Talk:Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921124603/http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/ to http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Should the settlement infobox be used here and elsewhere

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

Should the following infobox be used on this article (which has been removed multiple times from this article by User 82.32.116.24). Brythones (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I designed this infoxbox and initally implemented it on the pages for the Glasgow constituencies. I was going to say it before but thanks Brythones for adding it to a number of other Scottish constituency pages as you did. I feel it adds perfectly acceptable information and looks far neater than the other infobox.
 * This user "82.32.116.24" began reverting every page that I had applied this infobox to with the reason of "not required". I felt targeted as he had left your edits untouched which confused me but then as soon as I alerted him that there were other pages he immediately went to revert them as well. You can see the evidence of this on their talk page. I mean surely a more reasonable edit would be to incorporate data from the two existing infoboxes into one and then maybe it would make everyone happy? But no this person just seems to want the easy option of clicking revert. --User Pingu4581


 * As well meaning as your edit is, these are not settlements, thus aren't really appropriate for political constituencies. If you look at the UK Parliament constituencies as well as Scottish Parliament constituencies, you'll struggle to find the settlement infobox being used. Unless there is a consensus from other users to put this on every constituency article, then it would look a bit inconsistent if some constituency articles use the settlement infobox and others don't. --User 82.32.116.24


 * Updated infoxbox attached, acceptable? --User Pingu4581


 * I think it is best to keep things consistent with the other articles as best as possible. Also the population does not correlate with the electorate which are two different things. Also I think it is best to just use one infobox in articles for less clutter. --User 82.32.116.24


 * Yes I think that is a big improvement: I would say population is relevent as it reflects the number of constituents... Brythones (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The population does not equal constituents. You have to be 16 or over to vote. So counting under 16's is not relevant to the page, hence why the Constituency Infobox is used. --User 82.32.116.24
 * Yes it does actually. Population = number of people who reside in that constituency = constituents. Population =/= electorate = number of people eligible to vote. It is an important piece of information in showing the total population that the MSP and constituency represents. Brythones (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can clearly see, no consensus has been reached. Can you explain why this page should use the infobox settlement instead of constituency (like every other Scottish Parliament constituency page, apart from Edinburgh Central, which you changed). It is completely inconsistent with every other page. Might I suggest we take this to Wikiproject Scotland and then get a consensus over there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Before you made your revertions this format was present on the following pages:
 * * Aberdeen Central
 * * Aberdeenshire West
 * * Ayr
 * * Edinburgh Central
 * * Edinburgh Eastern
 * * Edinburgh Pentlands
 * * Edinburgh Southern
 * * Edinburgh Western
 * * Glasgow Anniesland
 * * Glasgow Cathcart
 * * Glasgow Kelvin
 * * Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn
 * * Glasgow Pollok
 * * Glasgow Provan
 * I have restored these articles to their original format pending further discussion.
 * It looks like you are willfully trying to bend facts to suit your narrative: the fact is that this format was present on a number of articles until you decided to remove the format from those articles at the start of this month.
 * There is a 4-1 consensus consisting of myself and Pingu4581 coming to a compromise on this talk page, and Shellwood and PatGallacher reverting edits made by you on the Edinburgh Central and Glasgow Maryhill & Springburn pages to remove the format. This is backed up by the 6 month period in which the format went unchallenged by other users.
 * I would suggest inviting people from the Scotland and Politics of the United Kingdom WikiProjects to discuss this matter further on this talk page if you are unsatisfied with the current arrangement.
 * You have been reminded on multiple occasions about wikipedia's Bold-Revert-Discuss policy and have received 2 edit-warring warnings alongside myself by ignoring that. If you continue to ignore procedure and consensus then I'll have to alert a moderator: otherwise I hope that we can have a reasonable discussion and try to build a concensus on this matter. Brythones (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've undone your reverts - Please start an RFC, My general opinion is that your infoboxes are meaningless here but I'm not the voice of Wikipedia so as I said start an RFC and we get this resolved. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redrose64?offset=20180704072000&limit=9 informed seven WikiProjects] of this discussion. My selections for who to notify are simply the talk pages for the two infoboxes, plus the WikiProjects named at the top of those two talk pages, and those named at the top of this page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment: which style of infobox should be used for Scottish Parliament constituency pages?
As discussed above, which of the infobox formats is the most appropriate to be used for Scottish Parliament constituency pages on Wikipedia? The second one above, or this one:

Brythones (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised that this question needs to be asked. Constituencies are arbitrary shapes on a map, they may enclose one or more settlements, or may enclose part of a settlement: but they are not settlements in themselves. is designed specifically for constituencies;  is intended for use with settlements. If there is something that  lacks, but could be useful if included in that infobox, the thing to do is to propose an enhancement at its talk page, not to repurpose another infobox. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Constituency articles should clearly use . Redrose64 explains why pretty succinctly. This has got to be one of the dumbest rfcs that needed to happen. ToastButterToast (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I favour sticking with . Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * should be used. If there are issues with what it in/excludes, then attempt to amend it rather than replacing it with an infobox not designed for constituencies. Number   5  7  11:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Constituencies are politically determined areas, not settlements and we should use the constituency infobox. Bermicourt (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Use  because an article about constituencies must focus on unique content like racial makeup, extra detail on politics, etc. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 00:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use  for constituencies, which is designed for constituencies and can be amended if required. Ralbegen (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edinburgh Central (Scottish Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206231556/http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/updatedversionJune08.xls to http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/updatedversionJune08.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Debatable statement
The statement "In the UK Parliament, the Edinburgh Central constituency was represented by the Labour Party almost continuously from the 1945 UK general election until the constituency was abolished in 2005, voting Conservative once in 1983" is somewhat misleading. The seats boundaries were heavily changed in 1983 and it more closely resembled the more solidly Conservative Edinburgh North (which was abolished). Indeed it was won by the former Conservative MP for Edinburgh North Alex Fletcher, while the incumbent Edinburgh Central Labour MP Robin Cook moved to another seat. On the old boundaries the seat would likely have stayed Labour, while if the new boundaries had been in place from 1945, the Conservatives would almost certainly have won the seat in most elections. Given this I think it would be safer to leave this statement out. Dunarc (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)