Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 3

message: Looking at Harrogate (constituency) and Harrogate and Knaresborough (UK Parliament constituency) it seemed to me that the alteration in 1997 qualifies as a name change rather than the abolition of one constituency and the new creation of another. I have been bold and changed these articles to reflect this, however I think that it might be a good idea to work up a set if guidelines for when a name change is regraded as such and when it should be regarded as creating a new constituency.   JeremyA 22:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This will have to be looked at seriously in time for the next election; there are a lot of changes now the boundary reviews are in thier final stages. Some are just renames - Blaby becomes South Leicestershire for one example from the top of my head - but others are deceptive in that they are completely new seats. Kenilworth and Southam is a new seat, Sefton Central takes bits from Crosby and Knowsley North/Sefton East; and so on and so on. It will take some concentration to get it right! doktorb | words 22:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name changes

message: Could we agree on a standard style for future constituencies?  I propose what I've just done to the Garston and Halewood article, although of course I'd welcome suggestions for improvements.  Key points are:
* Intoductory paragraph: basically the standard used in existing constituencies, but written in the future tense (can be modified to the present tense when the constituency actually exists), with a comment that it has been created following the Boundary Commission's review.
* Boundaries: as for existing constituencies, but mentioning (with links) which current constituencies it replaces.
* No History section (that would be silly!), or Members of Parliament section (as there haven't been any yet).
* Election results: comment that the first election will be held in 2009/10.  No blank results template: doesn't seem much point just yet.
(If there's already a better standard out there, could somebody give me an example and I'll change Garston and Halewood to match!)
Also, does anyone have a list of the brand new constituencies?  Or perhaps someone in the know could mark along the list of all constituencies which are new, which are name changes, which have been left alone, etc.  Then we'd know which articles have to actually be made, as opposed to some redirects, and could see what needs doing more easily!--RFBailey 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created Constituencies in United Kingdom General Election, but it's been moved and I can never remember the new name! It's a list of the new constituencies as and when they are declared by the Boundary Commissions - the next update is set for January 11. The list is all of the seats, with electorate figures as per the Commissions report. I think your suggestions are great, I have already formed a few articles for new constituencies and/or altered/updated those constituencies where only slight tweaks have been recommended.
doktorb | words 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future constituencies (again) 

message: Using RFBailey's template above, I am setting about creating new articles for as many new seats as I can find the time for, starting in a short while with Basildon and Billericay and then moving on as much as I can in one go. Constituencies in United Kingdom General Election has been updated upto the 11 Jan report from the English Boundary Commission. doktorb | words 12:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New articles

message: Which users have access to one of the books (presumably from the FWS Craig series) that list the 1950 election results?
Specifically, could one of you fill in the Brighton Kemptown result for that year and then that constituency will have complete results. --New Progressive 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1950 election results

message: Please see Talk:St Helens South (UK Parliament constituency).  --RFBailey 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: Location of ]]	Location of ]]
Members:      	
Dates:        	
Type:         	House of Commons
County:       	]]
Franchise:    	
Can I raise the issue of the constituency infobox and its application to the Counties, Boroughs and Universities returning members to the unreformed House? I think that in the different circumstances of the time, it would be useful if more relevant information was given. Specifically, there were some Boroughs which were only occasionally invited to return members in the early years but later became constant, so a simple 'year of creation' is not entirely appropriate. Also, the differences in the franchise in the Borough constituencies might usefully be put in an infobox, and some unfamiliar names should be located by county. Finally, the number of members returned by the constituency varied (1, 2, and 4) so could be recorded as well. On the right is an example of what I was thinking of. Any comments? David | Talk 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also be interesting to have an optional parameter, , to indicate the "owner" of various pocket boroughs. Of course, that would vary over time; probably not practical to implement. Looks fine to me. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of disclosing patronage of a seat; maybe it should be in the list of MP's though, rather than the info box - i.e. turning the list into a table, with columns for patron and member. -Neo 15:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Patronage did vary greatly over time. In many cases there were more than one interest in the constituency and who was elected resulted from complex negotiations and struggles. There were often understandings that a patron would nominate for one seat and let the voters choose freely for the other or for two patrons to split the representation. Tensions sometimes got resolved in a contested election. Independent voters (or those so corrupt that they wanted several rich men to hotly contest every election) complicated matters. It was only in the rottenest of rotten boroughs and a few small pocket boroughs that a tabular approach might work, but to know that say the Pitt family returned every member for Old Sarum for generations would probably not add much of value to a table. Information about patronage is really an aspect of the history of the constituency and should probably go in a text section of the article. Similarly I think information like the county, the number of members and qualifications for the electorate (all of which changed over the whole history of the constituencies represented in the unreformed House, which survived into the modern era) should go in text rather than a table. --Gary J 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for places returning members to the unreformed House 

