case. If this does involve us having a certain lack on consistency overall then so be it. The important thing is to be 'accessible and informative' to the casual reader as well as those using the information for research purposes. Where we do choose to keep one article through several name-changes, then that MUST be made clear within the body of the text. Preferably in a prominent position. Galloglass 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I am suggesting combining City of York with York Central. Galloglass 18:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
York is tricky because of the significant name changes (York --> City of York --> York Central). I think in the context of the recent boundary review, with York Outer/York Central being such a large change, there is a case for keeping York Central separate from the existing City of York article. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Yes you're probably right that its a bad idea to join them. It would create a certain amount of confusion. Maybe worth looking at joining after the seats are revised again but thats for the far future. Galloglass 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Historic County Representation Articles[edit]

I am probably insane, but I have embarked on another large project, to produce lists of constituencies and (in the longer term) MPs for each historic county. I started with Parliamentary representation from Middlesex as it is my native county and sufferred worse than most historic counties from nineteenth and twentieth century administrative changes. I would be grateful if people could take a look at what I am doing and give me your comments. If changes need to be made it would be better to do it early. I myself am uncertain if an extra column should be included for the administrative county. This might be particularly relevant in London and other major urban conurbations.

My inspiration for this article was the US Congressional project, which has alphabetical lists of Congressmen from a state. See for example List of United States Representatives from Massachusetts. Of course numbered districts and a smaller number of seats makes that more manageable, than for the more populous English counties with distinctive constituency names. --Gary J 11:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, that's one big project, but great work if you have the energy to do it!
I have done something similar on a smaller scale for some smaller areas: see List of Parliamentary constituencies in Islington and List of Parliamentary constituencies in Salford. I dunno if the layout idea would be any use to you, but see what you think. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. As I said above I think I am insane taking this on. Perhaps I should have started with places like Rutland and Westmorland, but if I can do Middlesex almost all of the other counties will be less difficult. It may well be necessary to subdivide some counties, either by date or by area, for the list of members. I will worry about that when I have done the constituency lists, which are really little more than a subset of my articles list. --Gary J 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament constituencies[edit]

I want to get our articles on UK members of the European Parliament up to scratch (many are missing even a stub). As part of that, I've noticed there are no lists of MEPs by constituencies, unlike the MPs. However, I'm loath to create individual articles on European Parliament constituencies because most of them only lasted for one election. Instead I propose to include them by region post 1999. See User:Sam Blacketer/EP constituencies for a guide. Does this look like the better way to do it? Sam Blacketer 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine Sam. By region is probably the only way to approach it consistently really as they do change to a great degree. I'd suggest you do one complete page up first and post it for comments to agree the final layout. Cheers Galloglass 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The European constituencies deserve a sub-project of their own, it is saddening to think the results are currently so scrappy on Wiki...I think when tidying up the history on Preston I linked to Central Lancashire and got a red link at the time...doktorb wordsdeeds 12:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having written the biography of the MEP for Central Lancashire I have to doubt that any really comprehensive treatment can be made about individual constituencies. Unlike Parliamentary constituencies, which can become famous through having a celebrated MP, or a particularly interesting election, the EP constituencies had practically no resonance with their voters. Sam Blacketer 12:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you're absolutely right on that. If I can help, I'll gladly do so. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is of any help I do have the results of all the UK European single member elections. As the Euro constituencies were created by combining Westminster seats perhaps we could include a short section in the relevant constituency articles explaining what Euro constituencies they were in and providing links to wherever the MEP/result details are listed. I notice we already mention the post 1999 Euro election region, in the infoboxes for current Westminster seats, so this is just extending the practice backwards. --Gary J 14:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a list here of the Parliamentary constituencies which made up the EP constituencies, which could be used as a source. As I put on the working page, several of the constituencies cross between regions. However, if the object is to include election results, then there may be a case for making separate articles or for finding a different way of grouping the EP constituencies. Sam Blacketer 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the kind of article I can see for the European results - "North West European Parliamentary constituencies", then sections for each constituency within that region "Central Lancashire was a constituency which contained the parlimentary constituencies of X, Y, and Z..". doktorb wordsdeeds 16:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Engel[edit]

Some more experienced political article editors might want to look at this. Looks to me like it may run a tad to close to the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV lines. cf Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Citing info. (with permission) from sitting MP(UK). Thanks for looking, Hiding Talk 18:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads more like a CV than a biog. Do we have any reliable sources for her apart from whats clearly her own work? Galloglass 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Galloglass, you are wrong. Engel has had nothing to do with this contribution. If you're talking about 'landmarks,' for example, yes, the information put in has been guided by claims from her own (latest) website, but made, aahhh, what should I say - more 'intelligible.' Her presentation of timing of stuff she may (or may not have) done is all over the place (which is why I bullet pointed the whole business). As far as me, I am ambivalent to Engel. She just happens to be the local MP, who is making certain claims. I've had some correspondence with her almost from the minute she was elected. She is close to Brown and may well be given a junior ministry position, at least, for her New Labour 'loyalty.' All verifiable, no original research, apart from some serious Googling to find corroboration (cited) and as for 'neutral point of view' - well, she redefines socialism in her maiden speech in terms of the Golden Rule. All very New Labour. If you have suggestions as to how to make the 'facts' more neutral, then please help :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs)
I hope we don't have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "fact" and what is "opinion". Your remarks about how Natascha Engel redefines socialism is opinion, not fact. If we can find some reliable source which has commented on it, then it can be discussed in the article; if we can't, then it might be reasonable to provide a limited quote from the maiden speech as illuminating Natascha Engel's views, but no comment. Speculation on whether she might become a minister in a possible future government is not generally encyclopaedic. Sam Blacketer 10:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've directly 'speculated' on her possible ministerial condition in the article. I've named her 'friends' through her publications; people can draw their own conclusions on the matter. It's not rocket science, after all, is it ? In my original enquiry about how to be able to cite, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, some of her direct words - not appearing on her website, for example, on what she is aspiring to and also her thinking on a possible conflict with Iran, how she views her governments approach to the problem of 'climate change,' etc. etc., I was rhetorically asking, I guess, is it worth the effort? As far as 'facts' and 'opinions' are concerned, it depends where you are on the 'objectivity' -------> 'subjectivity' spectrum doesn't it? (Currently I'm reading, among other things, a rather splendid *lawbook* for Inquisitors from the middle ages called 'Malleus Maleficarum' dealing with the 'facts' of 'witchcraft.' The profession of midwifery or just the general 'badness' of women was a fact.) Frankly, I don't know if we have a difference of 'opinion' the matter, I would just like to write what facts I have so folks can go on and draw their own conclusions - that includes providing reasonable stepping stones between Engel's (documented) 'redefinition' of socialism and Blair/Brownite New Labour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs)
I rather think you misunderstood what I was saying user:Dsmith1usa. The article has two problems; as a presentation it reads as it if was a CV that has been written for her not a biographical article. This article on J. E. B. Seely & Colin Pickthall are more appropriate forms to write in rather than what is more or less a list that is the current article on Natascha Engel. The second and more important problem is that it is just too written from the point of view of the person it is about and drives a coach and horses through WP:NPOV. Too many of the sources that are sited written by the person themselves. Now this is fine in an academic essay but falls well below the standard that is needed for wiki. They need to be from a third party with no obvious bias or axe to grind. Originality is very good but belongs rather in an academic journal rather than an encyclopaedia.
To be frank, if I was to re-write that article, most of it would end up on the cutting room floor as either uninteresting or over-stating the case for what is a very junior member of parliament who is yet to achieve anything significant in politics. That's why I have no intention of touching it myself past commenting on how it might be improved. I'm sorry if I am being too negative and critical but I'm afraid you did ask me. Galloglass 11:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scan of the current thirty-one citations I have put in the article, seven, I think, are Engel's own stuff. According to my process of rapid calculation that is 22%. Are you telling me that is too much ? When, roughly 80% (therefore) of the citations are introduced to allow people to judge for themselves on matters? Where is *your* 'objectivity.' Have you actually read any of the *opposing* matter I've introduced? On the bridging to understanding that she is part of an *empty* Labour party? To provide, at least, some stepping stones to readers? (I presume, btw. that you've read my citations on Keegan's commentary at Howard's final PMQs on Bliar's emasculating of the Labour party?) It would also help, btw. (and I can also be charged with this) to if you use a bit more punctuation and spelling. (Again, btw. I don't want to appear (too) hostile. I'm trying my best to contribute ... and the Wiki project will live - and probably - die on attitudes like yours viz. 'To be frank, if I was to re-write that article, most of it would end up on the cutting room floor as either uninteresting or over-stating the case for what is a very junior member of parliament who is yet to achieve anything significant in politics.' See, mate, regardless of her past career she's already done something significant in politics (unlike me and you), she's an *MP*. She's done whatever she had to do to get elected. She's done it. Regardless of what you think about the woman and her politics (and I bear *no* torch for her) she's there in Westminster and neither you or I are. "I'm sorry if I am being too negative and critical but I'm afraid you did ask me." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs)
Dsmith1usa. Please sign your comments with your OWN name rather than MINE in future please. Galloglass 12:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What we are telling you ever so politely Dsmith1usa is the article is rather flawed for a number of reasons and is not acceptable in its current form. If you do not want advice on how to improve it, then don't ask.... Galloglass 12:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, in my sheer 'newbiness' I've taken the liberty to re-level your contribution, here. No, as for my asking ... your idea of advice is to *scrap*. It all ends up on the 'cutting room floor.' But I note, according to your previous posts, when you assert Engel has done nothing significantly in politics - apart from getting elected to the House of Commons (unlike you and me) - you suddenly go quiet. I told you I bear no torch for her. In NE Derbyshire I have *correspondence* that elicited truth that we needed to know, and then Engel went quiet because she knew (especially after the Iraq business, it was about holding to *account*. You write: 'That's why I have no intention of touching it myself past commenting on how it might be improved.' Awe, go on 'n show us ...
Dsmith1usa. Signing other peoples name to what you have written and moving my comments around as you have done twice now is NOT acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. So please desist from doing so again. Galloglass 12:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not signing anybody's name to anything. I'm trying to understand the levels to keep track of what's going off - any you still don't answer the questions that are put to you, there, is that better Dsmith1usa 13:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Periodical Review[edit]

