Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 2

message: The progress section of this project lists only current constituencies. I realise that there is still a lot of work to be done on the existing constituencies, but I was wondering if there was any interest in expanding the goals of this project to include historic constituencies. I see three reasons for interest in historic constituencies.
#Consistency of historical information across all areas: some constituencies have existed for a long time and we have results and MP lists back a long way, others have only existed for a short while—surely someone living in a constituency created in 1983 is just as likely to want to know who the MP for their area was in 1885 as someone living in a constituency that was created in 1885. 
#Future-proofing: some of the current constituencies will be abolished and become historic constituencies by the next general election. 
#General Interest: some people just find that sort of thing interesting.
JeremyA (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the project should include all constituencies, old and new, current and former, but the progress page is already pretty big and there are many former constituencies, I think the page should focus on the current constituencies because they're more important, however, there's no reason not to put the historic constituencies on their own progress page (and any of the constituencies which get abolished should be moved there when the time comes) -- Joolz 21:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic constituencies

message: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links is reporting undisambiguated links to West Midlands which should point to West Midlands (county). The links are inside the infoboxes built with the Template:UK constituency infobox template. If the template arguments are simply changed to “West Midlands (county)”, the “(county)” appears in the infobox. If  “(county)” is added to the links in the template, lots of redirects would have to be created, and there might easily be questions about why Essex (county) redirectes to Essex instead of Essex County, or London (county) redirectes to London instead of County of London. There could also be a special version for West Midlands constituencies, or separate county and entity link arguments could be added to the box, which would probably mean updating all constituencies. Incidentally, why is it called “UK constituency infobox” when it specifically for England? Susvolans ⇔ 12:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that's a problem, the easiest way round it is to make another template specifically for the West Midlands, before that's done I better check that no other county needs disambiguation. When I first made the infobox it wasn't going to be specifically for England, but because the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland (and London) ones only use one map that's the way it worked out. The name is still accurate because it's still constituencies for the UK rather than any other subentity. -- Joolz 12:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the best solution is to stop the automatic wikilinking of the Infobox and make users manaully wikilink to the counties. I think if you  removed the auto-wikilinking then the only problem would be that the counties would be unlinked until we can get around to all the infoboxes and fix them up (using piping as needed). Creating another infobox is simply rediculous. :Template:Infobox_Film certainly doesn't automatically wikilink.--Commander Keane 05:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: West Midlands

message: I think that we should subst  into the election box template to prevent any nasty surprises when people decide to play with the prettytable template. They managed to turn it into  earlier today.    JeremyA (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prettytable

message: As fellow boundary "anoraks" will no doubt know already, there are about 550 (ish) constituencies in place for the 2009/10 election - these are those agreed upon by the various Boundary commissions across the country. Whilst I am aware that Wiki is not a crystal ball, these are "set in stone" seats, and with the others soon to follow, I began to create a future constituencies page. This information is taken from the various Boundary Commission pages. 
This is a "work in progess" but throws up some interesting points. One notable constituency chin-stroker for Wiki is Bermondsey and Old Southwark, currently Southwark and North Bermondsey. The boundaries will hardly alter, it's just the name, suggesting a new article could be seen as being unnecessary. I have already started a stub article for a brand new seat, namely Wyre and Preston North, which was done before I became aware of this project page - does this mean other pages can be created for new seats already, or should Wyre... be deleted until the election is called?
One final point - the electorate figures are those given by the Boundary Commmissions, who must work on those figures for the year 2000. These are bound to alter and move in time to come  - I don't know if people would like to see up to date figures but I present the current figures with a big {sic}.
doktorb 18:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have final recommendations I think that this no longer qualifies as crystal ball stuff. For Sheffield, I started a Penistone and Stocksbridge (UK Parliament constituency) article. I think that there is general agreement that name changes coupled with only small boundary changes can be regarded as just name changes, so I created Sheffield South East (UK Parliament constituency) and Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (UK Parliament constituency) as redirects to the current Sheffield Attercliffe (UK Parliament constituency) and Sheffield Brightside (UK Parliament constituency) articles—at the time of the next general election we can simple move the articles and reverse the direction of the redirects.    JeremyA (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an update - the future constituencies page is complete, with the next Boundary Commission update I think due in October. doktorb 13:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Future constituencies

message: I had a modest attempt at creating tables for Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990, since we will undoubtable have a ballot in the next few weeks. I just subst: and then hammered the table we use for constituency elections. Anyone with more skill fancy improving the table/ creating a template/ informing my of an already existing template? Then we can add tables to the other pages with data from . Dmn  € Դմն 11:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative leader elections 

message: Will start today looking through the UK Constituency stubs. There's some easy little tidy ups here and there. Could be worth trying to cut down on incomplete lists and what not too. I'll keep this page updated when needs be. On the Future Constituencies side of things, the next announcement, I think, from the English Boundary Commission is next year; I am going to the public meeting next month with regards to the Greater Manchester proposals. Again, updates when I get them. doktorb 12:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs 

message: The Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election page will be updated on Wednesday/Thursday when the Merseyside region's final recommendations is published doktorb 11:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The next update for ^^^ will be on the 11 or 12 January when all but Greater Manchester is published as final recommondations by the Boundary Commission. Only NornIron and Gtr Manchester will remain after this 11 Jan update. doktorb | words 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituencies in United Kingdom General Election