message: For reference, I have created an election box template for the Alliance for Change (UK) party. I know they appear to use sub-titles (Britain in Sin etc.), but independent candidates and some established parties do the same without that being reflected here, or on other results sites [Independent - Best choice for change, Liberal Democrat - Focus Team. that sort of thing]
I've changed the party's entry in the Cheadle and Livingston by-elections. Have they stood anywhere else? doktorb | words 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they stood in three seats in the 2005 general election - I've now linked them. Warofdreams talk 11:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Superb, cheers for that. I wasn't sure how to find them, so glad someone knows of them =) It's not a problem to "lose" the subtitle is it? doktorb | words 12:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked "what links here" on the Alliance for Change (UK) article, then checked I'd covered as many candidacies as appeared on the list of parties standing in the 2005 general election.  It's not ideal to lose the subtitle, but that's inevitable with the method we use.  Like you say, several parties sometimes use suffixes with little relevance.  The AFC ones are supposed to be the actual description provided by the candidate, so it's a bit more of a loss, but there's no quick and easy way around it. Warofdreams talk 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I'd forgotten you could do "what links here". I make things difficult for myself ... doktorb | words 13:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we've got to do what we did with the Liberal Party and SDP if they are in fact different entities, and then just turn the present article into a dab page, though I suspect the 1989 incarnation can simply be merged in with the British Democratic Party. --New Progressive 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliance for Change (UK) 

message: Connected in some way to the above discussion. From what I understand, the BPP (as they are registered), are to stand in future elections. This will mean Election box metadata, but currently the article is shared with historic parties who used the same name. Should I set up the Election box template in any case with the active link going to the British Peoples Party article; or hive off the 2005 section to a separate article and link the Election box template onto that? doktorb | words 17:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've got to do what we did with the Liberal Party and SDP if they are in fact different entities, and then just turn the present article into a dab page, though I suspect the 1989 incarnation can simply be merged in with the British Democratic Party. --New Progressive 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[British Peoples Party]] (2005)

message: Well, it's taken ages and in some cases problems still exist over the full article name (specifically, should (UK Parliament constituency) be added to certain articles)... but the current list of Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election seems to be fully up to date insofar as articles have been created for all "red links". 
The next stage for work from this list will be adding the new wards and/or boundary information for existing constituencies. In some cases I have already started on this (Northamptonshire, Cornwall in full already from memory...) but a lot of work is needed. This project of ours keeps on rolling.... fun, ain't it?! 
doktorb | words 20:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Constituencies....continued 

message: A few weeks ago I began collating the results of the constituency of Lewes and visited the local library. In so doing I discovered that if you are a member of your local authority library, then you are entitled to use the "Times Digital Archive" for free'. This means that you can view every edition of The Times in searchable PDF format from 1795 to 1985 (which of course contains very nearly every election result during this period). This is certainly true in East Sussex and presumably elsewhere. So all you need is a library card and a pin number (for online use) and then you can search The Times archive from the comfort on your own home. In addition you are also entitled to view for free any article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica site and the Dictionary of National Biography. I'm sure you'll all agree that these sites with free access provide an invaluable set of resources for Wikipedians. Jooler 22:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found The Times reports useful as background material. It sometimes helps with losing candidates names (although they do like initials) or explaining events (like what happened in Middlesex in the early nineteenth century when one candidate was unseated on petition and then the new MP was later unseated on a petition brought by the one first unseated). It is also a source which can sometimes throw up material about what fairly prominent public figures did, which can help with biographical articles. However I agree that it is not the primary source for the detailed results of elections. --Gary J 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: I've created metadata for the Social and Liberal Democrats, to be used for the small number of elections that they contested under that name between the merger in 1988 and renaming themselves the Liberal Democrats in 1989.  --RFBailey 21:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social and Liberal Democrats 

