Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 1

Initial thoughts
A very neccesary project! Some initial thoughts:
 * 1) Does every page need to be at xxx (constituency)? For some areas, particularly those in the form City, Area or Area and Area, references will always be to the constituency and I'm not in favour of unneccesary disambiguation (although a redirect from the disambiguation would be wholly appropriate).
 * 2) It should be a little more specific about what geographical information can be included. For instance, whether the area is primarily urban or rural, whether there are any substantial minority groups, whether it is inner city, council estates or wealthy suburbia.  Changes over time should also be noted.
 * 3) Older electoral results are less important than recent ones, but it'd be nice to include these where possible. Many by-elections, however, have their own articles.
 * 4) I'm not convinced that former constituences with different names but very similar areas need different articles. For instance, Sheffield Park appears to have covered a similar area to Sheffield Central, and one article could conveniently describe both.


 * When I created the first pages (all the current Northern Ireland seats plus two pre 1983 ones) I used "constituency" as a lot have names that could have other meanings (Foyle is a river - indeed IMHO the redirect should now go there once everything's checked; North Down is a borough; Armagh can mean both the city and county; Strangford is variously the loch and a town that's not in the seat; West Tyrone is a local government electoral area as well and so on; North/South/East/West anywhere can mean the geographic area, many of which are considered distinct areas in their own right). It may be overkill but I'd suggest at leat keeping the tag in when in doubt.
 * Agree about being more specific. I just threw in the general stuff on local government as it's relatively easy to define and also avoids debates like "is Gerry Adams an MP for Lisburn?" (He is - part of the city is included in the West Belfast seat.)
 * Agree here. By-elections often do well in their own right (I'd suggest that any seat up for one should be given priority in having a page on the seat in its own right, especially as there's usually quite a bit of the seat's history recycled).
 * Different names can be tricky. Looking back what I bunged down may be over harsh - should there be separate pages for Western Isles (constituency) and Na h-Eileanan An Iar (constituency) when there have been no boundary changes at all (well apart from coastal erosion!)? It's the ones where the name change comes with boundary changes that's trickier. Sometimes the different pages for different names may help make the pages more managable.
 * Timrollpickering 12:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. I agree, many names are ambiguous and these should be disambiguated - but (for instance) nobody talks about "Sheffield Attercliffe" unless they mean the constituency.
 * 2, 3. Absolutely. Articles for constituencies where we already have by-election articles should be a priority.
 * 4. That's true, but there are also cases where significant boundary changes are not accompanied by a name change - for instance, Bridgwater has apparently been a constituency of one sort or another since the thirteenth century, but during that time the constituency will have expanded and changed repeatedly. Warofdreams 16:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geographical information
Seems to me each constituency should be defined primarily in terms of names of neigbouring constituencies and links to articles about towns, villages, urban districts etc within the constituency (or, in many cases, divided by its boundary). Lists of local government wards may be useful, but probably these will need frequent updating. Laurel Bush 14:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Scottish electoral areas
A list of articles about electoral areas/regions in Scotland:
 * Highlands and Islands, North East Scotland, Mid Scotland and Fife, West of Scotland, Glasgow, Central Scotland, South of Scotland and Lothians.

Perhaps these articles represent a pattern we can use or adapt. Laurel Bush 14:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC).


 * This raises a broader point on a seat's use for other purposes. The Scottish Parliament regions are based on the old European Parliamentary constituencies, though I forget if they're using the old boundaries or the new ones prepared for the 1999 elections by the Boundary Commission (before the electoral system was changed to a regional list). On the Northern Ireland seats I've listed the members elected to the various assemblies, conventions and forums since the 1970s (and all the Stormont members for the Queen's University seat) but if we're adding additional information then this can get convoluted. Timrollpickering 19:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'&' and 'and'
I have been looking at some electoral registers. I dont like it but I am seeing that in these documents '&' is the well established convention. Dont know how much deviation from the convention there is in print media. Laurel Bush 12:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC).
 * If you look at presumably the most reliable source for England, the Boundary Commission for England, they use 'and'. Note also the division into county and borough constituencies - should we use this? Warofdreams 13:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Within parties it is usual to use the ampersand rather than the word for the simple reason that it increases clarity in a list of constituencies. eg. locally I have "Hampstead and Highgate and Holborn and St Pancras". If you don't happen to know whuch goes with which (and which are singular) then to say "Hampstead & Highgate and Holborn & St Pancras" is far clearer. Given that the first two of these will change before the 2009/10 GE to Hampstead & Kilburn and Highgate & Holborn, etc. --Vamp:Willow 15:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that ampersands were frowned upon, but according to Naming conventions they should not be used at all. You could try using an "and" substitute such as "as well as" or "together with". Mibblepedia 13:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"&" has its uses, especially in lists. ("-and-" can serve the same purpose.) I dont think we need "&" in article titles. Laurel Bush 18:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Laurel Bush
Agenda - I got roped in to this one while pursuing two aims:
 * (1) Creating histories of Caithness and Sutherland and Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross
 * (2) Creating a history of the election performance of Legalise Cannabis Alliance candidates, with good links to relevant articles about constituencies and elections This exercise is proving much more complex than I had imagined.

Policies:
 * (1)  '&' and 'and' : When introducing constituency names to articles I am generally upfront with 'and', but aiming to check first that '&' is not already the article's convention. I am not now moving articles because I do not like 'and'. I am using 'and' in the titles of new constituency articles.
 * (2) Mergers and hybids: I am generally resisting mergers of constituency articles with articles about other subjects (towns, counties, local government areas etc). And where I find articles created in a manner that confuses a constituency with another entity I am attempting of disentangle the gordian knot. However, I am treating various Scottish and Welsh constituencies as having at present a dual purpose, with respect to Westminster and to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.

Laurel Bush 12:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC).

General Election looming
With the General Election looming it seems a good time to get the pages on the remaining current constituencies up and running in time to display the results.

The pages on some recent by-elections (such as Hartlepool by-election, 2004) have included tables of candidates prior to the declaration, allowing for the figures to be easily added, as well as the recent results. This may be the best way to display the information, with an additional column for changes since the last General Election (using the recognised notional results for boundary changes) and a further column for seats where there have been by-elections in the interim. We can add the background information and general commentary on the constituency as time goes on.

However we'll need to reach consensus on the question of whether to include "(constituency)" in all article titles or just those needing disambiguation, and also on whether to use "&" or "and". Does anyone have any alternative options? Once I know if there are or not I'll start a poll on this page to get an indication. Timrollpickering 15:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am wondering when complete lists of candidates might be available. Laurel Bush 15:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC).


