Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style

message: I have noticed that all of the UK Parliament constituency articles are disambiguated with the suffix (UK Parliament constituency). This doesn't make sense for those constituencies whose names do not have other meanings. I moved the New Forest East article to remove the disambig but someone has now moved it back. --Moochocoogle 12:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added the disambiguator because thought there was a consensus for this, but now someone else has reverted me :) I'm going to kickstart the discussion again on the main WikiProject page shortly, to try and settle this one way or the other. sjorford →•← 13:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-disambiguating

message: I realise that this is a rather pedantic point, and that it may be a little late to be making it, however I notice that in June the way this page suggests that date ranges for MPs should be given was changed from 2001–2005 (with an ndash and no spaces) to 2001 — 2005 (with an mdash and spaces). This seems to be at odds with the rest of wikipedia which follows the former style, as this is what is suggested at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). In fact, I am not aware of any English style guide that suggests the use of an mdash in date ranges. As such, I would like to see the advice in this page returned to the use of an ndash without spaces.    JeremyA (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I'm not sure at what point I got it into my head that ndash should be mdash, I think I must have proliferated a typo. oops. (although without spaces I think it looks uglier) Anyway, Mackensen has came up with a much neater way for the MPs list which I think we should implement - see already at Newbury, what do you think? -- Joolz 23:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A table works for me. The Newbury page looks very good.    JeremyA (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :) I've updated the advice on the page now. -- Joolz 11:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date ranges in the Members of Parliament section 

message: Constituencies which are in the County that Used to Be Avon seem to all have Entity=Avon in their infoboxes (except that one or two have Somerset). This produces a link to Avon, which is a disambiguation page. Is there any way to have the infoboxes link to Avon (county) as a piped link as in "shown within Avon"? (...and preferably still have them continue "and Avon shown within England"?) --rbrwr± 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating "Entity" in Infobox 

message: I'm surprised that the "style guide", under "history", only says "This section should be used to describe the history, demographics, and politics of the constituency, and any elections or note (close elections, resignations etc)."  I think a key element, for many readers, will be to know what constituencies represented the area before and/or after the subject of the article, and this ought to be stressed - or perhaps should constitute a separate section. Perhaps this comes from living in Leeds, where only one of the five 1885 consituencies has had a continuous existence up to now while others have come, gone, merged, split, been re-created, etc over time! I supppose it's within "the history..." in the above list, but I'd like to see it given greater prominence and priority.
Point of style: is it "recreated" or "re-created", when somewhere like Leeds Central is revived?
PamD (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support the suggestion.  I am not a member of this project and do not really have the time to contribute.  I would suggest re-created, to avoid the noun being read as recreation, which has a different sense.  There are categories for constituencies "disestablished".  Is there not a better word?  The text often says "abolished".  I would also welcome as a matter of routine, a statement of what constitency/ies preceded it and succeeded it.  This would be useful as a navigation tool.  It would also be helpful if categories were by county, rather than region.  Though these have boundary changes, they are generally fairly stable entities, these 1000 years in most cases.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section - earlier and later constituencies 

message: I've just added "A redirect or disambiguation page entry must always be provided from the basic name." in the Article name section. I hope it's uncontroversial, but I think it's necessary. PamD 10:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing links 

message: See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#MP_lists_in_constituency_articles_-_format_change - just in case anyone has this "Style" talkpage watchlisted but not the main talk page. PamD 09:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP lists in constituency articles - format change 

message: Perhaps this style guide needs updated to reflect the consensus of using  for election results? --Gharbhain (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compact Box