Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 4

message: Royal Tunbridge Wells (UK Parliament constituency) was a redlink, so  have just created it as a redirect to Tunbridge Wells (UK Parliament constituency).
This appears likely to be a straightforward 1983 renaming, so I have noted that in the Tunbridge Wells (UK Parliament constituency) article.  --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Royal) Tunbridge Wells 

message: Three CFDs are curently underway relating to classifying MPs.  These may be of interest to those editing constituency articles: see Category talk:British_MPs#Three_CFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three CFDs 

message: Fys, thanks very much for the figures above: I think that they do give us enough to go on.
You're right that it's clouded by the franchise change, though that itself isn't a prima facie reason for a split (because it affected all constituencies), just something which clouds calculations.  I'll try to tot them up anyway, acknowledging the fuzziness:
*Knightsbridge Ward; assume 1/3 of population were voters (probably generous), so say 2,500
*Belgravia and Chelsea: would 500 be a reasonable guess?
*Chelsea Barracks: lets be generous and say 1,500
*Hanover sq burial ground: say another 250 (beng generous)
*Hanover sq parish: no estimate, but guess 1,000
*Business voters removed: say 500 (complee guess)
*Total of the above: 6,250. (very rough figues, of course)
Those are of course very rough guesstimates, erring (I think) on the side of generosity.  But it amounts to over 20% of the 29,080 electors in the constituency in 1918, so I think you have proven your case, and I would now favour a split.  What do others think?
BTW, I hope that much of the details you have posted here can be incorporated in the articles.  Thanks to all your detailed sources, we have the makings here of a remarkably complete boundaries section on what I think will be two excellent articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can draw up any number of our own criteria for judging whether a constituency changed its boundaries and/or was renamed, or whether a new constituency was created.  The discussion above seems to have been productive in doing so.  For me, the key question is how observers, at the time or since, have seen it.  Fys' evidence suggests that they saw this change as the creation of a new constituency, not a renaming and boundary change, so I support the split. Warofdreams talk 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The split seems reasonable. As WarofDreams says, the main factor is how people at the time saw it. And in this case they saw it as a new creation. So I too would support it. Galloglass 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case for split seems to be proven

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I have a file of geographical data on each constituency in Great Britain that I want to merge into the corresponding Wikipedia articles. (Unfortunately it doesn't include Northern Ireland.) However, I want to get people's views on this before I go ahead and request a bot to do a mass update of the 600-odd articles.
The file contains, for each constituency, the following data:
* Latitude and longitude of the centre
* Area in square kilometres
* Latitude and longitude of the northern, eastern, southern and western ends
* The number of parts. (This is how many separate land areas the constituency covers - most are just in one part, but some, such as Orkney and Shetland have a huge number of parts because of all the islands.)
(I've done a few sample checks and the data looks correct.)
I think obviously the latitude and longitude of the centres and the area are the most useful pieces of information. Perhaps the best place for the latitude and longitude would be at the top right such as I've done for Brighton Pavilion. Perhaps the best place for the area would be the UK constituency infobox. 
As for whether the latitude and longitude of the northern, eastern, southern and western ends nad the number of parts are actually of value, I'm not sure.
I think a small amount of data cleansing would be required (which I'll just do myself) to match the names of the constituencies with the names in my file. (I don't want to make work for the person that will create the bot). Is someone able to come up with a list of the constituencies' article names to help me match things up properly? If so, it would help a lot - just pasting it onto my Talk page would be fine.
So: any ideas/views/recommendations? --A bit iffy 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently doing an index relating official names of constituencies to the names of articles. However I am doing this for all seats back to 1707 and many of them have had different boundaries at different stages of history (not to mention the problems caused by changing names and boundaries of local government units used as building blocks at different redistributions). I presume you need a list of the articles relating to the current constituencies (or the ones to be contested at the next election?) rather than all of them. Please clarify which data you need. If you want to check if what I am doing might be helpful to you see Official names of United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies in England and UK Parliament constituencies in England/Index of Articles. I have done all the English official names and the index for English articles A-F so far. --Gary J 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The constituency names I need are the Wikipedia article names for current constituencies, so they're ones in UK Parliament constituencies in England/Index of Articles (thanks Gary - I hadn't come across that page). The reason for wanting this is to map the Wikipedia article names to the names as given by TheyWorkForYou's API (on which my data is based), so that I can then hand my file over to some that can do the necessary bot. (I don't want to subject the bot writer to do work that he/she should not be expected to do (marrying up TheyWorkForYou names and article names). Probably I'll just wait till the rest of that page is done and then have a go at this. One problem I can see, however, is that it's not obvious how to get hold of a list of only current constituencies's article names.--A bit iffy 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical data