 * Most major parties will have selected most candidates and have lists on their websites (which I think we can take as the nearest to definite in preparing pages), though some smaller parties and independents will only be known once nominations close. Timrollpickering 16:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Canadian articles
You guys should take a look at the Canadian constituency pages as a guide. My personal favourite is Ottawa South (for obvious reasons). Although we don't have a wikiproject, we have more constituency articles, as of yet. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name (Scottish Parliament constituency)
Using "constituency" is a little bloated. We could use "Name (Scottish Parliament)" or something shorter if anybody can think of one. Mibblepedia 13:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Name (Scottish Parliament)" looks OK to me. Cant think of anything shorter. Laurel Bush 11:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Identical constituencies
I believe just three Commons constituencies now have boundaries identical with those of Scottish Parliament constituencies. Anyone know which three? Laurel Bush 12:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * One will be Western Isles (constituency). Warofdreams 14:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The only other one is Renfrewshire East (formerly named Eastwood). Additionally, the Orkney and Shetland Westminster seat has not changed. Mibblepedia 11:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edinburgh South
In Edinburgh South, the details of the Scottish Parliamentary constituency (which has slightly different boundaries to the UK one) have been moved to Edinburgh South (Scottish Parliament constituency). Is it really necessary to distinguish between the two? The UK constituency's boundaries have been quite inconstant over the years, so might this invalidate the list of past MPs?


 * The two constituencies, Scottish Parliament and House of Commons, have now divergent histories in terms of changes to their boundaries. Therefore two separate articles seems very necessary. And I am thinking Edinburgh South should be moved to Edinburgh South (House of Commons constituency), to prevent possible confusion with the Scottish Parliament constituency. Laurel Bush 10:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC).
 * I agree and disagree. I agree that Edinburgh South should be moved, and that a new Edinburgh South be created as a disambiguation.  I disagree on the suffix.  "House of Commons constituency" is too vague.  Look at House of Commons.  There is more than one house of commons.  Now bear in mind that, as mentioned before on this very page, Canada has its own (informal) constituency project.  This has already resulted in name conflicts (which I've spotted as part of setting up the election coverage), and will no doubt result in more, given the commonality of names in the two countries.  "(House of Commons constituency)" is fraught with peril. Uncle G 15:02, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Given that you have already gone with "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" after Scottish Parliament, "(UK Parliament constituency)" after Parliament of the United Kingdom is the obvious way to go, and you now have a load of UK parliamentary constituencies for Scotland that do just that, waiting for you to create the Scottish parliamentary constituency pages and disambiguation pages to go alongside them. Look at Aberdeen North, Aberdeen North (UK Parliament constituency), and Aberdeen North (Scottish Parliament constituency) for how this works. Uncle G 15:02, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Therefore move Edinburgh South to Edinburgh South (UK Parliament constituency) and create a new Edinburgh South disambiguation. (You can just copy the Aberdeen North disambiguation and change the name.)  Uncle G 15:02, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * I would prefer Edinburgh South (House of Commons). It is shorter and less ambiguous (now that the UK has two parliaments). Laurel Bush 15:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).
 * It's actually more ambiguous. As House of Commons says, Canada has a house of commons, too, and there are Canadian constituency articles.  "(UK Parliament constituency)" may be cumbersome, but I think it to be the best way to go, especially since Australia, New Zealand, and India are bound to get into the mix too.  With regard to "UK Parliament" being considered to include the Scottish Parliament: "UK Parliament" is no more ambiguous in that regard than Parliament of the United Kingdom is, and no-one seriously considers that latter to be a problem.  I very much doubt that anyone looking at Aberdeen North/Aberdeen North (UK Parliament constituency)/Aberdeen North (Scottish Parliament constituency) or Edinburgh South/Edinburgh South (UK Parliament constituency)/Edinburgh South (Scottish Parliament constituency) will be confused about whether "UK Parliament" refers specifically to the Scottish Parliament for more than a few seconds. &#9786; Uncle G 19:00, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * I agree. House of Commons is far too ambiguous. In fact, the Scottish Parliament is a House of Commons - but nobody ever uses the term because it is unicameral. That said, I prefer (UK Parliament) to (UK Parliament constituency) and (Scottish Parliament) to (Scottish Parliament constituency) as noted above and below. Mibblepedia 20:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edinburgh Pentlands
I am about to create Edinburgh Pentlands (1950 - 2005) as an article about the now historic Commons constituency. (The name is also that of a surviving Scottish Parliament constituency). Relevant message in Talk:Edinburgh Pentlands. Laurel Bush 13:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC).


 * But Pentlands doesn't have a divergent history. It's more a case of the Scottish Parliament having inherited the constituency. Mibblepedia 11:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. But would you include the Scottish Parliament constituency article in the UK Parliamentary constituencies (historic) category? Laurel Bush 12:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC).

On reflection, I think separate articles have to be created for all Scottish Parliament constituencies. But I would suggest moving the current Edinburgh Pentlands to Edinburgh Pentlands (Scottish Parliament constituency) and moving the historical article to Edinburgh Pentlands, as this would keep things more consistent. Mibblepedia 13:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Orkney and Shetland
In Orkney and Shetland, the Orkney (constituency) link, which refers to the Scottish Parliamentary constituency, was changed to Orkney (Scottish constituency), likewise for Shetland (constituency). Which should be used, (Scottish Parlaiment constituency) or (Scottish constituency)? I'd favour the former, as "Scottish constituency" usually refers to a UK constituency located in Scotland. And there's the added bonus that these articles haven't been created yet, as opposed to the Edinburgh South one. Of course, for these two SP constituencies, which do not share their names with UK constituencies, why shouldn't (constituency) be used? --Mibblepedia 13:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Orkney" and "Shetland" name also entities with are not constituencies (which is why Orkney and Shetland are live links). I agree however that the word "Scottish" in the parenthesis is both unnecessary and confusing. Laurel Bush 10:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Why we should not have separate articles
I think it's a lot better if the articles for Scottish Parliament constituencies and Westminster constituencies up to 2005 are kept together. There's no page created for it yet, but my local constituency is Ross, Skye and Inverness West. It's worth pointing out on the same page that was where Charles Kennedy was an MP for the SDP before the Lib-Dems even existed, and where John Farquhar Munro fought against Donnie Munro at the 1999 elections. For categories, they can easily be put in Category:UK Parliamentary constituencies (historic), and the new category that I've started Category:Scottish Parliamentary constituencies. See Edinburgh East and Musselburgh as an example. Maccoinnich 14:50, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as the Holyrood constituencies have links to the Westminster constituencies, people can find the information they want. Separating them keeps them uncluttered. Edinburgh East and Musselburgh won't look especially cluttered because the constituency was very short-lived at Westminster. The same is not true of most constituencies. Mibblepedia 20:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Mibblepedia makes a very good point. Look at any of the Northern Ireland constituency articles, which have attempted to keep things together as you propose, to see how crowded things look now that we have multiple sets of election results and parliament/assembly members.  (Try Mid Ulster or Fermanagh and South Tyrone.) If you keep the constituencies separate, you can cross-link them with the ordinary  template and an accompanying disabiguation page.  See Aberdeen North for how easy this is. Uncle G 00:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Infobox
A first stab at an infobox - please help improve it! Warofdreams

Interesting. Prompts a number of questions: (1) Sheffield Central has just three wards? (I have lost count of the number in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross); (2) Is control appropriate in relation to a consituency? (3) Are all constituencies always entirely within one administrative area (county etc)? (I suspect not). Laurel Bush 14:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC).


