Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 8

Gordon 1997

The changes shown for the Gordon constituency are not correct, as they do not take boundary changes into account. I have tried to change this several times, providing sources, but it has been reverted back to the incorrect changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.177.178 (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inverness 1974 & 1979

Can someone with access to the sources check Inverness (UK Parliament constituency) to see if the parties listed for October 1974 & 1979 are correct? Currently it's showing bids by Fine Gael. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of candidates in the Times on 1 October 1974 gave him as "Bell, U. (Fine Ghaidheil)", as do the final results on 14 October (the count was delayed, it seems) - the figures agree, too. I can't seem to find any list of results in there for 1979, though. Shimgray | talk | 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the Return of Election Expenses which gives the actual label which Uilleam Bell used. In October 1974 it was "Fine Gaidheil, Architect". In 1979 it was "Fine na Gaidheil Party Phairtidh Ghaidhealach". Fred Craig writes in "British Parliamentary Election Results 1974-1983" (p. 316) "Bell sought election as a Fine Gael Party candidate opposed to Britain's membership of the Common Market and seeking protection for Highland interests". Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here too. Question - do we change from "candidate" to "candidate with party link" ? doktorb _words^deeds 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peterborough

I'm posting this discussion without any comment from me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisieboy#Peterborough Crooked cottage (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but I would welcome comments from others. Crooked cottage (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary reviews

As many here will know, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act is not just about filling the country with excitement about the alternative vote (it's all the dinner parties of England are talking about, AV and Islamophobia...). Anyhoo, the other half is obvisout the boundary changes bit, reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600. I intend to create Wikipedia articles following the 4 Boundary Commissions through their processes...

The plans currently pencil sketched are:

One article for all 4 processes ("Periodic reviews of UK parliamentary constituency boundaries") or something similair

(or)

Four articles for the seperate Commissions ("Sixth Periodic review by the Boundary Commission for Wales") ("Sixth Periodic review by the Boundary Commission for Scotland").

By way of timetabling, Scotland is set to announce its plans next week...

Any thoughts, feedback?

doktorb _words^deeds 21:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One article. If there remain anomalies between the four regions of the UK the reader should see these. If not, likewise. Crooked cottage (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I was thinking about this earlier tonight. One article can tie-in more logically with the main article on the Act itself ("this is the act, this is the consequence" sort of thing). Also means there can be a half-decent attempt at starting right at the very beginning collating the different boundary review processes right up to the inevitable nightmare time in only 2 years when we have to create new articles for brand new constituencies. Always thinking, always thinking....doktorb _words^deeds 20:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here it is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Periodic_Review_of_Westminster_constituencies

I've referenced this new article on the Sixth Periodic Review from List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. The constituencies article now has two set of electorate figures for England and Scotland - the ones which created the seats as they are now (from 2000 for England, 2002 for Scotland) and the ones which will feed into the sixth periodic review. I'll add the figures for NI and Wales in due course. Crooked cottage (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compact Election Box - Additions

It appears as if there is information missing from the compact election box which is necessary for a full representation of the true result. They are of the election is voided in place of the political party result. The void result should replace the hold/gain in the political section of the box, if the election was void. The other missing information is the number of rejected ballots.--14:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the 'hold/gain' should be replaced in the fairly rare case of a general election result later avoided. The fact that the Member was unseated later on does not alter the fact that they were in fact returned to Parliament at the general election. The number of rejected ballots is freely available for general election results, save for 1918, in the Return of Election Expenses, but the numbers of rejected ballots in by-elections are not always available. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the case of Oaten he never took his seat under the void result.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

You've said this before and it's wrong: he took his seat on 9 May 1997 col 24. Alternatively please read Mark Oaten's maiden speech on 4 June 1997. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of rejected ballots the information is required to be made available on the notice of decleration of result and it is required to be read out by the returning officer, so is available.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement on the Returning Officer to read out the number of rejected ballots. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is to establish whether a challenge can be made on the basis that rejected ballots would have affected the result of the election, as was the case in the Winchester petition. It is also needed to account for all of the ballot papers which were cast.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. In the case of a by-election the Returning Officer has to count the number of rejected ballot papers, but does not have to say how many when announcing the result, and nor is it always on the declaration. For example, try the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. The returning officer did not give the number when declaring the result. The published result on the council website does not give the number of spoiled ballots - see Haltemprice and Howden. There is no official publication of by-election results and none of the unofficial sources report the number of spoiled ballots. So there is basically no way of getting the figures. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to work out the number of spoilt papers in Haltemprice and Howden the total number is 330. it is worked out by adding up the total number of votes received by all of the candidates which is 23,911 and then subtracting that from the total number of votes cast (available on the Haltemprice and Howden website provided above) which is 24,241. That gives you a difference of 330. The number of rejected ballots can be worked out as demonstrated above.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, explain to me how we can derive the number of rejected ballots for each seat in the 1992 election. Crooked cottage (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the general election, it is given in the Return of Election Expenses (linked above). But for a 1991 by-election? Probably not available anywhere unless someone has an off-air recording of the declaration. And Lucy-marie's calculation may not be accurate since 24,241 may be the count of ballot papers issued produced by the Presiding Officers at each of the polling stations. There is usually a small discrepancy between the number of BPs issued and the number counted, which comes from the fact that voters sometimes walk off with their ballot paper without putting it in the ballot box, and clerks sometimes forget or miscount the number of papers issued. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then how about making the parameter an optional parameter.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency infobox templates