message: I propose we adopt the methodology the Association of Cricket Statisticians used to draw up a generally agreed list of first class cricket matches. If it worked for a community of notoriously opinionated individuals, then it should help our relatively small group of Wikipedians.
The first step would be to draw up a List A of constituencies which present no problems. There are a large number of constituencies which had the same name throughout, where there is no dispute what that name was and the period or periods it covers. There would also have to be no other constituency name which is the same or sufficiently close to possibly cause confusion.
The second thing would be to draw up a List B cntaining the potential problems. The advantage of looking at the whole universe of constituencies in one process, is that similar cases can be identified and addressed as a bloc rather than our community getting hung up on each individual case and reaching inconsistent decisions (as we have been doing).
Ultimately it is more important that we are generally agreed than that we reach any particular decision. We can then put our energy into creating and improving the articles, rather than arguing about what the articles should be called and what each should contain.
I had intended to raise this idea when I had finished the large project on constituency names and existing articles I am currently in the middle of. However having come here, after a few months since my last visit, I see that there is a need for an agreed, systematic approach now.
I look forward to comments, to see if it is felt that my suggestion would be useful. --Gary J 10:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The straw poll above indicates quite clearly that a standard for constituency names has been debated and agreed. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Gary, I cannot find the article at the moment but there already exists an "official names of UK constituency" article. As for a list of naming conventions, we use the names as agreed by the Boundary Commissions, and all articles have the "UK Parliament constituency" suffix. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As Doktorbuk has already said above Gary, we have discussed this into the ground on several occasions and the current formula is what has been agreed. By all means re-open the discussion but please read what has been said on the several earlier discussions first as its no fun for the rest of us to go over the same ground again and again. Thanks Galloglass 16:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the belated reply, but just a quick note to say that I think that this is an excellent idea.  We have reached a fairly clear consenus on most of the major issues of naming, but I have no doubt that a list will throw up a few glitches.  It's not a small task, but if you have heb energy, Gary, good luck!  I don't think that many of us would have the energy to rehash the issues discussed before, but it'll be very useful to review how our current approach works in practice and see whether any tweaks are needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Constituency names and articles - A more systematic approach?

message: I have tried to re-move Ealing Southall from its current article name (which has a comma) but I have been blocked from doing so. Can someone fix this? doktorb wordsdeeds 12:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Warofdreams talk 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ealing, Southall 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-11-20/Technology report has some discussion on the new 
class "wikitable sortable" facility, which (unsurprisingly) allows tables to be sorted by the user. It doesn't yet seem to work very well (see Bradford North (UK Parliament constituency)#Members_of_Parliament), but if development continues, it could be very useful for he lists of MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done my best to fix the feature, but it's not a very attractive result.  The problem is that it doesn't allow for colspan arguments.  In some tables, it already works ok - see (for example) President of the Trades Union Congress. Warofdreams talk 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable tables 