 * (1) I've added the others - there are only six. (2) Probably not - what do you suggest? (3) Yes, it's the basis of their designation. Warofdreams 14:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (1) So what is done with split wards? (2) How about Party? (3) This is not true of Northern Ireland or Scotland. Welsh constituencies are based on pre-1996 divisions but that link is useless today. And (4) What is Created for? Is it when the name was first used or when the boundaries were last set?


 * (1) Wards are the basic units of which constituencies are composed; they are not split except in the most exceptional circumstances - I can't find any which have been split when defining constituencies. (2) I've now changed that. (3) It's only in Northern Ireland that the whole nation is the starting point. In Scotland constituencies are based on the subdivisions of Scotland, for Wales, the preserved counties of Wales and in England the ceremonial counties of England.  (4) I think it only makes sense to describe the current situation, noting changes in the article. Warofdreams 15:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * (3) There are at least 9 constituencies in Scotland that cross local authority boundaries, 3 of which even cross the old regional boundaries. The preserved counties of Wales were modified to line up to the new local authority boundaries (compare [[Media:WalesNumbered1974.png]] to [[Media:WalesNumbered2003.png]]) so several constituencies such as Conwy (constituency) and Bridgend (constituency) cross the boundaries. Mibblepedia 17:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changes to ward boundaries and to local authoritiy boundaries are, at best, out of phase with changes to constituency boundaries. Changes become effective at election times (except byelections) and elections belong to different cycles. Trying to keep constituencies defined in terms of lists of wards may be somewhat over ambitious. Laurel Bush 09:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC).


 * OK then, if keeping up with latest changes is not possible, how about listing the wards the constituency was defined as encompassing (in fact, that seems to be what the list in the infobox is as Sheffield wards have now changed) and the local authorities which the constituencies were defined as being a part of. In the few cases where Scottish constituencies cross boundaries, we could simply list both local authorities. Warofdreams


 * From recollection, ward changes do not affect the constituency boundary until the redistribution - indeed the "reunite the wards" rule generally takes precedence over all others in the redistribution rules (except where this would create a massive distortion of seat sizes).


 * I *think* the constituencies are based on administrative counties but this can get chaotic, either because of more than one being combined for the purpose or because of unitary authorities (Northern Ireland has only these) which don't easily lend themselves to equal sized seats. Timrollpickering 10:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How I am seeing Orkney and Shetland at present (right). (I find mind boggling the idea of using ward names which might mean different areas in the context of local elections.) Laurel Bush 12:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC).


 * Looks good. I've amended the year - this seat has had the same boundaries for the longest single period (indeed legislation guarentees the islands a seat of their own). Timrollpickering 15:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've changed the head colour to match other Scottish subdivision infoboxes. I've also created a separate row for party, as I think it looks clearer. Mibblepedia 16:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. I'd still like to find a way to include the wards, but we obviously don't have agreement on a way forward with that.  I've also added that it is a county constituency.

Wondering if it should include info about "Develoved parliament or assembly constituencies" ("Brings together the Scottish Parliament constituencies of Orkney and Shetland"). Laurel Bush 16:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC).
 * Looks good, I think having one with wards listed would be too hard to maintain. If there's a constituency map, it should obviously go just below the title, as per the one above.
 * Minor point, I think the party should be "Liberal Democrats", the candidate/MP is a Liberal Democrat, but they are a member of the Liberal Democrats, same with Conservative Party, Labour Party etc -- Joolz 18:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I suspect Lib-Dems tend to us the singular on ballot papers. Sometimes party is taken to mean description of candidate or MP, sometimes vice versa. Laurel Bush 09:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Wondering: why the different colour for Scottish Commons constituencies? Is it not Scottish Parliament constituencies that should have a different colour? Or does the Used by cell need colours.? Laurel Bush 09:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Old election template
Warofdreams has an election template here. I've added some colour and more parties. Now that the nomination period is over, we should consider using these. Mibblepedia 16:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I've also created WikiProject_UK_Parliamentary_Constituencies/Progress to monitor progress on the articles. Warofdreams 17:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering whether the colours are all party-approved, thinking cells for official party symbols might be more appropriate (and perhaps less of a colour-assault on the eye). Also, I have been using a simpler format, adapted from one found in Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election, 2004. Laurel Bush 11:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC).
 * The party symbols would be good, but I kinda like the colours too. I'm not sure what you mean by 'party-approved' though, it's hard to have the deep blue for the conservative party because you can't read the text.
 * forgot to sign - Joolz 11:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I wanted to use lighter colours, but this would have rendered the four different shades of red and green almost indistinguishable. Mibblepedia 13:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In using party-approved I am thinking some parties might not like their allocated colours. Are Scottish greens darker (or deeper) or lighter greens than English or Welsh greens? And: how green is Sinn Fein? Laurel Bush 16:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

New election template
I've created a set of pukka templates for election candidates and results here. It's based on input from Greg Robson and Neil Tarrant and follows the style of the table here. I'll be writing some detailed instructions and guidelines on the template talk page as soon as I'm able. See Bethnal Green and Bow for an example of it in use. 80N 15:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I like what you've designed (although I'm not sure what use actually has) but I'm not sure why you've chosen to fetch the party colours from a different place than where UK general election 2005 page uses (and maybe it should be spelt colour rather than color, although that's just being picky) -- Joolz 16:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Joolz, is required in order to end the table.  I couldn't use Template:British politics/party colours/partyname because there was no way of knowing what the partyname bit would be (and there's no list anywhere that I could find).  The approach I took keeps the colour info associated with the article about the party, which seemed logical to me (maybe a redirect can be engineered to prevent duplication).  I agonised about the spelling of colour - but since there is nothing UK specific about this template I plumped for color because otherwise every American wikipedian would complain that its spelt wrong and would probably just not use the templates - whereas we have a wider perspective on the world ;-) 80N 17:21, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems slightly easier on the wikipedia servers if you just have |} (and {| if neccessary) in the page itself :P It's not a big deal though -- Joolz 18:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks great. I agree colours shouldn't be fetched from Template:British politics/party colours/partyname, as this would make it impossible to use it in any other country. I've added an implementation of the box at the top so we can keep track of which parties have /meta/ data. Mibblepedia 18:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: have a % change field for the majority data, so we know by what percentage the majority has been reduced by -- Joolz 23:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Done 80N 23:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've given it some thought and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the metadata (shortname, color) is in the wrong namespace. Therefore (although it will be a bit of a hassle for the created ones, I suggest we put the meta data in: Template:Political Parties//color and Template:Political Parties/{{{party}}/shortname -- Joolz 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Joolz, I know it's an issue (or at least an open question), but I'm not keen on changing it in a hurry. It only affects 15 pages at the moment and won't impact use of the template if it is changed later.  The reason for doing it this way was to provide a strong association between the data and party it belongs to.  Moving it to the template page weakens that association IMHO. I think we should seek some opinions from the Village Pump and see what others think about it, before we rush and change it. 80N 22:36, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * See Village_pump_(technical) 80N 23:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

By-election results boxes
Is anyone able to produce result boxes for:


 * Seats where the party who won at the last general election regains the seat lost in a by-election?
 * Seats where the by-election loss is duplicated at the general election?
 * Seats where the seat is gained from one party who won the last general election and another who won the by-election?