Of interest to anyone here: the Fifth Periodical Review of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England will be published on 26 February - see [1]. If it's anything like the last one, buying a copy will be expensive but worth it. Sam Blacketer 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The draft of the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007 is available online at [2]. There does not seem to be any opposition from any party, so it should soon be approved so the review will be implemented without any changes. --Gary J 15:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007 has now been given legal effect. It is SI 2007/1681. --Gary J 13:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election[edit]

A plug for the article =) I have not been looking at this for a while now, but I know there remains some work to be done to fill in the gaps. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest news from the Boundary Commissions is that Scotland reported in 2004; Wales reported in 2005; England has completed and will be formally reporting on 26 February; and Northern Ireland has postponed everything until after the council ward boundaries are revised. The English report will hopefully contain comparison maps for current and recommended constituencies (it did in 1995) which helps explain what is going on. I'm also trying to get hold of a copy of the "Media Guide to the New Parliamentary Constituencies" (see here) which will help. Sam Blacketer 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to get hold of both of those =) I am surprised about the Norn Iron decision, that may well delay their changes until after the election itself, surely? If there's anything that can be done to this article in the mean time, I will try and get back into helping but maybe it would be best to wait until the books arrive. Actually, in the back of my mind is the fear that we will have to alter this article into counties/UAs for ease, but maybe that can wait....doktorb wordsdeeds 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The draft of the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007 is available online at [3]. It does give the wards in each constituency, although the actual Boundary Commission report gives some additional information. The order should soon be approved and the review will then be be implemented without any changes. --Gary J 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Midlothian articles[edit]

We appear to have two seperate Midlothian UK Constituency articles. Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) (1708-1918) and Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) for the period 1955 - present. Does anyone know why they are seperate and if not why they should'nt be merged as we've done with all similar pages? Thanks. Galloglass 02:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the older article should be re-named Edinburghshire? Midlothian may have been in common use for the area before it became the official name of the county, but we usually stay close to the official name in naming articles.
The Midlothian article confirms the local government area was the County of Edinburgh before 1921. It was sometimes known as Edinburghshire in the nineteenth century. Before that I presume it was the Shire of Edinburgh. I still think Edinburghshire is the clearest version of the name to use (as did F.W.S. Craig in his books) taking the 1708-1918 period as a whole. --Gary J 11:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with reversing the re-naming is that no one in Scotland in either the 18C or the 19C ever called it Edinburghshire, which was why the article was re-named to Midlothian last year. Plus it would be a little 'presumptuous' of us to go back and rename Gladstone's Midlothian campaign of 1880 his Edinburghshire campaign instead. As to Craig, he was merely reflecting the London-centric official view in his works. Galloglass 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this further, I may have been too dogmatic. There is room for some variability in pre-twentieth century constituency names. The attitude I have noticed in nineteenth century statutes seems to be that it was an area which was enfranchised and it did not matter precisely what it was called in any particular provision. The idea that a constituency had only one prescribed name to be used in all contexts only seems to have existed from 1885 and was not applied to all seats until the 1950 redistribution. On that basis I would say that either Midlothian or Edinburghshire would have been recognised as referring to the same constituency. However Edinburghshire seems to be the more official, even if it was the less commonly used alternative.

My notes on the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1832 include a list of counties to return one member. The counties include Edinburgh (none of them have shire after the county name, but I presume this is the same sort of official useage you would get in England with say County of York=Yorkshire). The statute uses both shire and county, in different provisions, to refer to the same territorial units.

The general rule of this project is to use the official name of a constituency. I would suggest that the Shire of Edinburgh was the pre-Union official name of the shire which continued to apply until 1921, which in my view makes Edinburghshire a reasonable name to use for our purposes. It would also solve the problem raised in the original message. The Midlothian campaign (which is what it was called at the time as well as subsequently) is not affected by what the constituency is called.

An alternative solution might be to follow Namier and Brooke in The House of Commons 1754-1790 and call the constituency Edinburghshire (Midlothian) which is somewhat similar to how we disambiguate names. I have given my views. Perhaps other members of the community can let us know what they think. --Gary J 02:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked up what The Times called the constituency, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I have found references to it as Edinburghshire, the County of Edinburgh and Mid Lothian, but Mid Lothian does seem to be the most often used. It may be significant that the political parties named the local party associations 'Mid Lothian', in the early twentieth century. This source reinforces my view that there was not a single fixed name for the constituency, but supports the opinion of Galloglass about the one which should be used by us.