message: I have spotted another little nuance.  Mid Kent (UK Parliament constituency) (1983-1997) and Mid Kent (historic UK Parliament constituency) (1868-1885) are split, contrary to our usual practice of combining them.
I was about to jump in and combine them, but then spotted that Mid Kent (historic UK Parliament constituency) had usefully been given a lot of geographical categories which would not apply to the newer seat.  This strikes me as being a useful benefit, so I have held back so far from merging them ... But but but but but
The split between xxx (historic UK Parliament constituency) and xxx (UK Parliament constituency) is a difficult one to manage, because it greatly increases the possiblity of  misdirected links.  If we are going to split that way, I'd much prefer the two constituencies to be called something like "(new UK Parliament constituency)" and "(historic UK Parliament constituency)", so that xx (UK Parliament constituency)" could be a dab page.  That would be clearrer to readers, and allow the use of popups to separate the two sets of incoming links.
However, this all seems to me to be getting over-complicated.  The same situation could be crtaed for all those article nmaes where a 2-seat 19th century constituency had the same name as a samler 20th-century single-member seat.  So if we take Mid Kent as a precedent, then logically we should be prepared to split all the other "north/south/east/west/ county" seats.  I thonk this would get horribly messy.
Also, when I thought about this, there are a lot of other constituencies where the same problem could be created: e.g. Newcastle upon Tyne North (UK Parliament constituency), where there was no overlap between the pre- and post-1983 boundaries.  And when I think about the city where I live,  I can see that many of the districts have been included in several difft constituencies over the years.
So I conclude that very precise geographical categories won't work for constituencies unless we create a new article after each boundary change, which would be a nightmare.
On that basis I think that Mid Kent (UK Parliament constituency) (1983-1997) and Mid Kent (historic UK Parliament constituency) (1868-1885)  should be merged after all, and the categories trimmed.  Any other thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 16:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The norm for what has been done so far is for the larger pre-1885 and smaller post-1885 constituencies of the same name to be included in one articles. There are far fewer split articles than combined ones of this kind. It really seems to me that the casual consumer of these articles would find it easier to have one article per constituency name. --Gary J 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think on all of these it has to be 'case by case' approach rather than any single set of general rules. Where there is clear 100% geographic continuity such as Anglesey and the Western Isles or 100% name continuity such as Cambridge and York, even though the boundaries have changed greatly over the years, then in these cases it should all be in one single article. Apart from these we need to take a long hard look at each one and decide on the individual merits of each case. If this does involve us having a certain lack on consistency overall then so be it. The important thing is to be 'accessible and informative' to the casual reader as well as those using the information for research purposes. Where we do choose to keep one article through several name-changes, then that MUST be made clear within the body of the text. Preferably in a prominent position. Galloglass 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, I am suggesting combining City of York with York Central. Galloglass 18:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: York is tricky because of the significant name changes (York --> City of York --> York Central). I think in the context of the recent boundary review, with York Outer/York Central being such a large change, there is a case for keeping York Central separate from the existing City of York article. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Point taken. Yes you're probably right that its a bad idea to join them. It would create a certain amount of confusion. Maybe worth looking at joining after the seats are revised again but thats for the far future. Galloglass 14:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid Kent: A reason to keep the split? or maybe not 

message: I want to get our articles on UK members of the European Parliament up to scratch (many are missing even a stub). As part of that, I've noticed there are no lists of MEPs by constituencies, unlike the MPs. However, I'm loath to create individual articles on European Parliament constituencies because most of them only lasted for one election. Instead I propose to include them by region post 1999. See User:Sam Blacketer/EP constituencies for a guide. Does this look like the better way to do it? Sam Blacketer 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds fine Sam. By region is probably the only way to approach it consistently really as they do change to a great degree. I'd suggest you do one complete page up first and post it for comments to agree the final layout. Cheers Galloglass 11:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The European constituencies deserve a sub-project of their own, it is saddening to think the results are currently so scrappy on Wiki...I think when tidying up the history on Preston I linked to Central Lancashire and got a red link at the time...doktorb wordsdeeds 12:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having written the biography of the MEP for Central Lancashire I have to doubt that any really comprehensive treatment can be made about individual constituencies. Unlike Parliamentary constituencies, which can become famous through having a celebrated MP, or a particularly interesting election, the EP constituencies had practically no resonance with their voters. Sam Blacketer 12:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think you're absolutely right on that. If I can help, I'll gladly do so. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There appears to be a list here of the Parliamentary constituencies which made up the EP constituencies, which could be used as a source. As I put on the working page, several of the constituencies cross between regions. However, if the object is to include election results, then there may be a case for making separate articles or for finding a different way of grouping the EP constituencies. Sam Blacketer 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the kind of article I can see for the European results - "North West European Parliamentary constituencies", then sections for each constituency within that region "Central Lancashire was a constituency which contained the parlimentary constituencies of X, Y, and Z..".  doktorb wordsdeeds 16:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Parliament constituencies 

message: Of interest to anyone here: the Fifth Periodical Review of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England will be published on 26 February - see . If it's anything like the last one, buying a copy will be expensive but worth it. Sam Blacketer 23:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth Periodical Review 