Ideally I'd go for "treat the by-election as just another election", but this can cause confusion, especially when boundaries change and because gains/losses are traditionally measured against the last general election. Timrollpickering 14:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Past MPs
Hey, I've been working on Newbury (constituency) but I'm at a loss of where to find information about past MPs, as you can see there's a gap, and no information before 1945. Any suggestions? Also, the creation date of the constituency would be nice... Cheers -- Joolz 18:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a useful resource. There are also pages on Wikipedia for the MPs elected in 1945, 1950 and 1951. Mibblepedia 20:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's just the thing I was looking for. I should be able to use it as a source to fill in more past election results, I suppose -- Joolz 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Go to your library and see if they have History of Parliament on CD-ROM. Jooler 09:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is good for older MPs and constituencies. There's not all that much detail but it can be a good starting point for further research. I suspect it will take a while to work up all the detail back to the election of April 1660 ;-) --Cavrdg 20:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You can't rely on that site. The editor has put in many deliberate errors to discourage copying. There are some non-deliberate ones too. Jooler


 * Thanks for the warning. I'll treat any info from there even more cautiously. --Cavrdg 17:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've used the data from there, I'm afraid, and will have to check it against another source - but how does Edinburgh South look just now? I've tried, as an experiment, listing next to each MP the elections they came in at; this gives us the opportunity to note by-elections, and saves people hassle if they want to link through to Parliament rather than just giving a year (which IMO is fairly unhelpful). Unfortunately, though, it does look a bit verbose... Shimgray 18:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Project scope
Is UK Parliamentary constituencies perhaps a misnomer? Or ambiguous? Should it be UK House of Commons constituencies? Or UK constituencies? I believe the UK has now four bodies elected by constituencies: the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Laurel Bush 09:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC).
 * I think most people would assume that we're talking about the house of commons. I don't think you can call the NI or Welsh assembly constituencies parliamentary, because they're not parliaments, but there is a problem with Scotland. There are two ways of interpreting the title, parliamentary constituencies for the uk, which would mean the house of commons, and parliamentary constituencies of the uk, which could include Scotland too. I think as long as we say what the project scope is on the project page the current title is ok. -- Joolz 11:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am suggesting the project's scope, as implied by its title, is too narrrow. It reflects habits of thought and speech which predate the creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly (and which tended to ignore the situation in Northern Ireland). The Welsh Assembly may not be a parliament but, like the two parliaments in the UK it does use constituencies. Both constituency and parliamentary constituency have tended to mean exclussively House of Commons constituency, but in three parts of the UK constituency now relates to two different bodies. Both constituency and parliamentary constituency are now potentially ambiguous, and the project's title-implied scope seems too narrow to cope with this fact. Laurel Bush 10:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Suggested tasks
Just thinking of some tasks suggestions: -- Joolz 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikilink the constituencies on the list of MPs pages, the articles which exist for any candidates/mps to link to the constituency article
 * 2) Maps - Eventually it would be good to have maps as well. I don't know where to source them, or how to go about designing them though.