If the 1708-1918 constituency has roughly the same boundaries as the 1955 one (which I presume it does apart from changes in the Edinburgh burgh constituencies) then combining the two articles would seem to be consistent with our normal practice. The alternative names should however be pointed out in the article. --Gary J 10:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland constituencies[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007#Constituency split on splitting articles on Assembly election constituencies out of those on UK Parliament constituencies, which may be of interest to some participants here. Warofdreams talk 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Most wanted articles[edit]

There are currently 5 articles listed at WP:MWA that might be of interest to this project:

  1. Portsmouth_(UK_Parliament_constituency) - 37
  2. Stamford_(UK_Parliament_constituency) - 33
  3. Nottinghamshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency) - 32
  4. Oxfordshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency) - 30
  5. Liskeard_(UK_Parliament_constituency) - 30

--Sapphic 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a stub on Portsmouth. Perhaps between us we could create articles on the others? Given the number of links, these are clearly all constituencies with significant histories. Warofdreams talk 19:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me to write some of the articles? I'm sorry, but I don't know anything at all about UK Parliament constituencies. I just processed the database dump that was used to update WP:MWA and was notifying various WikiProjects if there were articles within their scope. It looks like you (or somebody) created a couple already, so you probably don't need my help, but if they're still redlinks by the weekend I may try learning something about the topic and creating whatever ones are missing. --Sapphic 19:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Warofdreams isnt suggesting that Sapphic. We'll sort it no problems. Doing the two county seats now. If there are any others you want doing please feel free to add to the list and we will sort them out. Cheers Galloglass 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing that up. I wasn't sure who 'between us' and 'we' referred to, and I want to help but don't think I'm qualified in this case.
As for more article requests, those were the only UK Parliament constituency links that showed up in the top 600 (by number of referring links) from the most recent database dump, but I can re-run my analysis script to find ANY redlinks to UK Parliament constituencies if you like. I'll probably do that over the weekend and post the results here. Thanks again, you folks are by far the most responsive of the groups I notified (so far at least). There are about 150-200 fewer redlinks now, and four or five quality articles as a result of your efforts! --Sapphic 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MWA updated[edit]

There are currently 36 articles listed at WP:MWA#UK_Parliament_constituencies that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox flag straw poll[edit]

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another stub split[edit]

The "historic" stub type is now oversized: I've proposed we start splitting those by nation and region, starting with the Ireland ones. Alai 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer[edit]

Kelly Martin is proposing an experimental Requests for Adminship criterion:Endorsement by a wikiproject.

So my very simple question here: Please state on the RFA page whether or not Sam Blaketer is doing a good job on this wikiproject.

--Kim Bruning 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you expecting a consensus view from the project? Or the views of individual participants? While I've already supported Sam's RfA, this sounds a rather odd proposal - I certainly wouldn't want to see long arguments on various WikiProjects over whether participants are doing a good job for every RfA. Warofdreams talk 03:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Babes[edit]

I was looking for a bit of feedback on the above list with a view to WP:FLC, and this seemed like a more-or-less appropriate place. Comments welcome.

By a side wind, I have also created Barking by-election, 1994 today to complete our by-election coverage back to (but not including) 1991. It is my first attempt at one of these, and is based heavily on Rotherham by-election, 1994, so, again, comments welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barking by-election, 1994 looks good to me. BTW, we are now missing only 4 by-elections from the 1987-1992 parliament: see List of United Kingdom by-elections#50th_Parliament_.281987.E2.80.931992.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party tag colour[edit]

I don't really think the new light blue thats been assigned to the Conservative party is really a good idea or in line with current Conservative practice. Yes I am aware that the darker colour has been assigned to the pre-1840's Tory party. I think rather that the reverse should be the case with the lighter colour for the Tory party and the darker, Royal Blue for the modern Conservative party. Galloglass 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, if it is thought necessary to have different colours for Tory and Conservative. Blue was not a colour particularly associated with Toryism before the 1840s, as uniform national colours only became customary (I presume) in the 20th century. I do not see there is any real need to differentiate the Tory and Conservative parties. The process by which one morphed into the other was gradual and they were essentially the same party. The Whig/Liberal change was also gradual, but at least there was some difference as a number of different groups gradually merged into the Liberal Party. --Gary J 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can safely have the same colour for the Tories and for the Conservative Party, as the two were essentially the same group. Apparently the new blue is now the Conservative's official colour, and we are left with the same problem as when Plaid changed from green to yellow - as having different colours for different eras is not practical (and who wants to check what colours each election candidate adopted in the 19th and early 20th centuries?) - do we use the new colour, which may be unfamiliar, and will not be wholly appropriate for older articles, or do we stick with the old one, which will not be wholly appropriate for the articles on current elections - the articles which are likely to be referred to most? Warofdreams talk 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with colours will always come up due to the system Wiki uses. And as it's frankly stupid to consider different templates for different colours, I can only suggest that the colours change as and when needed. Of course the main point is that "official colours" is something only really used by the media in any case; I don't think parties really have a colour of their own outside maybe that used for their emblem or what-have you. Somewhat a superficial issue, I say doktorb wordsdeeds 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of past colours, I wrote a brief summary at Talk:Unionist Party (Scotland)#Party colours - although blue was formally adopted by the National Union in the 1920s it took several decades to take root across the county. One could make a strong case for red to be the colour of the original Tory Party as it was the colour used in the exclusion crisis.
As for the "Tories and Conservatives are the same parties", this is rather more convoluted - it's highly arguable that the Pittites were in any way a continuation of the parties of, variously, Danby, Harley & Bolingbroke, Bute or North, whilst Peel's Conservatives did start off with both a bold break with the past and recruits from elsewhere - the "Derby Dilly" was quite a mix and one would become the party's longest serving leader. Then later on after the fall of Peel there was talk of the protectionist Conservatives returning to the "Tory" label, although this was declined. Slightly separate colours help to distinguish between the two eras, especially for showing in a table when the changeover occurred and the same MP was returned. Timrollpickering 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party labels before (say) 1859[edit]

Following on from the discussion of party colours, there is a broader issue upon which I would like to know the consensus view. The movement from a no organised party system of connections and factions to an organised two party system might be said to have taken place over a very long period (1789 to 1859 might arguably be the 'Age of Realignment'). To adopt an American useage there was a realignment of political forces which gave rise to a new party system. Fred Craig chose to adopt the classifications of Conservative and Liberal from the 1832 election, no doubt to make life simpler for him as they were the terms used during most of the period he covered. I have tended to adopt the convention of using Tory/Whig before the 1832 election and Liberal/Conservative thereafter; but I appreciate this is an oversimplification and other members of the project have taken a different view of the issue.

We perhaps need a series of 'official' project decisions about when the key changes took place. On the right wing of politics (to use a French Revolutionary metaphor) I agree that the Pittites were essentially a new party drawing upon elements of both the Whig and Tory traditions in British politics, which adopted the same name as the 17th and 18th century Tory Party after the period in the second half of the 18th century when the traditional party labels had become almost entirely meaningless. The nineteenth century Whig Party had a somewhat stronger link to the Whig tradition, as a combination of the Foxite and Grenvillite Whig factions but could also be seen as an essentially new party.