message: A plug for the article =) I have not been looking at this for a while now, but I know there remains some work to be done to fill in the gaps. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest news from the Boundary Commissions is that Scotland reported in 2004; Wales reported in 2005; England has completed and will be formally reporting on 26 February; and Northern Ireland has postponed everything until after the council ward boundaries are revised. The English report will hopefully contain comparison maps for current and recommended constituencies (it did in 1995) which helps explain what is going on. I'm also trying to get hold of a copy of the "Media Guide to the New Parliamentary Constituencies" (see here) which will help. Sam Blacketer 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really want to get hold of both of those =) I am surprised about the Norn Iron decision, that may well delay their changes until after the election itself, surely?  If there's anything that can be done to this article in the mean time, I will try and get back into helping but maybe it would be best to wait until the books arrive. Actually, in the back of my mind is the fear that we will have to alter this article into counties/UAs for ease, but maybe that can wait....doktorb wordsdeeds 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election]] 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007#Constituency split on splitting articles on Assembly election constituencies out of those on UK Parliament constituencies, which may be of interest to some participants here. Warofdreams talk 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Ireland constituencies

message: There are currently 36 articles listed at WP:MWA#UK_Parliament_constituencies that might be of interest to this project. --Sapphic 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MWA]] updated 

message: Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox flag straw poll 

message: The "historic" stub type is now oversized:  I've proposed we start splitting those by nation and region, starting with the Ireland ones.  Alai 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another stub split 

message: Kelly Martin is proposing an experimental Requests for Adminship criterion:Endorsement by a wikiproject. 
So my very simple question here: Please state on the RFA page whether or not Sam Blaketer is doing a good job on this wikiproject. 
--Kim Bruning 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you expecting a consensus view from the project?  Or the views of individual participants?  While I've already supported Sam's RfA, this sounds a rather odd proposal - I certainly wouldn't want to see long arguments on various WikiProjects over whether participants are doing a good job for every RfA. Warofdreams talk 03:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer]] 

message: I was looking for a bit of feedback on the above list with a view to WP:FLC, and this seemed like a more-or-less appropriate place.  Comments welcome.
By a side wind, I have also created Barking by-election, 1994 today to complete our by-election coverage back to (but not including) 1991.  It is my first attempt at one of these, and is based heavily on Rotherham by-election, 1994, so, again, comments welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barking by-election, 1994 looks good to me.   BTW, we are now missing only 4 by-elections from the 1987-1992 parliament: see List of United Kingdom by-elections#50th_Parliament_.281987.E2.80.931992.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Blair Babes]]

message: Following on from the discussion of party colours, there is a broader issue upon which I would like to know the consensus view. The movement from a no organised party system of connections and factions to an organised two party system might be said to have taken place over a very long period (1789 to 1859 might arguably be the 'Age of Realignment'). To adopt an American useage there was a realignment of political forces which gave rise to a new party system. Fred Craig chose to adopt the classifications of Conservative and Liberal from the 1832 election, no doubt to make life simpler for him as they were the terms used during most of the period he covered. I have tended to adopt the convention of using Tory/Whig before the 1832 election and Liberal/Conservative thereafter; but I appreciate this is an oversimplification and other members of the project have taken a different view of the issue.
We perhaps need a series of 'official' project decisions about when the key changes took place. On the right wing of politics (to use a French Revolutionary metaphor) I agree that the Pittites were essentially a new party drawing upon elements of both the Whig and Tory traditions in British politics, which adopted the same name as the 17th and 18th century Tory Party after the period in the second half of the 18th century when the traditional party labels had become almost entirely meaningless. The nineteenth century Whig Party had a somewhat stronger link to the Whig tradition, as a combination of the Foxite and Grenvillite Whig factions but could also be seen as an essentially new party.  
John Wilson Croker coined the term conservative in about 1830. It was gradually adopted by Tory politicians, but can we identify a specific date when it became official? Whig/Liberal is a similar but simpler problem. Although the Whig leasder Lord John Russell referred to himself as a Liberal in the 1840s and the newer term was gradually adopted for Whig and Radical politicians; it seems to be generally accepted that Liberal became the official term adopted by Whig, Radical, Peelite and Irish Independent supporters of Palmerston in 1859. If we are going to adopt an official date (other than 1832) for the Tory to Conservative/Whig to Liberal changes then presumably we should say 1859 is the date for non Conservatives to all be called Liberals. --Gary J 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule when it comes to the Tory/Conservative tag I have gone with 1841 as the dividing date. With Whig/Liberal tags I have gone with 100% Liberal from 1859 and 100% Whig prior to 1832. For the intervening period I generally tag the Radicals as Liberals and the Aristocratic & Rural element as Whigs. Galloglass 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whig/Liberal is the easiest if we take the 1859 meeting as the point of change. For Tory/Conservative I reckon Peel's first ministry is the best changing point so December 1834 is probably the best single date. Everything before that gets messy - a lot of politicians called themselves "Whigs" in much the same way as the right in the French Third Republic used "republican". There is a sense of continuity for the Whigs through Newcastle, Rockingham and Fox but with other Whig groups in circulation and everything else it gets very cloudy. Timrollpickering 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Party labels before (say) 1859'''