Project goals
I am seeing the following as a good project goal:
 * Ensure good disambiguation between constituencies and other entities (local authorities, towns, etc) and between different types of constituency (House of Commons, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland]]. Laurel Bush 11:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Progress page
Wikinews user Uncle G has pointed out that the list of constituency names at Results of 2005 United Kingdom General Election differs from the list at this project's progress page. This is likely to result in page duplication (like this and this) unless it can be sorted out. Is there any policy or has any consensus been reached yet on constituency article naming? 80N 09:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The list on Wikinews is the the names that the Press Association, the BBC, and newspapers like the Guardian are using. I'm changing "&" to "and" in its names as per the naming conventions, as discussed above.  (I've fixed a couple that you missed.)  Further, as I've pointed out to Joolz, you've already discussed this.  See above on this very talk page where disambiguation between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament is discussed, and see Dundee East, where the above was implemented and which I took as my original model (If you look at the wikitext of all of the new Scottish constituencies, you'll see that they have a commented-out cross-references to the Scottish parliament constituency articles already in place, just as Dundee East does.). For the new constituency articles, I'm using an equal-weight disambiguation rather than a primary topic disambiguation, which means a "(UK Parliamemt constituency)" suffix.  This is because the same reasons for disambiguation occur in Wales, Northern Ireland, and England.  In the former two there are, obviously, parallel (but not necessarily coterminous) sets of constituencies, and the separation for categorization reasons, discussed above, apply.  In the case of England, even though there isn't a second parliament the constituencies have in several cases been combined with the boroughs, which again are not always coterminous.  The 2005/2001 election results are going to expand the articles quite significantly, meaning that this merger will no longer be practical, and the constituency will have to be broken out of the borough.  Look at Epsom and Ewell and Epsom and Ewell (UK Parliament constituency) to see how large things are going to get very soon, and consider that there are two sets of histories/boundaries, one for the borough and one for the constituency, as also pointed out above. I forsee having a disambiguation for every constituency, either with the town/borough as the primary article (as per Epsom and Ewell and Weston-Super-Mare) or (more usually) an equal weight disambiguation with the disambiguation page as the primary article (e.g. Edinburgh South disambiguating between Edinburgh South (UK Parliament constituency) and Edinburgh South (Scottish Parliament constituency) and Aberdeen North disambiguating between Aberdeen North (UK Parliament constituency) and Aberdeen North (Scottish Parliament constituency) &mdash; meaning that there will be a use for the Aberdeen North that you have created, just not the use that you gave to it. &#9786;). Uncle G 12:06, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * The Boundary Commission for Scotland apparently disagrees with the newspapers - see here. I took their position and created Ochil and South Perthshire. Now you've created Ochil and Perthshire South (UK Parliament constituency). Perhaps we should have redirect pages for the press names, but the articles should use the official names. Also, the (UK Parliament constituency) bit is unnecessary as this consituency is only used by Westminster. I also proposed dropping "constituency" when the disambiguated title mentions the Scottish Parliament, and I'd say the same for the UK Parliament. In the case of Epsom and Ewell, why not just use (constituency), as has been the norm for English consituencies? Mibblepedia 14:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * the articles should use the official names &mdash; I knew that this was going to come up. No, we should not use the "official" names just because they are "official".  The naming conventions say that we should use the "common" names.  The "official" names are not the common names.  The names that people see on the television and in the newspapers and thus use in everyday life are the common names.  People generally don't look up constituency names in machine-readable format files on government web sites.  &#9786;  "Ochil and Perthshire South" is what the Guardian and the Press Association both call the constituency, not "Ochil and South Perthshire".  In both sets of names, the compass points come after the name, not before. Uncle G 01:56, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * The other way round then - common names for the articles, and official names for redirects. Mibblepedia 17:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * the (UK Parliament constituency) bit is unnecessary &mdash; Actually, from going through the list and seeing that most of the names will be ambiguous for one reason or another (Canadian constituencies, Scottish constituencies, towns, and boroughs, have already been mentioned. I haven't pointed out on this page that I discovered, when checking "What links here" on a couple of the constituency pages that had no " (UK Parliament constituency)" suffix, that several pages linked to them as football team names.) I fully expect a " (UK Parliament constituency)" suffix to be the norm not the exception. Uncle G 01:56, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * (constituency) ... has been the norm for English consituencies &mdash; and it's time that that was fixed. As I said, at least one bluelink on the list of UK constituencies actually turned out to be about a Canadian constituency when I checked it.  A "(constituency)" suffix doesn't fix that problem, because the UK and the Canadian articles are both constituencies and disambiguation is still required.  However, " (UK Parliament constituency)" (versus, say, " (Canadian Parliament constituency)" and " (Scottish Parliament constituency)") does fix this.  Furthermore: Using that suffix right from the start avoids this project treading upon the redlinks of other parliament projects in the same way that the Canadian parliament project trod on this project's redlinks.  &#9786;  Uncle G 01:56, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd still like to be convinced why we're using (X Parliament consituency) rather than (X Parliament) - surely a disambiguation here would be a rarity. Mibblepedia 17:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies/Progress Greg Robson 22:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Constituencies which don't need disambiguation (example: Reading West) should not be disambiguated. Disambiguation should only occur if there are articles to disambiguate between. If a canadian or australian constituency exists of the same name, and the page is created, then it can be disambiguated, but not before. -- Joolz 16:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's slightly ironic that the very example that you cited of where disambiguation is not needed, Reading West, is a disambiguation article. &#9786; As I pointed out above, there are a lot of conflicts &mdash; I've found conflicts with names of railway stations, football teams, constituencies in other countries, towns, boroughs, rivers, clans, and constituencies of other parliaments. &mdash; a lot more conflicts than, it appears, many here realize.  I think that it is far better to avoid the conflicts in the first place than to fix them up later, after we've stepped on someone else's redlink.  I think that the patterns at Gordon and Aberdeen South are the patterns to follow.  Uncle G 01:56, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Ok, I picked rather badly with my choice, but there are constituencies that don't need disambiguation around, and there are constituencies that don't need disambiguation just yet (hopefully better examples: Liverpool West Derby and Birmingham Hall Green. Also, if we're going along the route of always diambiguating, isn't it better to do so without the brackets, for instance "Newbury constituency" (and then for constituencies needing disambiguation "Xyz constituency (westminster)/Xyz constituency (holyrood)" (or whatever disambiguation scheme we agree on) -- Joolz 07:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Brackets are good for disambiguation, as they make the pipe trick simple. Moreover, the number of constituencies that don't need disambiguation is quite small indeed. See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies/Progress. Uncle G 00:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * What's the pipe trick? 80N 06:44, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The pipe trick is Constituency . How about (westminster constituency) then? I think "UK Parliament constituency" is rather long winded and sounds rather odd because ususally it's 'parliamentary constituency' rather than just parliament. -- Joolz 14:06, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought the same, but if the constituency is "Parliamentary", then it implies there are non-parliamentary constituencies. It should be read as (UK Parliament) constituency. It's one of those freaky English grammar things. Greg Robson 19:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think having "Normanton (westminster constituency)" looks less ugly than the current system though... Joolz 20:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No. The pipe trick is that when you type a page link into the editor you don't have to write anything after the pipe for it to come out without the disambiguation text. I.e. if you type Constituency (constituency) it comes out as Constituency Jooler 22:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops! -- Joolz 20:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Election results
As I've been going through adding election results for 2001 I've noticed that many pages list previous elections in chronological order and only a few in reverse chronological order. It seems to me obvious that the current election results should be at the top, which implies that previous elections should be listed in reverse order (ie 2005, 2001, 1997, etc) with the earliest at the bottom. Does anyone agree or disagree with this? 80N 18:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it should be in this order: 2005, 2001, 1997, 1992 etc, it seems to make the most sense that way. It could be a bit confusing for a viewer to see 2005, 2001, 1992, 1997 -- Joolz 20:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Reverse chronological order seems eminently sensible, as you say. It would certainly be the better way of serving the people who are looking at the election results as part of the news coverage.  By the way: I've adopted the use of UK general election, 2005, UK general election, 2001, and so forth as the table titles, rather than including the constituency name in the table heading (which seems somewhat redundant). Uncle G 01:18, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I hate lists in reverse chronological order. The most recent results will only be the one that people are looking for immediately after the election. If we were simply in the business of reporting recent events, as on the current events page, then that would make sense. But as time progresses the page will be used like any other page on Wikipedia that contains a list of chronological events and I think correct chronological order is much better. Jooler 08:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The most recent result would seem to me to be the most relevant, so I'd opt for reverse chronological order. Mibblepedia 17:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Location Disambiguator or Disambiguator Location?
Some of the areas with multiple seats traditionally give the town/county name first (e.g. Cardiff North) whilst others traditionally have the disambiguator first (e.g. West Belfast). However often people use the two versions interchangeably - does anyone have an official list that we can follow? Timrollpickering 13:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There's http://www.election-maps.co.uk - if you enter "North Cardiff" in you won't find anything, "Cardiff North" exists though. On the other hand, the reverse is true for North Devon (constituency). It also helpfully says whether the constituency is a borough constituency (bo) or a county constituency (co). http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/ also allows you to search for constituency names. -- Joolz 18:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There's been quite a bit of moving of pages around on this - can I suggest we take the House of Commons listing as a guide to which version to use? Timrollpickering 11:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest that you read the prior discussion on this, first? &#9786;  I've argued above that the common names used in everyday life are what people see in the newspapers and on television, irrespective of what the "official" names on a government web site may be.  The election coverage at Wikinews, which is what I and other editors are and have been working from, uses the Press Association names, which are the names in the newspapers and on television.  There are various sources for "official" names, but if the "official" names aren't what people see in the newspapers and on television, they aren't going to be all that common. Mibblepedia has suggested to use the common names as the article names, and have redirects at the "official" names if they differ, which is a very good suggestion. Uncle G 14:04, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
 * I would strongly go with the reverse. All our articles should be located at the "official" (ie correct) name, but where common misconceptions occur, or there are local names, etc. then we provide a redirect to the correct page. This would also make far more sense in the longer term as official names (and the areas incorporated therein) change - and therefore the content can be accurate - whereas if we went with the 'local' name it could refer to a multipllicity of actual constituencies (I'm especially thinking about where seats are split, combined, etc. and where there are UK Parly seats with names close to EU Parly, etc.) --Vamp:Willow 14:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Press Association case would be stronger if the list of names were actually the common ones in circulation. To take one example, West Tyrone is far more common than Tyrone West - Google searches get c54700 for the former and 1930 for the latter. (The figures may be distorted, not least by mirroring Wikipedia, a popular elections site using the former and "West Tyrone" also being the name of local government electoral area within the seat, though I'd count that as usage of the construction; but I think the difference is large enough ot overcome such possibilities convincingly). The BBC News listing goes for "West Tyrone as well. If you're going to argue the "most common usage" then on this the Press Association is out of kilter.
 * No, it's the BBC that's out of kilter. Others (of those who even have up-to-date lists in the first place) are going with the Press Association names.  The Times The Guardian, The UK Election directory, Keele University, and (sic!) the Conservative Party are all using Tyrone West, for example. Furthermore: If you actually look further than the first page of your "West Tyrone" search you see that (a) it matches several things which are not the parliamentary constituency and thus irrelevant to what the constituency is called (including a road name in Oakridge, IN, and a youth club federation), and (b) there are only actually 461 hits in total, not 54700. Uncle G 19:16, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
 * You're mixing the two types of search. Often the local use of a name determines the usage - most obviously the form the local government district uses. Some of those lists put North Down as Down North - a patent absurdity where most common usage would go with the first, not least because that's what the local district council is called. Trying to argue "most common usage" gets ridiculous when we enter into these realms, which is why going for the official boundary commission list is the best, rather than assuming that everyone's duplication of the Press Association list is the most common. Timrollpickering 22:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There are other cases where clarity is lacking - the BBC website is unclear whether a seat is South Staffordshire or Staffordshire South and the usage switches heavily. Using the formal list seems about the only way to get clarity, otherwise we will likely see heavy moves as people debate just what the "most common usage" actually is.
 * You argument is based upon the flawed foundation that the BBC is correct, and that it is what everyone should be in step with. As pointed out above, it's the BBC that is out of step.  The Press Association, The Times, The Guardian, and the others all have Staffordshire South not South Staffordshire. Uncle G 19:16, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
 * You might want to see what form the local council and, presumably, the locals use. Timrollpickering 22:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And "most common usage" also offers some other problems. We might as well enter into a series of renamings of East Londonderry/East Derry depending on how we interpret "most common usage" on what is a quite contentious case. And to take a couple of others, I reckon most people are going to continue to call a Scottish constituency "Western Isles" rather than Na h-Eileanan an Iar, whilst many still call a Welsh seat "Anglesey" rather than Ynys Mon - again should we make what would be a clear mistake/anarchronism? Timrollpickering 14:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * /me notes that the best argument for using the official HoC names therefore is that there is someone else to blame when others don't appreciate the common'ness (or otherwise) of an alternative name ;-P --Vamp:Willow 15:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's actually a bogus argument, because it doesn't favour any particular name. Every set of names proposed so far has had a source, and thus someone else to blame for it.  No-one here is suggesting that we make up our own names. I'm arguing that whatever the "official" names may be in a list on a government web site, the names that are actually being used in a wide range of contexts including news services covering the election (The Times, The Guardian, Wikinews), political science studies (Keele University), political parties (The Conservative Party), and so on and so on, are the ones on the Press Association list. Uncle G 19:16, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the Press Association list in itself produces a number of forms that simply aren't the "most common usage" in the wider context - most obviously, but not uniquely, those seats that share names with local government districts. Timrollpickering 22:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem of Londonderry is not that of the general case. Northern Ireland is a mess unto itself.  You'd be best off not generalizing from it.  Furthermore: The Press Association names, and thus the names in the election coverage on the newspapers and on television that I would argue are the common-use ones, are Ynys Môn (Press Association ID 644) and Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Press Association ID 405).  Arguing that using the Press Association names would mean using the anachronistic Anglesey and Western Isles says to me that you haven't read what the Press Association names actually are.  &#9786; Uncle G 19:16, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
 * No I was pointing out that the "most common usage" (which, as shown above, are not the same as "what the Press Association lists") would hinge towards the old names. Timrollpickering 22:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, where seats are split and combined, we should have separate articles to trace the separate histories of what are, in fact, separate things. We should have separate Glasgow North and Glasgow Maryhill articles, for example. Uncle G 19:16, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
 * The problem with the press association names is that they aren't neccessarily the most popular, I'm pretty sure that "North Devon" is used more than "Devon North", especially by the residents of the constituency (although I'm not sure that I can provide evidence for this!) -- Joolz 20:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say the problem with the press association names is that they aren't neccessarily right. Surely we should use the official name of the constituency with redirects and disambig as needed.  So it would be North Devon but Bradford North.  --Cavrdg 10:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the correct names too, and redirect the press association names to the articles. I hesitate to describe the press association names as the most common, because I don't believe it's true in all cases, such as the Devon example I gave. This way wikipedia can be correct in it's information. I don't think that there's an overwhelming case that the pres association names are the most common, so much so that we should use their names above all else. -- Joolz 10:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anyone else saw the BBC's coverage, but when someone was asked about the funny name of "Sussex Mid" their response was nobody calls it sussex mid, and that it's Mid Sussex. -- Joolz 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Can we make a decision on this? Most people seem to have said that the correct names are the ones we should use, or do we need to take a quick poll on this? -- Joolz 10:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I definitely think we should use the official names - usually Place Direction for BC and Direction Place for CC (although there are some exceptions, particularly in the new Scottish constituencies). The Boundary Commission websites should be the final arbiter. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 16:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been a while and no clear cut. Can I formally propose we go with the official Boundary Commission list on this one? Otherwise we're in a mess trying to determine what is the "most common usage" - the most obvious case is when a seat shares its name with the local government district or other unit and it's a nightmare trying to work out what a usage applies to.


