Talk:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

message: Where are the Manchester constituencies? (Withington, Gorton, Central etc.) unsigned
:The Manchester seats are being shaken up, with a provisional date for revised recommondations for April 2006. The final recommondations should be published around December 2006/early 2007 doktorb | words 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester? 

message: I do feel the article should be at Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election. Also, I am wondering whether there are similar articles (existing, planned or in development) for earlier general elections. Seems to me that, ideally, there should be a series of articles, clearly linked to each other as such. Laurel Bush 17:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article? 

message: Wondering whether the article lists only constituencies which would exist if the next election were called today, or represents changes which can be expected to become definite/effective if the election is still some years away. Laurel Bush 12:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the readers of this article need to understand the way in which constituencies are decided in the UK; the seats currently listed have been agreed as final recommondations by the relevant boundary comissions, and once an order in council has been laid in Parliament, they will be in place for the next General Election. They will NOT be in place until all seats have been agreed and the order in council has been laid; were an election called for next week, only the already agreed upon and fought Scottish constituencies would exist as per the list. The rest of Great Britain/Northern Ireland would be on current (i.e 1997) boundaries. doktorb 08:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Laurel - I agree with your changes but I've tried to make it clear that the size and shape of the constituencies are agreed by the Commission, not Parliament. The final recommondations are decided by the Commissions following public consultation; Parliament can only accept or reject the WHOLE package. Thanks for the work you're doing on my page, other than the page title (which I'm not sure I still accept!) the page looks pretty good now. doktorb 16:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been technically (in three cases) disproved with the exceptions of the Isle of Wight (being split) and Na H'Eilanan an Iar (only being safeguarded as a separate seat) under statutory changes in 2011, thus enacting only part of the package proposed by the Commission and departing from it in fact, so it is Parliament who decides, however by convention no single party-proposed changes are put forward after final recommendations, only cross-party support changes, otherwise this would lead to national bad press, seen as blatant gerrymandering. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How speculative is the article? 

message: Why is Chelmsford in this list? It was abolished in 1997. If the list includes Chelmsford, what else does it contain that is wrong & how much reliance can we place on it? --Tagishsimon (talk)
:Okay. Now I've read the comments above. So Chelmsford is to be reinstated. Ah well. --Tagishsimon (talk)
::Yep - these are the final recommondtions of the 4 Boundary Commissions, as and when they publish their reports. Chelmsford is back !! doktorb | words 13:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chelmsford

message: Electoral Calculus have completed their analysis of the boundary changes in England and Wales. Could their findings please be integrated into Wikipedia please? Their findings show that Labour will instantly have a reduced majority of 20, with the Tories benefiting the most (in fact the Lib Dems will have fewer seats.) David 10:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to merge this in. I agree it should be there it's just a matter of doing it smoothly - please amend if you think you can do better.Alci12 15:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral Calculus 

message: Today the Boundary Commission released their update for Manchester. New articles will have to be created for "Blakeley and Broughton"; "Worsley and Eccles South" and "Salford and Eccles". 
Only Norn Iron is left to wait upon. doktorb | words 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're missing a Northern Ireland one: Antrim North is not here. I know there is a proposal to rename it "Antrim Coast & Glens", but without it this whole list is incomplete. (If you count them, there are 649 not 650 on the list!). Shouldn't it go back in? Tobycek 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost all done ! 

message: Is it just one Birmingham seat lost? According to Birmingham there are currently eleven Birmingham seats. Laurel Bush 09:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, read the Boundary Commission's report on the changes in the West Midlands, and you will see there has been the axing of one Birmingham seat. doktorb | words 09:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. Laurel Bush 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify - there are currently 11 and will be 10 seats for the City of Birmingham council area but one of those is (and will be) Sutton Coldfield, which doesn't appear with the other Birmingham constituencies in the alphabetical list for obvious reasons. Esquimo 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just one Birmingham seat lost? 