message: See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 16#Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed renaming of national subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament 

message: Does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal, which seems to have stalled? Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June#GB-MP-stub.  Your comments would be welcome! --14:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub-sorting MPs 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes#Similar colours and inconsistencies for suggestions on modifying various party colours. Timrollpickering 13:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party colours 

message: Council areas grouped by the Fifth Review
Dumfries and Galloway
Scottish Borders
180px
South Lanarkshire
There must be a better way of doing what I have to the left. Is anyone capable of merging the three maps into one?
The group of council areas is covered by six constituencies:
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfries and Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow Lanark and Hamilton East Rutherglen and Hamilton West
with Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale covering parts of all three council areas. 
Other council areas are grouped as follows:
Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire
Angus and Dundee City
Clackmannanshire and Perth and Kinross
East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire
Falkirk and West Lothian
Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands
The Orkney and Shetland grouping is ancient, however, dating from 1708.
Laurel Bush 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created :Image:ScotlandDumfriesGallowayBordersSLanarks.png.  Would you like maps for the other groupings? Warofdreams talk 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the maps are all now available in commons:Category:Maps of unitary councils of Scotland. Warofdreams talk 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups of council areas, Fifth Review, Boundary Commission for Scotland  - maps wanted 

message: It seems that we have a lovely descriptive, intelligent format for our election boxes, is there any possibility of someone being able to write a bot to do some of the more boring housekeeping tasks... for instance I've just added a lot of election results to the Isle of Wight page, and the changes weren't in my source so those would be a useful task, other things could be adding a turnout in terms of votes (by summing the vote counts) or something. --Neo 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Bot? 

message: Am having a few problems with the info box for this candidate in the Ealing by-election. I've had to enter him as an Independent but the 'Christian Party' appears to be a fully recognised political party as the description has been used on the statement of persons nominated: [] Could someone with the appropriate skills create a box that will work in that format. Thanks. Galloglass 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yaqub Masih