John Wilson Croker coined the term conservative in about 1830. It was gradually adopted by Tory politicians, but can we identify a specific date when it became official? Whig/Liberal is a similar but simpler problem. Although the Whig leasder Lord John Russell referred to himself as a Liberal in the 1840s and the newer term was gradually adopted for Whig and Radical politicians; it seems to be generally accepted that Liberal became the official term adopted by Whig, Radical, Peelite and Irish Independent supporters of Palmerston in 1859. If we are going to adopt an official date (other than 1832) for the Tory to Conservative/Whig to Liberal changes then presumably we should say 1859 is the date for non Conservatives to all be called Liberals. --Gary J 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule when it comes to the Tory/Conservative tag I have gone with 1841 as the dividing date. With Whig/Liberal tags I have gone with 100% Liberal from 1859 and 100% Whig prior to 1832. For the intervening period I generally tag the Radicals as Liberals and the Aristocratic & Rural element as Whigs. Galloglass 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whig/Liberal is the easiest if we take the 1859 meeting as the point of change. For Tory/Conservative I reckon Peel's first ministry is the best changing point so December 1834 is probably the best single date. Everything before that gets messy - a lot of politicians called themselves "Whigs" in much the same way as the right in the French Third Republic used "republican". There is a sense of continuity for the Whigs through Newcastle, Rockingham and Fox but with other Whig groups in circulation and everything else it gets very cloudy. Timrollpickering 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming of national subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament[edit]

 Done

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 16#Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub-sorting MPs[edit]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal, which seems to have stalled? Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June#GB-MP-stub. Your comments would be welcome! --14:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Party colours[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes#Similar colours and inconsistencies for suggestions on modifying various party colours. Timrollpickering 13:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of council areas, Fifth Review, Boundary Commission for Scotland - maps wanted[edit]

Council areas
grouped by the Fifth Review
Dumfries and Galloway
Scottish Borders
South Lanarkshire

There must be a better way of doing what I have to the left. Is anyone capable of merging the three maps into one?
The group of council areas is covered by six constituencies:
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Dumfries and Galloway
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow
Lanark and Hamilton East
Rutherglen and Hamilton West
with Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale covering parts of all three council areas.
Other council areas are grouped as follows:
Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire
Angus and Dundee City
Clackmannanshire and Perth and Kinross
East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire
Falkirk and West Lothian
Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands
The Orkney and Shetland grouping is ancient, however, dating from 1708.
Laurel Bush 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've created Image:ScotlandDumfriesGallowayBordersSLanarks.png. Would you like maps for the other groupings? Warofdreams talk 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Maps for the others would be useful. Laurel Bush 09:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Gordon article now names all five constituencies covering the Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City council areas. Laurel Bush 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, the maps are all now available in commons:Category:Maps of unitary councils of Scotland. Warofdreams talk 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Cheers. Laurel Bush 11:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A Bot?[edit]

It seems that we have a lovely descriptive, intelligent format for our election boxes, is there any possibility of someone being able to write a bot to do some of the more boring housekeeping tasks... for instance I've just added a lot of election results to the Isle of Wight page, and the changes weren't in my source so those would be a useful task, other things could be adding a turnout in terms of votes (by summing the vote counts) or something. --Neo 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is simple to do this sort of calculation on a spreadsheet (which is what I do), but unfortunately I do not know how to set it up on Wikipedia for the calculation to be done automatically. --Gary J 10:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yaqub Masih[edit]

Am having a few problems with the info box for this candidate in the Ealing by-election. I've had to enter him as an Independent but the 'Christian Party' appears to be a fully recognised political party as the description has been used on the statement of persons nominated: [[4]] Could someone with the appropriate skills create a box that will work in that format. Thanks. Galloglass 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

I am busy using expressions like burgh of Aberdeen because I dislike seeing a constituency article which uses eg both Aberdeen and Aberdeen, perhaps in the same sentence, but maybe I am going down a wrong road. I imagine my dislike would be better catered for by moving constituency articles to addresses like Constituency of Aberdeen (UK Parliament).
Laurel Bush 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Many constituency names are also the names of towns or cities in the constituency. If there is a risk of confusion as to which is being referred to, then you could clarify by using terms like constituency, burgh, city etc. . The other approach sometimes used is to bold the constituency name, within the constituency article. Thus you could have something like "Aberdeen is composed of the following wards of Aberdeen" or "the Aberdeen constituency is composed of the following wards of the city of Aberdeen". --Gary J 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often, within a section about boundaries, I want to refer to boundaries of neighbouring constituencies. This is were you can get really confusing coincidence of eg Aberdeenshire with Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen with Aberdeen. Laurel Bush 16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]


  • No, be careful about this wasps nest! The article names are fine - seriously, I know of no other UK polling/political web site where such cumbersome alternatives would be saught as preferable to the chosen, legal(?), approved constituency names. I know some times things get wordy - try explaining that the South Ribble administraitve centre Leyland is to be bounded by South Ribble and Ribbe Valley constituencies without tripping up - but the "easier" alternatives could be much worse. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem which Laurel identifies, but surely it is surmountable by piping the links? e.g.: Aberdeen was a constituency in Aberdeen, where the local football club is Aberdeen
This should be rewritten as The Aberdeen constituency was in the city of Aberdeen, where the local football club is Aberdeen F.C.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or The Aberdeen constituency was in the city of Aberdeen, where the local football club is Aberdeen F.C.? (Actually, however, the Aberdeen constituency was divided to create Aberdeen North and Aberdeen South before the city was created.) Laurel Bush 11:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hope you don't mind me pitching in again, but since we started (grin!), I think it would be a bad idea to include a separate link to the city status in that sentence: it's not really relevant information in discussing the constituency, and would likly distract the reader. I suggest that it would be better left as a link within the article on the city of Aberdeen (or town of Aberdeen if that's more accurate). If city status was relevant to the discussion of the constituencies, then it would be clearer to write the town of Aberdeen (which was granted city status in [year]). HTH!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Constituency boundaries are often defined in reference to borough (or burgh) and city booundaries, and, in an article about constituencies, these terms seem more appropriate than town. Anyway, my main point is that my own syntax might be a lot might be less contorted if constituency articles opened with "The constituency of ...". Laurel Bush 09:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for suggestions re Kincardine and Western Aberdeenshire and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. See Talk:West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (UK Parliament constituency). Laurel Bush 09:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the two articles should certainly be merged - it creates a quite unnecessary tangle to get hung up on variations or permutations in the "official" names or order of names which are likely to be only confusing to the general reader. Especially since the Press Association version of the 1997 name was different again (Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine), which since it is almost invariably used by the media is probably what most people will search under. "West" and "Western" (and the corresponding terms in other directions) are being regarded as interchangeable in other constituency articles, and it is quite likely that on occasion the old Kincardine and West(ern) Aberdeenshire seat was referred to as West(ern) Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. There are other constituencies where even the official order of names within a single period is frequently ignored - the PA name for Torridge and West Devon, for example, is Devon West and Torridge. If we were to follow a strict rule of separate articles for a change in the order of the names there would need to be separate pages for North Luton (1983-97, county constituency) and Luton North (1997-date, borough constituency), which would be ludicrous. Rgmmortimore 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth mess[edit]

We seem to be in a bit of a mess in Monmouth. I think I can see what has happened but before making any changes, can anyone check this and see if I am on the right track?

pre–1832
  • Monmouth parliamentary borough (1 seat)
  • Monmouthshire county constituency (2 seats)
1832–1885
  • Monmouth boroughs constituency (1 seat) - Newport, Monmouth + Usk
  • Monmouthshire county constituency (2 seats)
1885–1918
  • Monmouth boroughs constituency (1 seat) - Newport, Monmouth + Usk
  • North Monmouthshire county division (1 seat)
  • South Monmouthshire county division (1 seat)
  • West Monmouthshire county divsion (1 seat)
1918
  • Five single-member county divisions: Abertillery, Bedwellty, Ebbw Vale, Monmouth and Pontypool
  • Newport borough constituency

1885-1918 county divisons are fairly straightforward: we have a single article on each the (Northern, Southern and Western

However, we currently have two other articles: Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency) and Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency) .. and they list the same MPs for the 1832-1918 period.