message: Could we get a per-county summary of the numbers of seats: saying basically "Singles seats were deleted from Greater Manchester, West Midlands and Somerset, Warwickshire were given one extra seat" - type thing. Morwen - Talk 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Not sure of the best place to say this - but the official names for the new constituencies are given in the statutory instruments as linked to at the top of the article, not whatever the ONS has decided to call them. I feel the primary source should be the name used (and are indeed the names used by Wikipedia titles - the page is correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton-under-Lyne_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29 not Ashton under Lyne.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracos (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about punctuation? Incidentally, the way to link to Wikipedia articles within Wikipedia is to enclose the article name in square brackets, e.g., typing Ashton-under-Lyne produces Ashton-under-Lyne. -Rrius (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the bad link. Mostly punctuation (though I think hyphens in a name could be argued to be more). The Wikipedia style guide says just be consistent regarding periods, and so given the individual page names and the Statutory Instruments, I've removed them, along with the couple of "and"s and the Ashton name. Hope that's okay. Dracos (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: From midnight on Tuesday 13th September 2011 the proposed boundary changes for parliamentary constituencies in England will be published. Is there anything that this page requires to be altered ahead of the proposed changes, Please note the changes being  announced are only provisional and are subject to change. Proposed Changes to parliamentary boundaries in Scotland, Wales and Northern will be announced at later dates. I don't recommend anything specific be added on the page yet to reflect the 2013 review but I will leave that up to the rest of you to decide but I do strongly recommend that as a result of the 2013 review all references to the 2006 review of parliamentary boundaries across be now removed from this as that information is no longer needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOTORAL1987 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While the academic enthusiasm for mass-noting of these complex minor changes was well-founded, by Parliamentary frames of reference they kept a degree of malapportionment for NI, Scotland and Wales and the recommendations have been shelved for the time being. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 Review of UK Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries! 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 19:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I have just identified some unaltered constituencies under the new heading "Boundary changes". I am thinking it would be useful to have info under this heading more or less of the kind under "Notes" in Former United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. (The latter Notes, however, are very variable in quality and reliability.) Laurel Bush 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This led to approx. 60% complete collaborative content for the period when changes were planned with the largest changes summarised to help most of the small % of electorate affected, all written in the present tense e.g. "loses part to x and y" or "loses Brompton to ...", however has been as per other changes carefully incorporated to individual articles, which has been accomplished by various editors, such as me, since your helpful comment of 2006. This has resulted in the Fifth PRWC (since the first in 1950) information being available to the affected small minority of voters, well done. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundary changes 

message: Maybe we could add a column, or colour, denoting the Party that holds the seat now? Just a thought, but it would help for clarity, and would be sortable. --RobNS 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment, unopposed to date, has helped to inform my intended edit of today's date: an excellent idea.  Colour-coded with key will work best and give the Americans, French and Germans a run for their money in their own articles on the subject of national chamber country divisions. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Rethought and tempered to something a little less extreme.  As the boundaries are separate from who wins them and often have a long, occasionally socially interesting history, even prompting the original main editor to add a column attempting to detail each change, this article is the apolitical version.  The idea of describing the changes and doing them justice is virtually impossible and diversionary from the main content i.e. whether there is any perceived or actual malapportionment
A link to the colourful, political one List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 is now given, as is the correct constitutional format which is to say all constituencies are legally equal and legally to one institution.  This should be ranked higher than the expediency of undertaking separate boundary reviews, on an increasingly frequent basis since the reforms of 1987 and 1992, by country naturally.  The default order of the table created is by country to permit boundary commission analyses to continue be made on a logical basis however this I suggest is wide open to debate. Adam37 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Parties? 

message: At Talk:Opinion polling in United Kingdom constituencies, 2010-5, I think we have identified reasons for a couple of new columns.  Firstly, a column for the region, and secondly a column that will allow quick and easy spotting of whether a constituency is listed at  that page.  I think this is a suitable venue for both.  DrArsenal (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra columns?   