message: I am busy using expressions like burgh of Aberdeen because I dislike seeing a constituency article which uses eg both Aberdeen and Aberdeen, perhaps in the same sentence, but maybe I am going down a wrong road. I imagine my dislike would be better catered for by moving constituency articles to addresses like Constituency of Aberdeen (UK Parliament). Laurel Bush 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem which Laurel identifies, but surely it is surmountable by piping the links? e.g.: Aberdeen was a constituency in Aberdeen, where the local football club is AberdeenThis should be rewritten as The Aberdeen constituency was in the city of Aberdeen, where the local football club is Aberdeen F.C.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or The Aberdeen constituency was in the city of Aberdeen, where the local football club is Aberdeen F.C.? (Actually, however, the Aberdeen constituency was divided to create Aberdeen North and Aberdeen South before the city was created.) Laurel Bush 11:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope you don't mind me pitching in again, but since we started (grin!), I think it would be a bad idea to include a separate link to the city status in that sentence: it's not really relevant information in discussing the constituency, and would likly distract the reader. I suggest that it would be better left as a link within the article on the city of Aberdeen (or town of Aberdeen if that's more accurate). If city status was relevant to the discussion of the constituencies, then it would be clearer to write the town of Aberdeen (which was granted city status in [year]). HTH!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Constituency boundaries are often defined in reference to borough (or burgh) and city booundaries, and, in an article about constituencies, these terms seem more appropriate than town. Anyway, my main point is that my own syntax might be a lot might be less contorted if constituency articles opened with "The constituency of ...". Laurel Bush 09:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the two articles should certainly be merged - it creates a quite unnecessary tangle to get hung up on variations or permutations in the "official" names or order of names which are likely to be only confusing to the general reader. Especially since the Press Association version of the 1997 name was different again (Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine), which since it is almost invariably used by the media is probably what most people will search under. "West" and "Western" (and the corresponding terms in other directions) are being regarded as interchangeable in other constituency articles, and it is quite likely that on occasion the old Kincardine and West(ern) Aberdeenshire seat was referred to as West(ern) Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. There are other constituencies where even the official order of names within a single period is frequently ignored - the PA name for Torridge and West Devon, for example, is Devon West and Torridge. If we were to follow a strict rule of separate articles for a change in the order of the names there would need to be separate pages for North Luton (1983-97, county constituency) and Luton North (1997-date, borough constituency), which would be ludicrous. Rgmmortimore 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Should there be separate pages for Medway (UK Parliament constituency) and Rochester and Strood (UK Parliament constituency)? (The latter is basically a micro adjustment to fit ward boundaries with the name changed because "Medway" is now identified with the larger unitary authority). Timrollpickering 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it really has to be two separate pages even though they are almost identical. Combining them onto the one page would cause confusion to the casual user and we have been using a name basis to sort them so combining two different named seats onto one page would make for complications. Galloglass 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The more I look at this stuff, we need one constituency name per article, and one article per constituency name. The exceptions we have agreed relate to treating involve treating the 19th century county divisions as the being the same name as the differently-structured 20th-century names (e.g. "Southern Division of Borsetshire"/"Borsetshire Southern" is included in the same article as the current "South Borsetshire); but I'm not sure whether we have fully resolved what to do with constituencies which gained or lost a borough prefix (e.g. is Camberwell Dulwich the same as Dulwich).However, where a constituency's name clearly changes, as with Medway/Rochester and Strood, I think that there should be separate articles even if the boundaries are identical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One or two pages 

message: The colour of the Scottish Liberal Democrats has recently been changed to give two differing shades for the National Party and the Scottish one. I would appreciate it if people would give their thoughts on this in the discussion I have started on the above talk page. Thanks. Galloglass 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections then I will revert to the original colour that is used nationally for the Liberal Democrats. - Galloglass 08:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see absolutely no reason for the Scottish state party of the Liberal Democrats to be given a different colour to the Welsh state party and the Party in England. The Liberal Democrats have a federal party structure, but there is no need to distinguish between candidates in the different parts of the UK. Accordingly I agree with the proposal to revert to the same colour throughout the UK. --Gary J (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Scottish Liberal Democrats|Scottish Liberal Democrats Metacolour]]

message: Does anyone else have any references that might help at Talk:Dunfermline Burghs (UK Parliament constituency)#Name_confusion.2C_and_date_of_abolition?
Laurel Bush has a god ref, but it feels wrong. Maybe I am wrong, but I'd be welcome other assessments.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming and abolition of Dunfermline Burghs 

message: Sands was a 19th century visitor to several of the more remote Scottish islands including St Kilda and Papa Stour. He is variously described as a journalist who worked for Punch magazine, a poet and an MP. He may have come from and/or been MP for Ormiston.
I have drafted a short biography article about him (here) and have gleaned some basic info, but I can't find any definitive corroborating evidence he was ever an MP. He was possibly one in 1875 and assuming Ormiston refers to the village in East Lothian, it was part of Berwickshire (UK Parliament constituency). It has a list of the MPs that held the seat - John Sands isn't included. 
The sources I have which mention him being an MP are:
* Maclean, Charles (1977) Island on the Edge of the World: the Story of St. Kilda. Edinburgh. Canongate. Page 117.
* "Perthshire - L Archives 2003-2" Rootsweb.com
Details of his political career are scant and some sources that refer to his St Kilda visit at length do not mention it all. It is possible there was another Johns Sands with whom Maclean confused the writer who visited St Kilda.
If anyone has/can find any other details please let me know. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the Rayment listings of MPs for all constituencies since 1660, and it turns up no MPs by the name of John Sands. --New Progressive 12:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Its possible he was a member of one of the colonial legislatures some of which were styled as 'parliaments’'. Lists of provincial legislators such as those in Canada and Australia are on the internet. Many of those for the Caribbean and elsewhere are not though. I hope this helps.  Galloglass 15:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible, although there is nothing I have seen anywhere in the literature that suggests he was ever resident anywhere except the UK and the Faroe Islands. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: One possible explanation is that he may have been a parliamentary candidate. Sometimes that gets written up wrongly as actually winning he seat and being an MP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking through Craig 1832-1885 there is no listing of any Parliamentary candidate for Berwickshire by that name either. Galloglass 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for suggesting and checking on this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that Seton mockingly described him as the "M.P. for St Kilda".  I wonder if that might be the source of the claims? Warofdreams talk 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is valuable information sir! I infer it may be from St Kilda published in 1878, which my library lacks a copy thereof? Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's it.  I found the relevant snippet on Google Books: . Warofdreams talk 10:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Sands 