Whilst adding the electorate figures to each constituency page, I've noticed that there are three different infobox templates currently being used (Infobox UK constituency main, UK constituency infobox and UK constituency infobox alt). I don't see any reason to use three, would anyone have a problem with me going through and replacing the other two with Infobox UK constituency main? (I have a list here). Mirrorme22 (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask you to do whether you would consider this yesterday but thought it too cheeky. It's quite a lot of work to do properly though which is why I only do a few occasionally, and why I in the end resisted the urge to ask. Points I would note here are:

Include elects_howmany = One
Include a county
Include the major settlements if you know what they are. I do it in order of size and cut off at 4,000 but that is me applying an arbitrary rule. It isn't always obvious without a lot of work.
Previous constituencies should be present if known. Again it's not always obvious. The articles themselves sometimes help. I've used Rallings and Thrasher to assist with constituencies created in 1997.

As far as I am concerned you should do as much or as little as you feel comfortable with, but my advice would be to finish the task you are doing then come back to the next phase. Crooked cottage (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether this could be completed using an AWB script/action? As it seems that all the parameters are quite contiguous, if not actually the same name. Although through implementing the changes this way we'd still have to go back through them all and add the extra info you mention Crooked cottage. I'll have a go at setting this up now, and await any feedback before running AWB on this. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but I suspect Mirrorme22 will be well through the edits by then - say hold fire for a week and see what's left by then? Crooked cottage (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I make it about 200 left to go. I'll just do a couple of tests to check I have the parameters correct. Zangar (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forthcoming boundary commission reports

In September the Boundary Commission for England expects to publish its provisional proposals in the 2013 Review of constituencies which will produce many changes. I wonder if people think we will want to create articles with the detail of the proposals, given that they are not the final recommendations but will be talked about widely. My initial idea is one article per region and listing the effects of the proposals under headings for each county. Any thoughts?

In the meantime there are quite a number of constituency articles that still discuss the 2005/2007 boundary review as if it is still current news, a random example being Epsom and Ewell (UK Parliament constituency). I think these should be removed or updated wherever they are found. Sussexonian (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sussexonian. I would hesitate before recommending individual articles for each region. It's easier to administer if we keep the article to one page if we can - not least because we'd be open to accusations of using the articles as a blog/primary news source/running commentary, all of which are disallowed or frowned upon. My preference, though I am open to suggestions on this, is to have a brief summary section, linked to the original proposals and the inevitable news coverage/reaction, giving an idea of the largest and smallest recommended seats, any notable peculiarities (three local authorities in one seat, unprecedented pairings of towns, that sort of thing.)

On your other point, I will try to help out today fixing any instances of the issues you've spotted. We would have to have done this at one point or other, it would be good to prepare constituency articles before September.

I will flag up to any users I think may be interested this page to try and get more people involved. 09:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Further Edit. Look at Paragraph 29 above about the discussion prior to the article being written in the first place :) doktorb _words^deeds 09:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be a running commentary, since once the initial proposals are released, nothing more will happen for 6 months or more. My idea was to avoid editors feeling the need to add paragraphs to every constituency article about what might happen to the constituency in 2015. So there could be a space where detail of what was proposed within a county could be described while keeping the constituency articles free of the stuff I have identified from last time. Hopefully you will leave Epsom and Ewell so other readers will know what I have referred to! Sussexonian (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there'll be no danger about people adding proposals to each constituency; the likes of me will be around to revert the edit with the explanation that it's not been confirmed yet ;) doktorb _words^deeds 13:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The review in England is being based upon the regions, in the first instance. There is to be a chance to argue for cross-regional constituencies, after the initial proposals are announced. However it would be surprising for such amendments to be allowed. The guidance booklet the boundary commission has produced implies that they will make proposals based on counties, unless the mandatory electorate range requires crossing county boundaries. For example in northern South East Region, Berkshire could be considered on its own but Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire would need to be considered together, as there has to be at least one cross-county seat. The redistribution process will be quicker than in earlier reviews, but I agree there is no point in updating constituency articles until a final electoral map has been agreed. --Gary J (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Parliament goes online

If you want to write about the boroughs, counties and universities returning Members to Parliament before 1832, the best source of all has just gone online: the History of Parliament. The most recently published sections aren't yet there but what is there is enormous. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is superb. doktorb _words^deeds 06:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police commissioner elections - query

Afternoon.

