Talk:Sentencing Council

Merger proposal: Sentencing Guidelines Council and Sentencing Council
Just fixed a another article that linked to the now replaced Sentencing Guidelines Council instead of the current body. Since these bodies perform basically the same function, have similar names, and one (this one) is the explicit successor to the other, I'm not sure the previously named Sentencing Guidelines Council needs its own article. Both are quite short articles, and I think it would be probably more useful to the reader to just have 1 article (this one), that covers the council from 2003-present, rather than one (stub) article that covers the council from 2003-2010, and another separate one that covers its operation from 2010-present.

Other articles on wikipedia also treat these as essentially one body, the former succeeding the latter. quote from Sentencing in England and Wales:

In 2003, this was supplemented by the Sentencing Guidelines Council comprising a majority of judicial members, which is now known as the Sentencing Council.

I think it makes sense to take this example.

summary of WP:MERGEREASONS: 2 - overlap, 3 - Short text and 4 - context. Two short (3) articles that cover broadly the same topic (2), and which would benefit from including the history of the committee in the article for the current reconstituted current body (4).

Following on from guidelines at WP:PROPMERGE, in terms of the "how" of this merger, I would propose:
 * keeping the former names of bodies in the lede (the Sentencing Guidelines Council and the Sentencing Advisory Panel)
 * adding a short "history" section to this article that covers: the formation of the former body in 2003, (ideally a little about the circumstances of its formation*), and then a brief description of the changes that came in 2010, and a short description how (and perhaps why*) the new body is constituted differently to the old body (any differences in the membership, appointment process etc.,).
 * (*asterisks indicate new content currently not found in either article, "nice to haves" rather than a necessity to carry out the merger)

the above covers all the content in the other article, and how it would be pulled across. Once this is done, I think there is room for a little more content on the new merged article too, which would be useful for anyone interested in reading up on sentencing in the

--Tomatoswoop (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Tomatoswoop (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)