message: Hi folks
I just thought that I would draw y'all's attention to a wonderful series of articles created by User:Laurel Bush on Scottish constituencies.  What he has been doing is trawling diligently through the piles of sources, and for each period between boundary changes he has constructed an article which firstly lists all the burgh constituencies (describing in outline their boundaries), and then lists all the counties, describing in each case the county constituencies therein.
The series is not complete yet, but so far 7 of the 11 periods are covered:
* Scottish Westminster constituencies 1708 to 1832
* Scottish Westminster constituencies 1885 to 1918
* Scottish Westminster constituencies 1918 to 1950
* Scottish Westminster constituencies 1950 to 1955
* Scottish Westminster constituencies 1955 to 1974
* Scottish Westminster constituencies 1974 to 1983
* Scottish Westminster constituencies from 2005, which existed already as list+map, but to which LB has added a description of the boundaries
The result is a remarkable overview of Scotland's constituencies since the Act of Union. These articles strike as being very close to good article status; looking at the good article criteria, the only missing elements I can see are possibly a tweaking of references, and the addition of maps to those articles lacking them. The latter job is something I don't know how to do, but I believe that somewhere on wikipedia there are folks who do this sort of thing: Morwen did a lot of this, but now claims to have largely retired from the task; It seems that many of the existing constituency maps were created by Wereon. (The only slight difficulty I see in creating the historical maps is that the map in Counties of Scotland shows a number of enclaves and exclaves). 
So far as I am aware, we don't have anything similar for any part of the UK, and these articles strike me as being a model for how the job should be done for other areas … if anyone can summon up enough energy!  Meanwhile, congrats to Laurel Bush :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Scottish constituencies 

message: A newcomer to the Constituencies area, I've tried to upgrade Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) by adding past election results, 1992 and 1997 so far.  A question: Is there a consensus as to the "best" online source for these? And is there any convention about how to attribute the source?  (I've used references in the table headings, but this seems not to be commonly done). PamD 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Pam. The online source most of us use is Keele University site at; Election results, 1950 - 2005 Its by far the most accurate for numbers and the party descriptions can usually be relied upon too. For the period prior to this I'm afraid there are no real reliable online sources and most of us use reference books; F. W. S. Craig's, British Parliamentary Election Results for the period 1832 - 1949, being the main ones. As to referencing, I simply list the sources used at the bottom of the article. Hope this helps. Galloglass 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tended to use multiple sources in an attempt to weed out errors - I tend to find that Keele and Election Demon are both very reliable, with the Grauniad being unsurprisingly the least reliable. An example of my method of attributation can be found on Woking (UK Parliament constituency), though your method is absolutely fine. --New Progressive 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources for elections results 