I am typing this question in a number of different locations to help measure opinion. As you may know, next year should see the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012. There will be over 40 concurrent elections in each of the Constabulary areas, with the potential for numerous candidates and the fun and games associated with using STV as a voting system.

I want to know how people feel about the election coverage. I have two options in my mind, and want to ask people how we should work on the forthcoming elections.

Option A would be keeping ALL 40+ election results on the same page. This would reduce the amount space used for British elections, reduce the likelihood of AfD discussions amongst the wider community on notability grounds, enable a co-ordination effort for the elections project, and enable editors to enhance their working knowledge on how to election results boxes, source material etc. It would be a very long article, require intense concentration to reduce confusion and enhance clarity, be open to sidetracking conversations about article splitting.

Option B would be starting individual articles for each Constabulary election. These would be easy to watch via bookmarks and watchlist, enable editors to focus on areas they know better than others, enhance the space available for each candidate's profile etc if required, and allow for a greater coverage for the contests in specific electoral areas. However they would be very difficult to watch all 40 at the height of the election period. It would also attract coordinated vandalism.

We have just under a year to decide, though in real terms, the May election period is going to be a nightmare anyway (and that's without tying to keep up to date with the Boundary changes).

Any feedback or ideas?

doktorb _words^deeds 12:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know if the innovation will last or if the elections will be a one off event. I suggest starting with a single article for the 2012 elections. Possibly a list of Commissioners for each area could be added to the articles for the relevant police forces. --Gary J (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that an election box be put on the page for the constabulary. I think there is to be one commissioner per constabulary. If the elections become a permanent institution, we would in due course need to fork this off to an article on each one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swing

I note some confusion across articles about the direction (sign) of swings. AFAIR, a swing to the Tories is defined as positive, and to Labour negative in all cases. Where these are not the top two parties in a seat, historically swing figures were not given, although for about 20 years there has been a tendency to include the LDs, etc. RodCrosby (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to standardise our swing calculations more. It is the part of the standard results template which causes the most confusion and is often left blank. The above post summarises the usual British conventions. However, in our constituency articles, we cover a much broader time span than that during which swing has been commonly used. It would be completely perverse to say that swing is worth calculating only in relatively recent elections, in contests where the Labour and Conservative parties are the leading participants. If swing, as a concept, is valuable we must use it more generally.

We have also never, to my knowledge, standardised what sort of swing we are measuring - Butler swing using only the votes of the two leading parties to calculate percentages or Steed swing based on the overall vote percentages of the two leading parties (which give different results if there are more than two candidates).

I would suggest that a swing figure only needs to be calculated for a single member constituency, where the same two parties (or at least closely linked ones like the two Liberal/SDP Alliance parties and the Liberal Democrats) shared the first two places in the election being considered and the previous one. If those conditions do not apply then N/A is appropriate in the swing box. If the swing calculation is not one between Labour and Conservative, the parties involved should be specified and what the positive and negative directions of swing mean in the result given. --Gary J (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised there's confusion when Swing (politics) is wikilinked on {{Election box}} and {{Compact election box}} uses Butler swing alongside Swing (politics) and treats Majority gain/loss in isolation from the party it belongs to. My view is that Butler swing is too narrow (given that it presumes a two-party system, dominated by Conservatives) and Steed swing too complex (given that there is no clear correlation between all-party, and two-party percentages) and fudging either to represent a three-party swing isn't possible. A simple definition of [This election, (Current Incumbent)% - (Current Runner-up)%] - [Prev. election, (Current Incumbent)% - (Highest other vote)%] should suffice, and a positive or negative value is indicative of change towards being a safe or marginal seat, respectively. If swing is too entrenched in one meaning or another then dump it and replace with "±%" or "change". Oh, and "N/A" is never an appropriate response, just as "cbf figuring it out" or convoluted explanations aren't appropriate, if you can't make sense of it then leave the cell blank.Fan

| talk 19:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of Parliament for Gloucester

I have just found the above. It ought to be a subcategory of Category:Members of Parliament by constituency, which we do not have and that should be a subcategory of Category:Members of Parliament by county, which we also do not have. Some one started a category for Category:Members of Parliament for constituencies in Cornwall, which is I think unique: an attempt to do the same thing for another county was deleted. Before I nominate this at CFD, could I ahve comments? Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of this category. There are plenty of precedents for deleting such categories, because they are a recipe for appalling category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