message: It really ought to be made clear somewhere obvious (perhaps (United Kingdom constituencies or List of former United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies) that constituencies in the past sometimes returned more than one member. It is also worth noting how that system worked i.e. it was a bit of a stitch-up. It was something I was trying to find out more about a couple of months ago but couldn't find anything on WP. A list somewhere of constituencies which were represented by two members would be nice too. TheGrappler 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done a list of MPs elected in the British general election, 1754, which demonstrates how many seats each constituency had in the unreformed House of Commons (ranging from 0 for the three Scottish counties whose turn it was to be unrepresented up to 4 each for London and the merged boroughs of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis). I could do an article (say Multi member constituencies in the British Parliament) with a table explaining the number of seats per constituency in different periods and how multi-member constituencies worked. I insert a short introduction in the election results section of constituency articles I have done for such seats. I suggest you look at City of London (UK Parliament constituency) for a four seat constituency, reduced to two seats in 1885. Becausae it was getting too long I split the article and produced City of London (elections to the Parliament of England), which gives some historical information about how the City ran its elections in Tudor times. I hope that helps. --Gary J 03:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of representatives per constituency

message: There appears to be metadata for both National Front (UK) ( & ) and British National Front ( & ).
This all ought to be under the same metadata. Anybody wish to make a call on which way to jump? --New Progressive 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while but unless I miss my guess the same is true for ProLife Alliance and Pro-Life Alliance (or Pro *space* Life Alliance..). In this case I'd go for the articles without the British prefix, as the BNP and NF names are more commonly used and are the registered names.. doktorb | words 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National Front Metadata

message: I believe I'm right in saying that the proper title of this constituency is Richmond (Yorks) - as I ok to go ahead and move it, or is there some subtlety I'm missing? — sjorford (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have often thought the article for this constituency was somehow not right, but assumed there had been an earlier agreement to name it "North Yorks" not "(Yorks)". I would move it, given the need to be accurate, but I think there may be a reason for its current place. doktorb | words 14:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Richmond, North Yorkshire (UK Parliament constituency)|Richmond, North Yorkshire]] 

message: http://www.angeltowns.com/town/peerage/commons.htm seems to have stopped working. And so I wonder wether it should still be in links. (Jammydodger 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of 10 May 2006, it's now back up again. Warofdreams talk 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website out? 

message: The Template:Election box metadata used to work simply by posting  on the relevant party's article talk page. I have tried with One London and it doesn't seem to be working at all. Is this a problem with my account or a technical issue?
Cheers doktorb | words 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's now working. Warofdreams talk 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, somebody had blanked the template and it hadn't got picked up by anybody. --New Progressive 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Box Metadata

message: There's a current discussion on naming at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland which may be of interest, in part because of similar issues to those we have encountered, and in part due to the overlap of constituencies before and after partition. Warofdreams talk 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Constituencies in Ireland

message: User:Laurel Bush has added, and after mild unease I am supporting, a new column to the table of Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election. The new column aims to put a very brief description of the changes to each seat.
Despite doing a lot of work on the Boundary Reviews, I do not claim to know every last detail, so if anyone can help with this it may help expand the article in the right direction.
Thanks in advance, doktorb | words 09:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituencies in the next UK general election 

message: According to the Plaid and National Assembly articles, Plaid has changed its party colour to yellow, which I have been bold in changing. It appears the LibDem Election Box Metadata template cannot be altered because of a redirect, but the LibDem colour is very close to the yellow of Plaid, so something will have to be altered.
What can be done to alter the LibDem colour ? doktorb | words 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the colour to another shade of gold. doktorb | words 18:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plaid Cymru 

message: OK, I've done what I can there but I still have missing results for 1945 and 1950. Can someone with access to that information please enter it? Thanks in advance. JJE 19:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should perhaps record here that I did supply the missing results. --Gary J 10:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Orpington (UK Parliament constituency)]] election results 