message: The following is copied from Talk:Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) (1708-1918), where there is discussion as to whether Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) (1708-1918) should be moved to Edinburghshire (UK Parliament constituency):
:This is a very difficult one to get the naming right on. It was almost certainly called Edinburghshire when it was created in 1708 but by the time of Gladstone's Midlothian campaign in 1880 it had been known by that name for most of the 19C. To add to the problem we have an extant seat called Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) which by our normal convention we normally include into one article seats with the same and related details.
:The key thing about this seat is the 1880 campaign whose information and details I think can only be included into a seat called Midlothian, otherwise we're bending a major piece of political history which is not ours to change. I am aware that Craig lists all the 1832-1885 details as Edinburghshire which suggests that it was called so in 1832, that said Craig is not infallible on these things as we well know from problems elsewhere.
:So before we make any changes we really need to know for certain when this seat became known as Midlothian in place of Edinburghshire. If we can tie this date down specifically then I would support the creation of two articles; Edinburghshire from 1708 - 18?? and Midlothian 18?? to present. - Galloglass 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect strongly that the administrative county did not become officially Midlothian until after 1885 (date of the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885), and I am pretty certain there was no change to constituency names and boundaries between 1885 and 1918, the latter being the date of the Representation of the People Act 1918. And I note that Linlithgow (rather than West Lothian) and Haddington (rather than East Lothian) seem to have been official constituency name terms as late as 1950. Re the admin county there is unlikely to have been any official name change prior to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889. As a postal address, however, Midlothian may have earlier usage which was transferred, unofficially, in reference to admin county and constituency. Laurel Bush (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my views on this vexed issue in another section further up the page. Briefly I have little doubt that Edinburghshire was the more official name (as the official county name does not appear to have changed until 1921), but that Midlothian was the one more used at the time. As we are talking about a constituency initially created in the days before a definitive official name was given, either alternative is open to doubt. Perhaps we should, in this particular special case, compromise on something like Midlothian (Edinburghshire) or Edinburghshire (Midlothian) for the 1885-1918 seat. --Gary J (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Edinburghshire'' and ''Midlothian''  

message: Does anyone have any thoughts on creating election results boxes for the next general election, such as was done in these edits to Boston and Skegness?
Personally, I think that while it is appropriate to list candidates selected by the major parties, it's not very productive to clutter an article an election results box which will remain blank until the next general election, which is up to two years away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Doktorbuk.  It's useful, and not original research, to list candidates who have been selected, if we can provide a citation (and generally, UKPollingReport should be ideal for this).  However, it is crystal balling to list parties who are probably very likely to stand, but haven't yet declared that they will do so.  So how about just listing the confirmed candidates?  I've created an example at Sheffield Central (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2000s. Warofdreams talk 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that listing parties that might stand is highly inappropriate. That said I would much prefer to see the announced candidates either noted in a text paragraph or a simple list form rather than all up election info boxes. - Galloglass 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The list at Sheffield Central looks neat, but there are a couple of problems: How do you neatly indicate the source for each distinct nomination, and what order are they in (not A-Z by party or candidate here, so perhaps something like "national size of party"?).  How about a simple list or table, in chronological order of selection, showing: party name, candidate name, date selected, source?  PamD (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any list or table, if we choose to go down that route has to be in normal ballot paper order (alphabetic by surname). - Galloglass 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't clear above: what I meant to say was that the Sheffield example seemed to be neither A-Z candidate nor A-Z party.  I think chronological probably makes most sense until the election is called, then slot into the Election Results box.  But if the main source is UKPollingReport, I suppose we don't have dates.  Stick with A-Z surname, then, as you say. PamD (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely, A-Z surname is the way to go.  The Sheffield example was in the entirely unscientific "order they appear in on the UKPollingReport website in order to give a quick example".  I've now fixed it! Warofdreams talk 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that articles on Canadian Parliamentary ridings do normally include tables about party candidate selection contests as candidates in each recent election (see Ottawa Centre for an example). I am not sure that level of information is readily available to the general public, in the UK system. However we could include a section on publicly announced prospective candidate selections. I see this as something different from a partially completed election result box. --Gary J (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A section on publicly announced prospective candidate selections would be good. However, I'm not sure where it should fit in our standard article structure; the section I added to Easington is a sub-section of the MPs section, which seems wrong, and I'd welcome any better ides. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we need an additional section for events leading up to the next election. Perhaps in an ideal world we should have an individual article for each election in the history of a constituency, as we do for by-elections (there may be more useful information available about a recent general election in a constituency, than about an unopposed by-election return a hundred years ago). However to try to keep things manageable recent political developments (including lists of prospective candidates) could be put in the history section. Alternatively if all we are concerned about is the list this could be put in the election results section, as they do in Canada. We would need a template for a smaller box than those used for election results, to specify the party, the candidate and when they were announced as a candidate. Data sources could be indicated by footnotes. We could then reset the prospective candidate boxes after each general election, so we would not add much bulk to the standard article. --Gary J (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal ball