(Monmouthshire (UK Parliament constituency) is currently a redirect to Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency), which I created, and that appears to be a mistake).

The source of the confusion seems to arise from Rayment's use of "Monmouth" for the "Monmouth Boroughs" constituency, which leads to one long list of MPs since 1660 under a "Monmouth" label (see the list of MPs)

What I propose is that apart from the three fairly straightforward 1885-1918 county divisions (Northern, Southern and Western), there should be three articles, as follows:

Period Monmouthshire Monmouth Monmouth Boroughs
to 1832 Rayment's list of MPs headed "Monmouthshire", to 1832 Rayment's list headed "Monmouth", up to 1832 (empty)
1832–1885 Rayment's list of MPs headed "Monmouthshire", 1832-1885 (empty) Rayment's list headed "Monmouth", from 1832–1885
1885–1918 see Northern, Southern and Western divisions (empty) Rayment's list headed "Monmouth", from 1885–1918
1918-present (empty) Rayment's list headed "Monmouth", from 1918 (empty)

Does this seem right? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment, but you accidentally have submitted a table that is not completely comprehensive of all the years we need to consider. --New Progressive 15:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I made a mess of that, and have now corrected it. Sorry! Hope the revised table makes more sense.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your trichotomy of these constituencies makes sense, and fully endorse its implementation. I initially wondered whether Monmouth Boroughs should have been included in Monmouth, however, after reading the history of the Monmouth Boroughs constituency (it included the town of Newport, which Monmouth never did), then I must conclude that splitting the two is appropriate. --New Progressive 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above table is pretty good, but I am not certain that the borough constituency pre-1832 was limited to the town of Monmouth. I do not have access to any of the reference material from where I am typing this, but I will see what I can come up with over the next few days. --Gary J 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plan laid out in the table looks good to me, provided Gary J's concerns either prove unfounded or are addressed. Warofdreams talk 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what Boundaries of Parliamentary Constituencies 1885-1972 (ISBN 0-900178-09-4), F. W. S. Craig 1972 has to say. Laurel Bush 10:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From Craig:
1885
County constituencies: NORTHERN, SOUTHERN, WESTERN
Borough constituency: MONMOUTH DISTRICT
1918
County constituencies: ABERTILLERY (urban districts Abercan, Abertillery, Nantyglo and Blaina), BEDWELLTY (unrban districts Bedwas and Machen, Bedwellty, Mynyddislwyn, Risca, rural district part St Mellons), EBBW VALE (urban districts Ebbw Vale, Rhymney, Tredgar), MONMOUTH (municipal boroughs Abergavenny, Monmouth, urban districts Caeleon, Chepstow, Usk, rural districts Abergavenny, Chepstow, Magor, Monmouth, Pontypool, part St Mellons), PONTYPOOL (urban districts Abersychan, Blaenavon, Llanfrechfa Upper, Llantarnan, Panteg, Pontypool)
Borough constituency: NEWPORT (county borough Newport)
1950 County constituencies: ABERTILLERY (urban districts Abercan, Abertillery, Nantyglo and Blaina), BEDWELLTY (unrban districts Bedwas and Machen, Bedwellty, Mynyddislwyn, Risca), EBBW VALE unaltered (urban districts Ebbw Vale, Rhymney, Tredgar), MONMOUTH (municipal boroughs Abergavenny, Monmouth, urban districts Caeleon, Chepstow, Usk, rural districts Abergavenny, Chepstow, Magor and St Mellons, Monmouth, Pontypool), PONTYPOOL (urban districts Blaenavon, Cumbran, Pontypool
Borough constituency: NEWPORT (county borough Newport)
1951
As 1950 but alteration to rural district Magor and St Mellons, MONMOUTH (SI 1851/1390 under section 2(3) of House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949
1955
As 1951 but MONMOUTH altered (alteration to rural district Magor and St Mellons), NEWPORT altered (alteration to county borough Newport)
1971(/74?)
As 1955 (same lists of districts etc) but minor alterations to MONMOUTHm, NEWPORT
Laurel Bush 09:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked at several volumes from the History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1509-1558 by S.T. Bindoff (Secker & Warburg 1982); The House of Commons 1558-1603 by P.W. Hasler (HMSO 1981); The House of Commons 1715-1754 by Romney Sedgwick (HMSO 1970) and The House of Commons 1754-1790 by Sir Lewis Namier and John Brooke (HMSO 1964). The history of the borough representation from Wales and Monmouthshire is more complicated than that of the English boroughs.
The Act of Union 1536 (26 Hen. VIII, c. 26) provided for a single borough seat for each of 11 of the 12 Welsh counties and Monmouthshire. The legislation was ambiguous as to which communities were enfranchised. The county towns were awarded a seat, but this in some fashion represented all the ancient boroughs of the county as the others were required to contribute to the members wages. It was not clear if the burgesses of the contributing boroughs could take part in the election. The only election under the original scheme was for the 1542 Parliament. It seems that only burgesses from the county towns actually took part. An Act of 1544 (35 Hen. VIII, c. 11) confirmed that the contributing boroughs could send representatives to take part in the election at the county town. As far as can be told from surviving indentures of returns, the degree to which the out boroughs participated varied, but by the end of the sixteenth century all the seats had some participation from them at some elections at least.
The original scheme was modified by local legislation and decisions of the House of Commons (which were sometimes made with no regard to precedent or evidence: for example in 1728 it was decided that only the freemen of the borough of Montgomery could participate in the election for that seat, thus disenfranchising the freemen of Llanidloes, Welshpool and Llanfyllin).
Turning to the Monmouth seat, there were six (possibly seven) ancient boroughs which were contibutory boroughs for the members wages. In the sixteenth century these were Caerleon, Newport, Trellech*, Usk, Chepstow, Abergavenny and possibly Grosmont*. (* Almost certainly after 1558, according to Bindoff.) From 1544 the 'one burgess for the borough of Monmouth' (provided for in the 1536 Act) was to be elected by the burgesses of Monmouth and of any other boroughs in the shire.
By the eighteenth century the right of election was in the resident freemen of Monmouth, Newport and Usk. They numbered about 2,000 voters in 1715. The constituency was by then a pocket borough of the Dukes of Beaufort. After the Morgans of Tredegar (who had influence in Newport) challenged the Duke's candidate in 1715, there was no further contest until 1820.
After all that history, I conclude that the Monmouth seat was a district of boroughs both before and after 1832. --Gary J 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)--Gary J 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A borough seat, but not the county seat created in 1918. Laurel Bush 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that the Monmouth division of Monmouthshire from 1918, is a different seat from the Monmouth district of Boroughs pre-1918. I would suggest they be respectively Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency) and Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency). --Gary J 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A conclusion?[edit]

Many thanks to everyone for all that v thorough research. How does the revised table below look as a summary?

