Talk:Thirsk and Malton (UK Parliament constituency)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

UK Parliament constituencies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Parliament constituencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UK Parliament constituenciesWikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesTemplate:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesUK Parliament constituencies articles

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Thirsk and Malton (UK Parliament constituency) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Merger from Thirsk and Malton (UK Parliament constituency 1885-1983)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No merge, on the grounds that there has been no explicit support and there are examples showing where a split has worked. While there was also little support for the initial split, the work of merging seems unnecessary if the pages have appropriate hatnotes. Also, discussion stale for more than a year. Klbrain (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All other articles with historic boundaries and with gaps in the timeline are included on the same page, so this should also follow suit for constituency and to avoid confusion. --JMPhillips92 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I have been aware that this article had been split for a while. The editor who split this article may not be aware of this discussion and you may want to flag it up for them. There is also Hartlepool (UK Parliament constituency) 1974-current, and The Hartlepools (UK Parliament constituency) 1868-1974, which I remember being split. I remember this being split by the editor who did not fix all the wrong links that were created by the split. When such a split exists, both articles should carry an explanation and link to the other article above the start of the article. I don't have a problem with splitting if it is done right. Though I don't see sufficient benefit to make it worth doing the work.Graemp (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a very few split examples - I think Mid Kent (historic UK Parliament constituency) is another example, and there's a Scottish one I can't recall. I agree that creating them all as single pages was the easiest way to do it initially, but to be honest I don't see much of a problem with splitting them out as and when there's enough content to justify it and someone wants to do the work, as long as they're clearly labelled and it's easy to get from one to the other, as Graemp says. Two constituencies with exactly the same name at different times (which we usually merge) may have less in common than two with subtly different names covering the same area (which we usually don't). Andrew Gray (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no sound reason to split. We describe very clearly when seats with similar names have different boundaries, for example, so I see no reason why we need split articles beyond very specific examples determined by case-by-case discussion doktorb _words^deeds 08:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No justification for non-merger from Thirsk and Malton (UK Parliament constituency 1885-1983)

The 2017 discussion concluded with "merging seems unnecessary if the pages have appropriate hatnotes" but never addressed the point that separate articles for Westminster constituencies with the same name is not the common practice. There is no hatnote currently on the other page - instead there is an obscure link hidden under the word "revived" and it took me some effort to get to this page. So the current split does not really work.2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:D82E:40F6:DA4E:FA0E (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]