Talk:Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies

'notionals'
How exactly are the notional results on the article worked out? Biofoundationsoflanguage 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, would it be appropriate to summarize the changes by saying the Tories would be up 11, Labour down 9, Plaid Cymru down 1, and the Liberal Democrats down 1? Or are there more changes other than those listed in the article. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Updates
I've made updates to illustrate that these changes have now been approved by Parliament (data is the same as that used on the "Next UK General Election" page). Suggest we change the title to something like "Bounday changes for the next UK general election" but I'm a relatively inexperienced Wikipedian and I'm not sure how to change the title of a page...:-) Tobycek 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have shapefiles (.shp) for the new boundaries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.220.138 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brain dump of changes
Based on looking at the articles in Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies disestablished at the next general election, the following changes are made:

--h2g2bob (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Layout
There is something of an edit war between the content I have retrieved with sources throughout and their complete removal without prior discussion, by Rrius. Please justify your actions below and allow someone else to critique them before removing the logical sections, one for each part of the UK as per the consultations, legislation and debates which took place, and the quote on the above-named constituencies, the Isles which have a separate basis for how they were reviewed, which in a notable anomoly departs from the default rules followed for all other constituencies.

The destructive edit to rationalise everything has just been a little too keen, the content added is still very much encyclopedic and a wide-reaching fundamental change of this Boundary Review. Adam37 (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not the way Wikipedia works. You want to make a change, so you need to convince other editors to back it. See WP:BRD. The quote you want to add is way, way too long given the complete lack of context. You added the quote without any explanation as to why it is important. If you are trying to make a point about the Scottish boundaries, you should probably ask for some help, because you have failed to get your point across. I can try to help you if you make as clear and brief an attempt as possible to


 * And having separate sections is crazy. There is absolutely no reason to have three sections with virtually identical, single sentences. One sentence or one small table would suffice for what you separate into three sections. Even if something needs to be said about the Scottish review, that is not a reason for creating one-sentence sections about the dates at which the reviews were adopted by Parliament. One section dealing with all four would still suffice, with a completely separate section dealing with the quotas used in the different reviews.


 * So stop edit warring. You edited, and were reverted. Before you can make your changes (which need serious help before being ready for prime time), you need to gain consensus here. -Rrius (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate now your power to revert. However it is of course a power not a duty.  Indeed as you and I largely seem to be in agreement I would have thought my edit was something you could work with, rather than reverting as the default course, I find I rarely revert anyone as it can be seen as heavyhanded when they have put in referenced content.  I welcome your suggestion of a table with columns for the dates of each review's tabling (before Parliament) (motion tabled) and acceptance (date of).


 * However as the point you are making still leaves the article bereft of information; would you like to edit this as we agree? If not I would be happy for you to act as reviewer of a more considered, brief attempt (from me).


 * I am used to reading full explanation of both sides of an argument, wikipedia is not a place for one-sided political or constitutional opinions (per WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV) however by presenting the prima facie evidence of malapportionment in Scotland and rebutting this with the full arguments, presented at the time of passing the seemingly anomolous disparity in seats, as expressed by their noble Lords, in favour of the disparity, one can see both sides of the argument. I trust you appreciate my effort to impart this information was therefore made in Good Faith.  I look forward to hearing who should make a start on this.Adam37 (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the quote you provided has absolutely no context. We do indeed need to be neutral. If there is a noteworthy discussion to be had about malapportionment, the issue needs to be explained in the prose. It would seem that what we need is a reliably sourced explanation of the concern, followed by an explanation of the response. If necessary, a short quotes can be used to supplement the prose. In light of the attempt to broadly equalise constituencies after the 2010 election, I wonder whether limiting the discussion to Scotland is proper. Perhaps it would be better to note the average size of constituencies in each country as well the range of sizes for each. Then we could note the particular examples in Scotland, noting the constituencies exempted from the equalisation with an explanation of why they were exempted. I'm not sure how clear this was as I am rather tired at the moment. -Rrius (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I leave the citation of this obvious statistical truth for you. The very fact of the word "defensible" being used implies a noteworthy problem (on the face of it).Adam37 (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)