 * Also some of the seats are popping up with just "(constituency)" as their disambiguator. I'm worried that having multiple disambiguators is going to be messy - can we stick to one standard? Timrollpickering 23:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, it's been 20 or so days since I first suggested this, and nobody has objected, so I will move constituencies with the wrong name if and when I come accross them. -- Joolz 16:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Parliamentary constituency Votes for Deletion test case
Votes for deletion/Antigonish—Guysborough: have your say. Cheers! Samaritan 04:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

European Parliament
I've created articles for the 12 European Parliament constituencies.
 * East Midlands, East of England, London, North East England, North West England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South East England, South West England, Wales, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber

I haven't completed the results for all of them as I've run into some problems. I can't find accurate turnout figures for every result. This is also makes some of the vote share percentages inaccurate. Mibblepedia 21:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1999 results
 * 2004 results
 * Thanks to the fact that I have the actual electorate figures for the Regions, the above compilations give accurate turnout results. --New Progressive 01:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * But you've done exactly what I've done - determine turnout figures by adding together all the votes received by candidates. Accurate turnout includes invalid votes. Figures I found for London, for example, show there were 17,905 invalid votes in 2004. Mibblepedia 21:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do people think of my approach to showing d'Hondt election results using the election box template, and what should be done about Northern Ireland's STV results? Mibblepedia 21:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it works, a new/modified template is probably neccessary, the systems are just too different. Same with the Northern Ireland STV results. Good idea with the constituencies though! :) -- Joolz 00:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The current template works well for seat allocation, I'm just not sure about the way I've combined it with full vote results. Mibblepedia 21:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's better to create a new template because things like the ±% column isn't needed, the vote percentage column is also a bit iffy. I would suggest removing that too. What we could have is an overview table for each election which shows the overall position of the parties -- Joolz 00:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Fortnight?
Perhaps we should start up a COTF, by the next election we should have brought up to a decent standard some 105 constituencies ;) -- Joolz 23:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree. Can I suggest the two logical starting points are South Staffordshire (UK Parliament constituency) and Cheadle (UK Parliament constituency) in light of the deferred poll and by-election? Timrollpickering 23:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

1992 election results
I think it is important to point out that there were boundary changes between the 1992 and 1997 general elections - out of 650 seats in existence in 1992, only 103 remained completely unchanged. Therefore many results quoted (on the BBC, for example) are simply notional results and were not the actual results of the constituency. Also a number of seats would have changed name or have been entirely abolished.