Period Monmouthshire Monmouth Monmouth Boroughs
to 1885 Rayment's "Monmouthshire" list, to 1885 (empty) Rayment's "Monmouth" list, to 1885
1885–1918 see Northern, Southern and Western divisions (empty) Rayment's "Monmouth" list, from 1885–1918
1918-present (empty) Rayment's "Monmouth" list, from 1918 (empty)

If this is OK, I will split the articles as appropriate, but I'll leave the wording of the history of the Booroughs seat to those with access to the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done with Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency)? At present the article represents the constituency as if having continuous existence since the 16th century, but as one of two constituencies (the other a borough constituency) covering a county it was abolished in 1885, and the current constituency was created, 1918, as one of seven (one a borough constituency). Trying to cover the period to 1885 and the period from 1918 in one article is bound to make for a very contorted reading. I am tending to the view that both Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency) and Monmouthshire (UK Parliament constituency) should be disambig pages leading to articles disambiguated by use of to 1885 and from 1918. Laurel Bush 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Laurel, my proposal as above is for Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency) to cover the 1918-onwards constituency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above table seems right to me, in the specific case of Monmouthshire, although there are English constituencies (such as Windsor which I am working on at the moment) where a single parliamentary borough constituency was abolished and replaced with an expanded county division of the same name. In those cases a single article seems appropriate despite the considerable boundary change. --Gary J 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For preference I'd have liked to have seen the post 1918 Monmouth County seat as a continuation of Monmouth Boroughs as has been done with most of the English seats where the same transition has occurred. That said, if everyone else is happy with the three separate listings then I have no real objection. Galloglass 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galloglass, I think that has been done for borough seats which became county seats, but not (AFAIK) for district of boroughs seats. Grantham and Windsor were both borough seats. (Were there any district of boroughs constituencies in England? I thought they were only in Scotland and Wales). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started drafting Monmouth constituency as a disambig page so that it can be referenced at the top of any constituency article with Monmouth as name term in the article title, along the lines of "For other constituencies which may be confused with .... see Monmouth constituency". Laurel Bush 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Might that be better called Monmouth constituencies? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It opens with "Monmouth constituency may refer to: ...."
Monmouth constituencies, I am thinking, should be a redirect to the Monmouth constituency page.
Laurel Bush 16:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

According to Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency) the constituency was created in 1832. If so, then I guess there was an earlier Monmouth borough constituency which was merged into the district of boroughs constituency. Rayment's list treats two borough constituencies and one county constituency as a single constituency. Laurel Bush 12:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Looks to me like there should be an article called Monmouth (constituency 1536 to 1832), about a borough constituency whose origins predate creation of the Parliament of Great Britain, let alone that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Laurel Bush 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Umm, I don't like that. First, we don't split articles on constituencies of the same name, even where one was a borough constit and the other a county constituency. (see, for example, Grantham (UK Parliament constituency)).
Secondly, I'd prefer to rely on the external sources researched by other editors than on the wikipedia article at Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency), which is demonstrably inaccurate: contrary to what is stated at Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency)#Boundaries, I can find no trace of a Monmouthshire Newport constituency before 1918 or any Usk constituency (or parliamentray borough). --08:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am unable to see anything obviously wrong at Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency)#Boundaries. It does date the Monmouth county constituency from 1918, claiming that the borough of Monmouth was previously a parliamentary borough component of the Monmouth Bouroughs constituency. (Compare with the parliamentary burgh of Inverness as a component of Inverness Burghs.) It does not claim that there was ever an Usk constituency. Laurel Bush 09:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Laurel, you seem to be arguing different things. It says that they had been "had previously been separate parliamentary boroughs", and on that basis you suggested on the 2nd that there should be a separate "Monmouth (constituency 1536 to 1832)" article ... but it only make sense to separate out Monmouth pre-1832 if it was not a district of boroughs constituency, and if Usk and Newport were separate. The point surely is that before 1918 the three towns were a district of boroughs constituency, rather than separate boroughs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Yes. I can find nothing so suggest that Usk might have been, in itself, a borough constituency, or even a borough (except perhaps for parliamentary representation purposes, within a district of boroughs). I do not rule out the possibility, however, that there was at some earlier stage a Newport borough constituency. Also, I gather from Craig that there was an alteration to boundaries of the district of boroughs in 1885. This is not mentioned in the article (which implies that given boundaries date from 1832). 1885 legislation, however, details only alterations, without giving a full definition of constituency boundaries. For the latter it is necessary to refer back to 1868 legislation. Craig offers neither boundary definition for either date nor indication of whether there was any change to boundaries in 1868. Laurel Bush 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Having consulted Philbin's Parliamentary Representation 1832 - England and Wales, which gives details of the arrangements before and after the Reform Act, it is very clear that the constituency before and after 1832 was essentially the same. Although it was generally referred to before 1832 as Monmouth borough, presumably because it was regarded as legally being English rather than Welsh, it was in fact a district of boroughs as in most of the rest of Wales and consisted of Monmouth, Newport and Usk. The Boundary Act that accompanied the Reform Act merely widened the boundaries of each of the three boroughs, and the Reform Act altered the franchise but not the nature of the constituency. Therefore it would seem most sensible if the Monmouth Boroughs article included the history of Monmouth borough from 1545 (which according to Philbin is the correct starting date) to 1832 as well as post 1832. If other people are happy with this I can revise the article to include these details, and the disambiguation page. Rgmmortimore 10:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that, and would be delighted if you did the work! Thanks for all the research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I wonder whether Philbin details 1832 boundary changes (listing areas included within new boundaries). And did borough boundaries change also for purposes other than parliamentary represenation? (I believe the latter did not happen for burghs under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1832).) Laurel Bush 10:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Philbin summarises the changes to each constituency that were included in the Boundaries Act, but I'm not sure whether it is always an entirely comprehensive specification of the new constituency. There is also Youngs (Royal Historical Society publication), who attempts to give a complete specification in terms of administrative areas which by cross-referencing different parts of the book you can get down to a full listing of parishes - unfortunately there seem to be a fair number of errors. (Neither of them give details where only part of a parish was included, which was often the case pre-1832, so all you can tell sometimes is that there was a boundary change without being able to plot it on a map.) But Youngs only covers England and Philbin England and Wales; I don't have a source that covers in Scotland in the same detail, though one may well exist, and I'm not sure what the position was there. I think the municipal boundaries were separate, but I seem to remember that they were reformed not soon afterwards; 1835 rings a bell but may be totally wrong, not really my subject. Rgmmortimore 17:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic constituencies and counties[edit]