message: I'm in the process of changing constituencies from North Devon, to Devon North (for example), this will make it easier for people to find the constituency they are looking for. Rob.derosa 05:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DO NOT CONTINUE DOING THIS! You cannot do Cut and paste moves. Ryūlóng 05:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have phrased this reply as "I am in the process of reverting all your edits to the correct name of the constituency, this will make it easier for people to find the constituency they are looking for." ;)  Joe D (t) 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South/North 

message: Please keep in mind that the House of Commons article is not to an article about the House of Commons to which members are being elected from these costituencies. It is an article about Houses of Commons in general, i.e., about Houses of Commons in the UK, Ireland, Canada, and, oddly, North Carolina in the USA.
You can link to the correct article by using British House of Commons, or by piping to that article thusly: House of Commons. I thank you, and readers will thank you for providing a correct link. Ground Zero | t 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking

message: There is a general debate in Wikipedia, with no consensus, about when it is appropriate to list an article in both a category and one of its subcategories.  In my opinion :Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic) does not need to include all the articles in :Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in England, :Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in Scotland (Westminster), etc. Having recently added :Category:Historic Westminster constituencies in Ireland, I am reclassifying the relevant articles, and intend removing them from the supercat.  If there is some good reason not to, let me know quickly.  I couldn't find here any policy either way, and a comment at Category talk:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (historic)#Split up agrees with me. jnestorius(talk) 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic constituencies: Supercat/subcat duplication

message: Now that TheyWorkForYou has released its API, I'm working on creating vector maps for every constituency (see ). Unfortunately, as the ".png" is hard-coded into the template, I won't be able to put them on the articles until they're all done. This should fix a few errors I've noticed, as well, such as the boundary of South Ribble (compare :Image:SouthRibbleConstituency.png with No. 14 on the reference). — Wereon 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked at an outline map, and it seems that Wikipedia rather than the Boundary Commission is right on this one. — 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh - no, the Boundary Commission is right for the seats it has recommended. Wiki currently has the seats as they are currently drawn. These maps and the Boundary Commission hold maps as they will be at the next election. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more that the Boundary Commission has the legal boundaries, spanning uninhabited areas such as the middle of the Ribble and the Irish Sea, whereas Wiki has the effective boundaries, covering just the land. — Wereon 13:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be possible, put it would be very time consuming to do it. You might want to give this web site a go, you may find it relevant to your query doktorb wordsdeeds 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked at this and I can see no correlation between constitiuencies in London or Kent (the areas that I looked at) and the first half of postcodes. Jammydodger 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vector maps 

message: This stub type is rather oversized, at five listings pages.  One possibility would be to split off the "historic" constituencies.  Suggestions welcome at WP:WSS/P.  Alai 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|UK-constituency-stub}} split 

message: I don't want to sound out of turn, but I think this project is looking a bit out of focus recently. My main problem is with page moves occuring without any consultation - why are pages like "Birmingham, Hall Green" appearing as redirects without a mention here? Then we have "Salford and Eccles" accepted as a separate article, but "Wentworth and Dearne" is redirected. 
This, coupled with an insane number of stubs, lack of constitency in results tables, all sums up a project losing its way. 
A certain group of people have worked very hard on these articles, and I am very proud of the work I have done throughout the past few months, but I get the sense that something needs to be done to "tighten up" the way things are done. In three or four years time, or possibly as early as next year, we could have an election to deal with, and I'm not sure we're ready. 
Sorry if this sounds like a rant, I just feel concerned that the project is somewhat wayward. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an answer is to create a standard stub for every constituency and then leave people to fill in the details over time. I jumped in and set something like that up for Irish Parliamentary constituencies, when I first began to do constituency articles and before I was aware of this project. I based myself on what seemed to me to be best practice in this area on Wikipedia, so what I did should hopefully be close to the ideas of members of this project. I did get into some trouble with Irish Wikipedians about the naming of the articles, but I think the basic design of what I did could be used for British constituencies. I will give a direction to one of the Irish stub articles, which no one has done anything much with yet, so people can comment on whether I should do something similar for English constituencies which do not yet have an article. Perhaps it would be helpful to newcomers to include in these stubs say the format for a table of MPs, with the last member for the historic constituency filled in as well as the last election result - so I will add those details to the chosen article. See King's County (UK Parliament constituency). --Gary J 00:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting into focus... 