There is a complete listing of 1983 to 1992 election results (all three elections were fought on the same boundaries) at this website. It is accurate to the best of my knowledge and the website also contains the 1997 and 2001 results as well as other fun facts. --New Progressive 19:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Tom Normanton
Does anyone know when Tom Normanton first became MP for Cheadle? Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 19:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Angeltowns.com and Psr.keele.ac.uk (long load time - be patient), he was elected in 1970. According to what I have found, Michael Winstanley served as MP from 1966 to 1970, and then served as MP for Hazel Grove from Feb to Oct 1974 (Hazel Grove having been cut partly out of Cheadle). --New Progressive 21:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Infobox II
OK, the previous infobox conversation didn't seem to get us very far, so I've came up with a new one based on those two.
 * I've redesigned the table a bit because I didn't like the way the images were, it looks quite good in safari, I'm not sure about other browsers though.
 * Any ideas for improvement?
 * -- Joolz 09:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've implemented the infobox on the following constituencies: Newbury, North Devon, Brighton Pavilion and Sedgefield to see how it works in action. -- Joolz 11:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has said anything, I'll start implementing it on constituencies I come across. -- Joolz 18:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Graphs
Are there any graphs for constituency results on the Wikipedia? I created one for Cheadle (constituency):

Any ideas for improvement? Repositioning on the Cheadle page?


 * I would suggest dropping the figures from the bottom of the table, they're already on the article after all. I've also moved the graph slightly because it completely clashed for me with the election results, due to that I also made it a bit smaller. PS: the graph is a good idea :) -- Joolz 16:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uploaded CheadleGraph2.png, as before, without table and with slightly thicker lines. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 16:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Constituency names redux

 * (Warning: whine approaching.)

This morning, I thought there was an agreed consensus for what the standard for constituency names should be. By lunchtime, it was abundantly clear that there isn't. If I put anybody's nose out of joint by moving 20-some pages without making an announcement beforehand, I apologise. In my defence, I'm just trying to do the right thing. God, why is that so hard......


 * (Okay, that'll do, you big girl's blouse.)

Right. There are two issues with the naming of UK Parliament constituencies:
 * whether to put "North", "South" etc. before or after town/county/district names;
 * whether to use "(UK Parliament constituency)" in every constituency name, or only use it - or "(constituency)" - to disambiguate those that need it.

My personal instinct is to use the Boundary Commission's names for constituencies, and to pre-emptively disambiguate all constituencies with "(UK Parliament constituency)". However, in an attempt to promote WikiLove, I'd like to stress that it doesn't really matter one way or the other. All that matters is that we have a consistent policy (as we are talking about several hundred articles here), and that everybody agrees on what that policy is. I'm not starting a vote, as I think there's too many votes in this place already, but it'd be nice to get towards a consensus without having another inconclusive 10,000 word debate.

Briefly, then, these are the major points as I see them:

North/South etc.

 * Using the Boundary Commission names ("North" before for counties, after for boroughs) saves us from having to debate the name of any constituency - we can just drop the official names in and have done with it.
 * Both the "North Dorset" and "Dorset North" forms are widespread, and often mixed even within a single news source, so there's no definitive usage we can point to.
 * However, in general usage, the "Dorset North" form is probably slightly more common, and would itself be a consistent form.


 * I thought we'd established a consensus on this one already! As I've said before, I think we should use the correct names. -- Joolz 17:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I'd mention it again just in case anyone still disagrees ;) I've worked up a list of those that still don't match the official names on my user page - there's about 100. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 11:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * On the issue of North Dorset or Dorset North, I care neither way. I use both readily in conversation and both are used by official sources. The ones that do bother me are the "Mid" constituencies, such as Sussex Mid (UK Parliament constituency) - to my knowledge, nobody uses Sussex Mid as the constituency name other than the BBC and its also incredibly unnatural to say. --New Progressive 14:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

 * Generally, it's better not to disambiguate where it's not needed, as it makes the article titles read nicer.
 * A lot - probably over half, and possibly many more - do need disambiguating in some way, including (virtually) every Scottish one.
 * Because there may be constituencies in Canada or elsewhere, past present or future, that clash with UK ones, using the full "(UK Parliament constituency)" disambiguator would give us peace of mind that there aren't any clashes that we don't know about.
 * Currently, around 90% use the full disambiguator, although this shouldn't necessarily be taken as a precedent, as quite a few have been moved back and forth by various people.

So...there it is. There's the entire argument. It doesn't fall down obviously on one side or the other (it doesn't, and neither does the MoS). But it would be nice to agree for the sake of agreement, so that people like me don't go around causing unrest every few weeks.

Thank you for listening. You may now start your engines.

sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 14:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Easy. If it needs disambiguating, disambiguate. If it doesn't then don't. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 16:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I had and have no doubts you were acting in good faith. Two things though:
 * I don't think your interpretation of the previous guidelines was correct. The full suffix was a shortcut to getting all pages made before the election (and I argued against its unnecessary use even then, especially when people misinterpreted it as a guideline to move pages that already existed to the full suffix).  AFAIK nobody ever proposed a guideline to use the full suffix even when it had been checked that there were no other constituencies with the name.
 * Any proposal to introduce a guideline for over-disambiguation even when it is known not to be needed would run against the official policies of not disambiguating when there is no chance of confusion, and no preemptory disambiguation.
 * Joe D (t) 16:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that we should only disambiguate when disambiguation is needed. There should be no pre-emptive disambiguation either.
 * We should use one disambiguation scheme for all HoC constituencies, at the moment we have (constituency) and (UK Parliament constituency) both being used. The first does not disambiguate sufficiently in all cases whilst the latter is ugly. I therefore propse we use either "(westminster constituency)" or "(UK, constituency)" (An example where the second is used is Liberal Party (UK, 1989).