Discussion moved from my talk page, because it's likely to be of wider interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the regional historic constituency categories into counties creates an awkward anomaly in the case of Peterborough, to which I don't see an immediate solution. Where an ancient constituency still exists under the same name, it can be reached by following the link to the category of current constituencies - so, for example, from the "historic constituencies in Cornwall" page, you are one click from an abolished constituency and only two clicks from a former constituency that still exists. But if you want to check all the constituencies that once existed in Northamptonshire, you can't find them from the "historic constituencies in Northamptonshire" pages because Peterborough, which used to be a constituency in Northamptonshire, is now a (still existing) constituency in Cambridgeshire. (In a sense it was just as bad with regional pages, since the other Northants seats came under East Midlands while Peterborough was East of England, but at least it was pedantically correct since Peterborough was never an East Midlands constituency as the current regions date only from the 1990s.) Any ideas of a neat solution? Can we add explanatory notes/links on the category pages? There may be some other equally awkward cases, e.g. Abingdon and the other bits of Berks transferred to Oxon. Rgmmortimore 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point.
I started this exercise because it had already been done for some counties in the South-West, and it seemed like a good idea in those cases where county boundaries had been reasonably stable. So, for example, I'd think it's be a nightmare in Yorkshire: would Halifax go in both a West Yorkshire categ and a "West Riding of Yorkshire" category? I have also shied away from Cambridgeshire, because I hadn't the energy to research the boundary changes
I thought that I had come up a reasonable solution with Abingdon, which I have categorised under both Berkshire (historic) and Oxfordshire (historic). I have just done something similar for Christchurch, which is now in Hampshire constituencies and Dorset (historic). I wonder whether that logicis applicable to Peterborough?
I'm quite open to the notion that categorisation by county may not be viable at all, because so many county boundaries have been unstable, but it seems to me to be an idea worth pursuing because the current regions of England are unfamiliar to the lay reader and relatively new, whereas the counties are much better understood. (The regions have a further problem, in that they cross county boundaries). I think that explanatory notes in the categories would probably help a lot if we don't upmerge.
What do you think? Dual classification or revert to the regions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started doing articles summarising constituencies in the historic counties, which involved making a judgment on which historic county constituencies were predominantly in when they crossed the historic county boundary. A similar approach could be used for any set of boundaries. For example I did an article on Middlesex representation, almost all of which could form part of a Greater London article.
So far as categories are concerned the approach suggested for Abingdon seems right. The categories are presumably intended to help those unfamiliar with a subject, so if a constituency has been associated with more than one county then it should be put in more than one category. The county categories could then be sub-categories of the region (although some territory, particularly in the Greater London area have changed regions as well as county or equivalent). --Gary J 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One or two pages[edit]

Should there be separate pages for Medway (UK Parliament constituency) and Rochester and Strood (UK Parliament constituency)? (The latter is basically a micro adjustment to fit ward boundaries with the name changed because "Medway" is now identified with the larger unitary authority). Timrollpickering 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really has to be two separate pages even though they are almost identical. Combining them onto the one page would cause confusion to the casual user and we have been using a name basis to sort them so combining two different named seats onto one page would make for complications. Galloglass 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The more I look at this stuff, we need one constituency name per article, and one article per constituency name. The exceptions we have agreed relate to treating involve treating the 19th century county divisions as the being the same name as the differently-structured 20th-century names (e.g. "Southern Division of Borsetshire"/"Borsetshire Southern" is included in the same article as the current "South Borsetshire); but I'm not sure whether we have fully resolved what to do with constituencies which gained or lost a borough prefix (e.g. is Camberwell Dulwich the same as Dulwich).
However, where a constituency's name clearly changes, as with Medway/Rochester and Strood, I think that there should be separate articles even if the boundaries are identical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Liberal Democrats Metacolour[edit]

The colour of the Scottish Liberal Democrats has recently been changed to give two differing shades for the National Party and the Scottish one. I would appreciate it if people would give their thoughts on this in the discussion I have started on the above talk page. Thanks. Galloglass 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections then I will revert to the original colour that is used nationally for the Liberal Democrats. - Galloglass 08:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see absolutely no reason for the Scottish state party of the Liberal Democrats to be given a different colour to the Welsh state party and the Party in England. The Liberal Democrats have a federal party structure, but there is no need to distinguish between candidates in the different parts of the UK. Accordingly I agree with the proposal to revert to the same colour throughout the UK. --Gary J (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming and abolition of Dunfermline Burghs[edit]

Does anyone else have any references that might help at Talk:Dunfermline Burghs (UK Parliament constituency)#Name_confusion.2C_and_date_of_abolition?

Laurel Bush has a god ref, but it feels wrong. Maybe I am wrong, but I'd be welcome other assessments.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Sands[edit]

Sands was a 19th century visitor to several of the more remote Scottish islands including St Kilda and Papa Stour. He is variously described as a journalist who worked for Punch magazine, a poet and an MP. He may have come from and/or been MP for Ormiston.

I have drafted a short biography article about him (here) and have gleaned some basic info, but I can't find any definitive corroborating evidence he was ever an MP. He was possibly one in 1875 and assuming Ormiston refers to the village in East Lothian, it was part of Berwickshire (UK Parliament constituency). It has a list of the MPs that held the seat - John Sands isn't included.

The sources I have which mention him being an MP are:

Details of his political career are scant and some sources that refer to his St Kilda visit at length do not mention it all. It is possible there was another Johns Sands with whom Maclean confused the writer who visited St Kilda.

If anyone has/can find any other details please let me know. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Rayment listings of MPs for all constituencies since 1660, and it turns up no MPs by the name of John Sands. --New Progressive 12:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's most odd - Maclean could simply have made a mistake in thinking he was an MP, and Ancestry.com is not exactly a reliable source, but it is an odd co-incidence that someone writing 26 years later provides significant information that Maclean does not about the same fellow, whilst making the same mistake. I'll create the article without a reference to him being an MP save as a cautionary footnote. If anything else turns up I'd appreciate hearing about it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible he was a member of one of the colonial legislatures some of which were styled as 'parliaments’'. Lists of provincial legislators such as those in Canada and Australia are on the internet. Many of those for the Caribbean and elsewhere are not though. I hope this helps. Galloglass 15:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible, although there is nothing I have seen anywhere in the literature that suggests he was ever resident anywhere except the UK and the Faroe Islands. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One possible explanation is that he may have been a parliamentary candidate. Sometimes that gets written up wrongly as actually winning he seat and being an MP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checking through Craig 1832-1885 there is no listing of any Parliamentary candidate for Berwickshire by that name either. Galloglass 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggesting and checking on this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Seton mockingly described him as the "M.P. for St Kilda". I wonder if that might be the source of the claims? Warofdreams talk 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is valuable information sir! I infer it may be from St Kilda published in 1878, which my library lacks a copy thereof? Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it. I found the relevant snippet on Google Books: [5]. Warofdreams talk 10:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this charming booklet, filled so am I am told with "traditional right-wing rhetoric and sarcasm" is for sale on the open market at £125. I shall not be investing, but I shall certainly add this idea to the text at John Sands. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Scottish constituencies[edit]

Hi folks

I just thought that I would draw y'all's attention to a wonderful series of articles created by User:Laurel Bush on Scottish constituencies. What he has been doing is trawling diligently through the piles of sources, and for each period between boundary changes he has constructed an article which firstly lists all the burgh constituencies (describing in outline their boundaries), and then lists all the counties, describing in each case the county constituencies therein.

The series is not complete yet, but so far 7 of the 11 periods are covered:

The result is a remarkable overview of Scotland's constituencies since the Act of Union. These articles strike as being very close to good article status; looking at the good article criteria, the only missing elements I can see are possibly a tweaking of references, and the addition of maps to those articles lacking them. The latter job is something I don't know how to do, but I believe that somewhere on wikipedia there are folks who do this sort of thing: Morwen did a lot of this, but now claims to have largely retired from the task; It seems that many of the existing constituency maps were created by Wereon. (The only slight difficulty I see in creating the historical maps is that the map in Counties of Scotland shows a number of enclaves and exclaves).

