Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Geographical information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Scottish electoral areas

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I was always under the impression that ampersands were frowned upon, but according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be careful with special characters 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)
thread_title: '&' and 'and'

message: ===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)
thread_title: Participants' agendas and policies

message: 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)
thread_title: Laurel Bush

message: 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)
replies: text: I am wondering when complete lists of candidates might be available. Laurel Bush 15:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: General Election looming

message: 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)
thread_title: Canadian articles

message: ===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)
replies: text: One will be Western Isles (constituency). Warofdreams 14:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title: Commons and Scottish Parliament constituencies

message: 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)
thread_title: Name (Scottish Parliament constituency)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Identical constituencies

message: 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)
thread_title: Edinburgh South

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edinburgh Pentlands

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Orkney and Shetland

message: 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)
thread_title: Why we should not have separate articles

message: 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)
thread_title: By-election results boxes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Project scope

message: Just thinking of some tasks suggestions:
# Wikilink the constituencies on the list of MPs pages, the articles which exist for any candidates/mps to link to the constituency article
# 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.
-- Joolz 21:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested tasks

message: 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)
thread_title: Project goals

message: Wikinews user Uncle G has pointed out that the list of constituency names at Wikinews: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 Wikipedia: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) — meaning that there will be a use for the Aberdeen North that you have created, just not the use that you gave to it. ☺). 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)
thread_title: Progress page

message: 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)
thread_title: Election results

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Collaboration of the Fortnight?

message: 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)
thread_title: 1992 election results

message: Does anyone know when Tom Normanton first became MP for Cheadle? Dmn / Դմն 19:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tom Normanton]]

message: NewburyCounty constituency                                        	NewburyCounty constituency
{| border=0                                                      	
{| border=0
                                                                  	
Newbury shown within Berkshire, and Berkshire shown within England	Newbury shown within Berkshire, and Berkshire shown within England
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Since nobody has said anything, I'll start implementing it on constituencies I come across. -- Joolz 18:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox II 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Graphs 

message: :(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)
replies: text: *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 →•← 11:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Constituency names redux

message: * 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)
replies: text: *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 →•← 11:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: North/South etc.

message: * 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 →•← 14:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: 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)
thread_title: Poll time?

message: I've created another graph for Cheadle. Any suggestions for improvements? Dmn / Դմն 00:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No suggestions for improvements, but it should have correct license tags! -- Joolz 00:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd gladly release it into the public domain, but I'm unsure whether the election data contained within is PD? Dmn / Դմն 00:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the data contained within in copyrightable, but IANAL! -- Joolz 17:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheadle graph

message: I'm moving them. sjorford →•← 08:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? :P -- Joolz 10:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 →•← 11:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: k, thought I'd just check ;p -- Joolz 20:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Constituency names

message: I've created a new stub type -  - 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)
thread_title: New stubs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You could upload it to the commons -- Joolz 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
thread_title: Wyre & Preston North