message: Several constituencies list "Humberside" as the largest local authority.  But Humberside has not been a local authority since 1996 - it was split into the four unitary authorities of Kingston upon Hull, East Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire.  Some constituencies reflect these new names (Brigg and Goole for example) but others don't.  (And Cleethorpes, oddly, says Lincolnshire despite being NE Lincs to my knowledge.)  Did the rest ought to be updated?  83.100.130.80 (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humberside 

message: I don't understand what's happening here. I think it may just be me being a little bit picky, but should the electorate list be in alphabetical order by its named constituency? If you have a link which lists the constituencies in alphabetical order rather than by which non-sovereign state it is in, I would be much grateful. (Once you have given a link, you can later delete this section.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.7.23 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabs 

message: Adding this information would make this list considerably more interesting.  At present there is nowhere on Wikipedia that compares Parliamentary Constituencies by size.  Also having the electorate size three times for the last three elections is pretty irrelevant considering boundary changes etc.--109.246.154.9 (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List sortable by Size? 

message: Surely the electorate number should only be from the last election (2017)? What relevance does the number of people on the electorate in 2000, nearly 20 years ago, have today? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electorate? 

message: At Brecon in the last couple of days I heard the assertion that Brecon and Radnor is the largest constituency in England and Wales by area. This seemed an interesting statistic to check, but wasn't included in this article, though this seems the logical place for any such figure to be given. I've added largest and smallest in UK from the parliament website, but I can't find a source for Brecon and Radnor apart from the previous MP saying so in his maiden speech - likely to be reliable, but another source would be good. Does anyone know of a listing of constituencies by geographical size? PamD 18:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The ONS gives three values for each constituency for the land: gross; net of inter-tidal; and net of lakes, reservoirs etc. AND inter-tidal. And the MP was wrong; Penrith is about 3% larger. I've tried to add these figures to the page, but other than copying and pasting 650 values, I can't see how to do it. I can't see how to add a column to a table. The ref. is https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/search?collection=Dataset&sort=name&tags=all(PRD_SAM_ELE) and I've refined it into four sheets of a spreadsheet, so if anyone can do the edit and wants to, I'll provide it (or go to the ONS page, if you like). Nick Barnett Nick Barnett (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical area 

message: What is the point of splitting them up by country? It makes the data harder to read.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.120.191.60 (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They each have a different ratio applied by a different Boundary Commision. Broadly speaking England has larger ones while the less densely populated ROUK is allowed greater leeway. Kebs Zelki (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are they split by country? 

message: Shouldn't this be United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies per both WP:COMMONNAME and also the official usage ()? "Parliament constituencies" seems to be a usage particular to Wikipedia and is grammatically hard to justify.----Pontificalibus 07:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: This would be a lot of work, so proposing it here first to see if anyone is going to object!
We have List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election but this is not the same as a list of current MPs,  as far as I can see there is no Page on Wikipedia which lists all current members of the British Parliament! which is daft..  I think this would be an appropriate place to do so.  Clearly the current sitting member for a constituency is very relevant information. 
A list of current members of parliament will have so much overlap with this article, that it would be a little odd to try and maintain both.   Any thoughts? Objections?  
a. A new column title "Member of Parliament"
b. Text to be Members Name (Members Party or Independent) (as per the 'Constituency' template)
JeffUK (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I Mentioned that above..  List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election is not a list of current MPs; it's a static list of the people who won in the last GE which is not the same thing.  JeffUK (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It indicates byelections and defections so it isn't static. Your column duplicates a list we already maintain. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

text: You're right, that's the better place to start, thanks JeffUK (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the initial observation that the List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election is not a list of current MPs; however I don't think this article is the appropriate article to include the current MP - we should have a separate article for this.  List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) does not do this at it still includes MPs who have died or resigned since the 2019 general election. This discussion is pertinent to the discussion on merging the current 2 articles (Talk:List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election#Merger proposal), which seems to have petered out without a conclusion. I have added my thoughts to this discussion. JSboundaryman (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I add a column for Current Member?