So far as I am aware, we don't have anything similar for any part of the UK, and these articles strike me as being a model for how the job should be done for other areas … if anyone can summon up enough energy! Meanwhile, congrats to Laurel Bush :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. At present I am struggling to find a library willing to lend a copy of the 4th Periodical Review, and I imagine there may have been, between the 3rd Review and the 4th Review, interim reviews which I have failed to take account of re 1883 to 1997. If there were such interim reviews, then results should be referenced in the 4th Review. Also, I am now doubtful as regards a reference I have used for the period 1974 to 1983 re an interim review between between the 2nd Review and 3rd Review. I got details of the results of the interim review in the form of photcopies from the National Library of Scotland, of selected pages of some publication or other, but that library seems strangely incapable of providing a valid ISBN for the source of the photocopies. Laurel Bush (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

sources for elections results[edit]

A newcomer to the Constituencies area, I've tried to upgrade Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) by adding past election results, 1992 and 1997 so far. A question: Is there a consensus as to the "best" online source for these? And is there any convention about how to attribute the source? (I've used references in the table headings, but this seems not to be commonly done). PamD 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam. The online source most of us use is Keele University site at; Election results, 1950 - 2005 Its by far the most accurate for numbers and the party descriptions can usually be relied upon too. For the period prior to this I'm afraid there are no real reliable online sources and most of us use reference books; F. W. S. Craig's, British Parliamentary Election Results for the period 1832 - 1949, being the main ones. As to referencing, I simply list the sources used at the bottom of the article. Hope this helps. Galloglass 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tended to use multiple sources in an attempt to weed out errors - I tend to find that Keele and Election Demon are both very reliable, with the Grauniad being unsurprisingly the least reliable. An example of my method of attributation can be found on Woking (UK Parliament constituency), though your method is absolutely fine. --New Progressive 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburghshire and Midlothian[edit]

The following is copied from Talk:Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) (1708-1918), where there is discussion as to whether Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) (1708-1918) should be moved to Edinburghshire (UK Parliament constituency):

This is a very difficult one to get the naming right on. It was almost certainly called Edinburghshire when it was created in 1708 but by the time of Gladstone's Midlothian campaign in 1880 it had been known by that name for most of the 19C. To add to the problem we have an extant seat called Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) which by our normal convention we normally include into one article seats with the same and related details.
The key thing about this seat is the 1880 campaign whose information and details I think can only be included into a seat called Midlothian, otherwise we're bending a major piece of political history which is not ours to change. I am aware that Craig lists all the 1832-1885 details as Edinburghshire which suggests that it was called so in 1832, that said Craig is not infallible on these things as we well know from problems elsewhere.
So before we make any changes we really need to know for certain when this seat became known as Midlothian in place of Edinburghshire. If we can tie this date down specifically then I would support the creation of two articles; Edinburghshire from 1708 - 18?? and Midlothian 18?? to present. - Galloglass 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect strongly that the administrative county did not become officially Midlothian until after 1885 (date of the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885), and I am pretty certain there was no change to constituency names and boundaries between 1885 and 1918, the latter being the date of the Representation of the People Act 1918. And I note that Linlithgow (rather than West Lothian) and Haddington (rather than East Lothian) seem to have been official constituency name terms as late as 1950. Re the admin county there is unlikely to have been any official name change prior to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889. As a postal address, however, Midlothian may have earlier usage which was transferred, unofficially, in reference to admin county and constituency. Laurel Bush (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am wondering whether there are others with views, information. Laurel Bush (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I gave my views on this vexed issue in another section further up the page. Briefly I have little doubt that Edinburghshire was the more official name (as the official county name does not appear to have changed until 1921), but that Midlothian was the one more used at the time. As we are talking about a constituency initially created in the days before a definitive official name was given, either alternative is open to doubt. Perhaps we should, in this particular special case, compromise on something like Midlothian (Edinburghshire) or Edinburghshire (Midlothian) for the 1885-1918 seat. --Gary J (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball[edit]

Does anyone have any thoughts on creating election results boxes for the next general election, such as was done in these edits to Boston and Skegness?

Personally, I think that while it is appropriate to list candidates selected by the major parties, it's not very productive to clutter an article an election results box which will remain blank until the next general election, which is up to two years away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no.....You see, all you have to do is check something like UKPollingReport to see how many constituencies have selected candidates, so to be honest the Wiki principle of not being the first source of information is ticked; the web/public domain is full of information which these boxes are reflecting>

However...I can see that the "Crystal Ball" issues will cause some editors to think it's all a bit "jumping the gun"; indeed I suspect some would demand citations for all those candidates named.

I would be happy to see the boxes filled with candidates who have been definately chosen, but not sure if I could tolerate 640 boxes with thousands of "To Be Decided" where the candidates names should be. Caution, I guess, is the watchword here? doktorb wordsdeeds 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doktorbuk. It's useful, and not original research, to list candidates who have been selected, if we can provide a citation (and generally, UKPollingReport should be ideal for this). However, it is crystal balling to list parties who are probably very likely to stand, but haven't yet declared that they will do so. So how about just listing the confirmed candidates? I've created an example at Sheffield Central (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2000s. Warofdreams talk 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that listing parties that might stand is highly inappropriate. That said I would much prefer to see the announced candidates either noted in a text paragraph or a simple list form rather than all up election info boxes. - Galloglass 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list at Sheffield Central looks neat, but there are a couple of problems: How do you neatly indicate the source for each distinct nomination, and what order are they in (not A-Z by party or candidate here, so perhaps something like "national size of party"?). How about a simple list or table, in chronological order of selection, showing: party name, candidate name, date selected, source? PamD (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think any list or table, if we choose to go down that route has to be in normal ballot paper order (alphabetic by surname). - Galloglass 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear above: what I meant to say was that the Sheffield example seemed to be neither A-Z candidate nor A-Z party. I think chronological probably makes most sense until the election is called, then slot into the Election Results box. But if the main source is UKPollingReport, I suppose we don't have dates. Stick with A-Z surname, then, as you say. PamD (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely, A-Z surname is the way to go. The Sheffield example was in the entirely unscientific "order they appear in on the UKPollingReport website in order to give a quick example". I've now fixed it! Warofdreams talk 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I too didn't make myself very clear. My objection is not to noting that candidates have been selected (subject to WP:RS, which can easily be met in most cases), but with using an election box format to display them. Per Galloglass, a text paragraph or a simple list seems much more appropriate when we are so far from an election. Election boxes should be used for results, but there are no results yet, no even a date when we will get results. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that articles on Canadian Parliamentary ridings do normally include tables about party candidate selection contests as candidates in each recent election (see Ottawa Centre for an example). I am not sure that level of information is readily available to the general public, in the UK system. However we could include a section on publicly announced prospective candidate selections. I see this as something different from a partially completed election result box. --Gary J (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A section on publicly announced prospective candidate selections would be good. However, I'm not sure where it should fit in our standard article structure; the section I added to Easington is a sub-section of the MPs section, which seems wrong, and I'd welcome any better ides. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we need an additional section for events leading up to the next election. Perhaps in an ideal world we should have an individual article for each election in the history of a constituency, as we do for by-elections (there may be more useful information available about a recent general election in a constituency, than about an unopposed by-election return a hundred years ago). However to try to keep things manageable recent political developments (including lists of prospective candidates) could be put in the history section. Alternatively if all we are concerned about is the list this could be put in the election results section, as they do in Canada. We would need a template for a smaller box than those used for election results, to specify the party, the candidate and when they were announced as a candidate. Data sources could be indicated by footnotes. We could then reset the prospective candidate boxes after each general election, so we would not add much bulk to the standard article. --Gary J (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Archive_4&oldid=1137361033"