 * Both the disambiguation and Constituency North/North Constituency should be kept separate as they deal with different things.
 * -- Joolz 17:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * IMO, all constituency articles should be located (in order of preference at Foo, next Foo (constituency) , then Foo (Westminster constituency) , and finally Foo (UK Parlaiment constituency) . Further, the last of these (at the very least) should exist as a redirect. Happy? :-) James F. (talk) 20:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think multiple disambiguation tags work, especially when the pages are all on very similar things. It's better to use a single tag for all constituencies that need one otherwise it gets very confusing. Plus it invariably leads to a series of moves as everyone disagrees over just how much is needed. Timrollpickering 12:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should have both Westminster and UK Parliament, but otherwise I agree: no more disambiguation than is needed.  Joe D (t) 13:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm an absolutely-in-favour-of using the full "(UK Parliament constituency)" disambiguator at all times. The basic reason is one of simplicity. As noted above, over 90% of the current constituencies already use it and it has the massive benefit thta we don't need to play guess-and-check as to whether there is no disambig, some redux disambig or the full beast. Yes, it may be longer to enter and there might not be other articles *currently* at the undisambiguated name but we can't guarantee that will always be the case as WP gets larger and larger whereas now that it is there we always know how to create the correct title on a link. Example: yesterday I found that a new MP's "constituency" was linked to the area's name not the constituency. I didn't have to go and check four different possibilities for the constituency page as I *know* what the correct format is. To do anything otherwise would be confusing. --Vamp:Willow 18:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think everybody's in favour of having the full suffix as a redirect anyway, so this shouldn't be a severe problem. Joe D (t) 20:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's been no consensus to move some constituencies, such as Cheadle (constituency) and I doubt we would arrive at a consensus in the future either. -- Joolz 18:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I join those in favour of consistently using the (UK Parliament constituency) disambiguartor always. I know presently that I will always be able to find the seats at these addresses - having one universal format for the constituencies I find to be much more efficient than not having one. I am also somewhat concerned that at some point the Regions of England may be given devolved legislatures much like Scotland and Wales - If divergent constituencies were to emerge, it would be beneficial to already have this sort of explicit disamb. in place. --New Progressive 11:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Does always include disambiguating when disambiguation is not neccessary? We can use redirects for those which don't need disambiguation to help editors out. -- Joolz 12:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poll time?
Well, it seems that the debate has stalled and I'm not sure that we have a consensus, therefore I suggest we take a poll on which is the best option. I'll draft one up in a bit. -- Joolz 16:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A request
At the moment Newbury is missing the results between 1918-1959, and my library doesn't seem to have them. It would be much appreciated if anyone goes to their library at all if they could look them up for me, I will love you forever! or leave you alone (whichever you prefer ;) -- Joolz 14:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've now been able to find the election results myself :> -- Joolz 1 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)

Handling by-elections and defections
I'm not sure if I've missed this elsewhere, but there's some inconsistency on how changes of party are handled when by-elections and defections occurr.

Can I suggest the following:


 * 1) A note on an MP changing party or losing the whip (or a party merging/name changing) should be inserted between the relevant results and also noted on the list, but should not be considered to change the party that holds the seat. (This is standard practice in current UK political science.)
 * 2) When a seat changes at a by-election it be noted as a change. At the general election following a note should be included that party change (and also percentages) are taken from the previous general election, but maybe include additional boxes in the table to show the change from the by-election (e.g. party retains gain, party overturns defeat) and perhaps additional columns to show the vote % changes since the by-election. Is this technically possible?

Timrollpickering June 28, 2005 14:32 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with 2; It certainly makes a lot more sense to show the change from the last election held in the constituency (ie: the by-election) rather than the previous general election. I speculate that places like the BBC don't because of the way they handle the data (they don't make special allowances for the by-elections). -- Joolz 29 June 2005 00:22 (UTC)


 * It seems to stem a lot from current political science practices as well - by-elections are regarded as abnormal polls (and also are a nightmare to work into boundary change notional results) and they distort attempts to show the overall change in the share of the vote. If we can include both sets of data then I think we can handle it both ways - the change from the previous General Election shows how the seat has performed within the national picture; the change from the by-election shows how much that has been a factor. Timrollpickering June 30, 2005 04:30 (UTC)

This project
I've removed the now completed goal of having all constituencies 2005 GE ready. I've instead added two rather generic goals of improving the articles and maintaining a coherent style for them all.

I'm also in the process of altering the progress page so it can be useful now that the general election's over and the 2005 election has been added to all articles -- Joolz 4 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Progress
I've updated the progress page to make it more useful now the election's over. -- Joolz 6 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

Cheadle graph
I've created another graph for Cheadle. Any suggestions for improvements? Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 00:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No suggestions for improvements, but it should have correct license tags! -- Joolz 00:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd gladly release it into the public domain, but I'm unsure whether the election data contained within is PD? Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 00:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think the data contained within in copyrightable, but IANAL! -- Joolz 17:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Constituency names
I'm moving them. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Where? :P -- Joolz 10:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * To the official Boundary Commission names, as I think we agreed before the discussion fizzled out again. I'm leaving the disambiguation suffixes as they are, as I've lost interest in that whole side of the argument. See my sandbox for a list in progress. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 11:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * k, thought I'd just check ;p -- Joolz 20:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Done most of them now, but these few still have history at the target redirect: sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 09:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Derbyshire West (UK Parliament constituency) &rarr; West Derbyshire (UK Parliament constituency)
 * Dorset South &rarr; South Dorset
 * Dunbartonshire West (UK Parliament constituency) &rarr; West Dunbartonshire (UK Parliament constituency)
 * Renfrewshire East (UK Parliament constituency) &rarr; East Renfrewshire (UK Parliament constituency)

New stubs
I've created a new stub type - UK-constituency-stub - because the old one's category (Category:British politics stubs) was getting too crowded. There are 595 constituency stubs (including some scottish constituencies, and EP ones) so there's a long way to go ;) (For the stubs see Category:UK constituency stubs) -- Joolz 20:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Question
A question for participants of this project. What page do you consider "most complete" - i.e. listing as many members of parliament going back as far as possible? I have just obtained a book entitled "A Parliamentary history of Lewes" which lists almost all of the MPs for the borough of Lewes (with a great deal of annotation including electoral results where applicable) from 1295 to 1885 when the borough was abolished to be replaced by the current seat of Lewes. I was wondering if a style guide had been established for this kind of information? BTW I've PDF'd this document, (which was published in 1908 and it therefore out of copyright.) does anyone have a suitable website to host it? Jooler 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would consider a constituency article "complete" when all data/information which is available is in the article, since you have what sounds like a lot of information about Lewes I would consider it complete when all that's on there ;) - it sounds like a couple of subpages might be needed though, a constituency article I consider pretty much complete (ok, I'm biased ;) is Newbury is around 35-40kb, and it's lacking electoral commentary in the early years. Ofcourse, WP:FA would be a proper sign that people consider it complete (although, obviously no article on wikipedia is ever *complete*!). How big are the PDF files, and how many are there? -- Joolz 22:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The original book(let) is very short only 45 pages, I've scanned it in as a set of double pages and so that the files is 23 pages long. The file size is 11mb. Jooler 08:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You could upload it to the commons -- Joolz 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wyre & Preston North
Hey all. Noticed that the proposed new seat of Wyre and Preston North had no page, so have created an entry. Still a newbie on these things so if I have made errors I apologise. Cheers dok 07:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)