Talk:Cardiff East (UK Parliament constituency)

Split the article?
Just wondering whether there need to be separate articles about the pre-1950 Cardiff East and the 2024 Cardiff East. Other than the coincidence of having the same name, they cover almost entirely different areas (with the exception of Roath) and are divided by 74 years. Sionk (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sionk, I have only found three articles on historic constituencies that are separated from their later same-named counterpart. 1, 2, 3 (inspiration for the title). With one already proposed to merge. So there is possibly some consensus against them? No idea. Nothing stopping the split though.  Dank Jae  20:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Nice bit of investigation (I was struggling to find any precedents). The Croydon South merger suggestion is an odd one, because it's being suggested it is merged to a constituency of a different name. I'll watch that one with interest! But there doesn't seem to be a similar case to Cardiff East, divided by so many years and of such a different location. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sionk, still just raised that they're rare, so potentially if there is a hidden consensus someone may re-merge it, as most of these are just lists of results. But the change in area it covers probably is more important than a shared/change in name, so can see the case for Cardiff East to be split in this rare instance.
 * Plus Cardiff East (historic UK Parliament constituency) or Cardiff East (UK Parliament constituency, 1918–1950)?  Dank Jae  23:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sionk, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies some discussion on a similar topic, so appears there is some consensus.  Dank Jae  00:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Long standing editor of the articles here. I'll be honest, I'm still a bit stuck in the attitude from when many of us created these articles over a decade ago, back in the wild west days, where nothing was technically within the rules because they're were fewer rules. Creating separate articles for constituency names with very different boundaries felt like a no-no (there's a Newcastle Upon Tyne example too I believe). However I'm not so idealist these days. As the years roll by, there must be increasing pressure to fix what was done at the start of the project. If the consensus is to split, then that has to be explored. My watchword has always been consistency and that's all I ask from editors today. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm more inclined towards Cardiff East (1918–1950 UK Parliament constituency) for the former constituency. "Historic" puts me in the mind of something centuries old. Using the actual years makes it clear there is a significant gap between the two. I may go ahead and make the split, before the new constituency article becomes much more acctive in a few weeks time. Though I may have opened a can of worms, because the pre-1950 Cardiff Central was also fundamentally different from the post-1983 reincarnation... Sionk (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd also lean towards a split, provided there's consistency with other articles that are the same. With a cursory check in Inkscape, only about 17% of the land area of the new constituency was part of the 1945 Cardiff East (though that Roath overlap was about 50% of the historic Cardiff East).
 * If there's consensus to split, I'd also favour Cardiff East (1918–1950 UK Parliament constituency) - I like that it's more precise than just "historic". Woodgreener (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Split/restoration has been done HERE, hopefully with full transparency Sionk (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)