message: I get the message that dominant (although not unanimous) opinion in this project is that we should use the official names of constituencies and accept some inconsistencies and inconveniences that result. 
The next question is what are the official names? I take it that current constituency names in use by the project have been taken from recent Orders in Council or Boundary Commission reports. Has far back has this been done? I feel that it should be relatively straight forward to find the Acts of Parliament and (more recently) statutory instruments, that defined constituencies created or altered, at least back to 1832 and that this would be better than relying on secondary sources, even relatively high quality ones. I have no particular wish to duplicate work which has already been done, but in the absence of assurances that the names I altered in the list of constituencies were definitely the official ones I may have to check things myself. --Gary J 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I wish to note here is that using official names does not per se preclude sorting them slightly differently.  If the issue is finding things in a list, it could be sorted, like so, perhaps ->
*Bedford
*North Lancashire
*Lancashire West
*Manchester Picadilly
*Reading East
*West Reading
*Southampton Itchen
*North Southampton
*Southampton West
I'm not advocating this idea, I just thought I'd mention it.  Morwen - Talk 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *All we need to make sure is the article names are correct. If the links are made easier, that is fine, but the article names must be the correct names. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving On With Official Names for Constituencies

message: I have a practical suggestion to improve the turnout box in the election results template. At the moment I suspect the votes in this box are supposed to be total votes cast but I prefer to put the registered electorate figure. There is room in the box to add a space for registered electorate (probably to line up with the candidates name spaces). I am not sure I could alter the template and presumably I should not do it without consultation, if I could.
--Gary J 03:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's a bit odd not to have a space for the registered electorate given that we have this statistic for practically all elections since 1832. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turnout Box

message: Not as a vote, but just as an indication of where opinions are at, may I suggesr that it might be useful to ask people where they stand on this question as of now? Just add your sig below the appropriate option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Can anyone help with a definitive answer to the question of when the South Molton constituency was abolished? See the constituency's talk page or a full explanation of the problem (Rayment is self-contradictory here), and I suggest that's the best place to discuss it.  Thanks in advance for any light anyone can shed on this!--BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Warofdreams for clarifying this one promptly. Now sorted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 15:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Molton discrepancies 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Is there any definitive source for the names? :Category:University constituencies in the United Kingdom shows several using a different name form from the institution, although the convention for naming pages on UK universities is the current "brand name" rather than the official name or what's historically been used the most (e.g. it's now "Durham University" not "University of Durham").
Craig's 1918-1950 volume (1922 for the Irish universities) uses the following headers:
*Cambridge University
*Combined English Universities
*London University
*Oxford University
*University of Wales
*Combined Scottish Universities
*Queen's University of Belfast
...but obviously nothing for Dublin, National University of Ireland, Edinburgh and St Andrews or Glasgow and Aberdeen. Currently all the ones on the list above are at those locations bar Queen's.
Since these were historic seats, I think the current university brand should be irrelevant to the article location. But what should we use? Timrollpickering 18:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Queen's University of Belfast#History, the Royal University of Ireland was dismantled in 1908, and the former "Queen's College, Belfast"  was renamed as the Queen's University of Belfast, which still appears to be its oficial name. For constistency, the constituency should also have be called QUoB, but consistency does not appear to have been a priority for those naming constituencies at tne time of its creation in 1918. In the absence to evidence to the contary, I suggest that Queen's University, Belfast (UK Parliament constituency) should be moved to Queen's University of Belfast (UK Parliament constituency) (which is curently a redirect). --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: University names (at lesast for most universities) can be in forms like 'London University' or 'University of London' or 'The University of London'. References to official constituency names for university constituencies are sparser than for other kinds of seat. For example there is no name given in the Schedules to the Representation of the People Act 1918 for Combined English Universities, just a list of the universities covered by the constituency. I would suggest the best thing here is to follow Craig. For the Irish universities not covered by Craig I would follow Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland with Dublin University and National University of Ireland. --Gary J 02:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University seat names