Ebbw Vale (UK Parliament constituency) is currently a redirect to the successor seat, Blaenau Gwent, despite significant boundary changes in 1983 and the target article specifically saying the seat is different and only dates from them. Has anyone got the sources and templates to hand to start an article on the older seat? Timrollpickering (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot. As always, Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs – Constituencies beginning with "E" (part 1) is a good reference for the MPs elected (of which there are only 4 - but does include Aneurin Bevan!) From a quick look it appears it was created from West Monmouthshire. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford West by-election

I have created and redirected Bradford West by-election, 2012 to avoid an army of IPs doing their usual tricks and vandalism. Better to wait for at least a date before the article itself is created (and it's rare to see that there's not been a rush of edits to Bradford West as there so often is, have we perhaps quietened down this usual trait?)

Good luck to everyone in working with the by-election article. They can be fun and frustrating doktorb _words^deeds 14:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumour says this is going to be a quick one - polling 29 March. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for constituencies by year of creation

See a discussion on my talk page at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Category:United_Kingdom_Parliamentary_constituencies_established_in_1265_-_huh.3F about the names of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk County Council?

The article on Norfolk County Council is tagged as part of this project, presumably because the Election Results section includes a breakdown of the Parliamentary votes in the county for the top four parties (plus others - which a footnote says is only referring to the Green Party). I've checked a couple of other county council pages (but not all of them), and there's nothing similar on any of them. Should this page be under the scope of this project? Is the Parliamentary information even remotely relevant to the council? And are there any other county council articles in the same state? Bouncelot (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that information belongs on the Norfolk page, not the county council page. It may be a case of the surprisingly common confusion between a council (the local authority) and the area it governs: one sees Xshire County Council or Ytown Borough Council referred to as if they were geographical areas. For instance: "Suchaplace is a village in Xshire County Council", where "Suchaplace is a village in the county of Xshire" would be correct. Lozleader (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation's not helped by certain councils making the same mistake: for instance this is a sign on the West Yorkshire/North Yorkshire boundary, proclaiming that you're entering "North Yorkshire County Council". --RFBailey (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Russia, North Yorkshire County Council enter you. — Richardguk (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing the UK Politics banner

It is almost 3 years after I promised to get it sorted, but I have the code ready to add this project to the UK Politics banner. As discussed before, the main benefit is that this project automatically inherits the quality assessments set by the UK Politics project. The code for the new template is at {{User:Road Wizard/UK Politics template area/Main template}} and a sandbox area is available to test how it works in practice (turn off the category=no parameter while testing but please put it back afterwards).

The new parameters are:

UKconsTF = yes (to activate this project's part of the banner)
UKconsTF-importance = top / high/ mid / low (to set this project's view on the article's importance - UK Politics views all constituencies as low importance in the 28k articles it looks after, but this field allows you to make your own judgement)

These parameters will place the article talk pages in categories under the following format:

Are editors still happy for this to be implemented after all this time? Also, are you happy with the parameter and category names listed above? They can be easily adjusted before the code is added to the live template, but it becomes increasingly difficult to change once they are used on more pages.
One thing to consider is if you want the category to be in the style of Category:Start-Class UK constituencies articles as that would allow inclusion of the devolved constituencies as well. Road Wizard (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This idea has had a long gestation, but as I noted on your talk in 2010, I think it's a good idea.

The banner looks fine, and I have tested it in the sandbox. The constituencies parameters seem to work as intended, so congrats on some effective coding.

I have 4 comments:

I favour broadening the scope of this project by including the other types of constituency (London Assembly, European Parliament, and devolved Parliaments), but it may still be helpful to separate them out into difft categories. Bearing in mind the relative numbers, I suggest a genereic "UK constituencies articles" category, with the Westminster pages in a "Westminster constituencies articles" subcat
"UKconsTF" is a non-obvious name for the parameter. The abbreviation is a bit obscure, and the "UK" is ambiguous (does it refer to geography or to the UK Parl?), so may I suggest "westminster-constituency-project" or "westminster-constituency-taskforce" or "westminster-constituency-taskforce" as more obvious names for the parameters of Westminster constits? Similar parameters ("euro-constituency-project" etc) could be created for the other parliaments, though there are way fewer of them I suggest that a generic "constituency-project"/"constituency-taskforce" parameter be used for them.
The category names should say "Westminster" of the Westminster constituencies
This constituencies project seems to be almost inactive these days, so it would be a good idea to post a pointer at WT:UKPOL in the hope of getting wider participation in this discussion.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful suggestions there. However, it won't be possible to place articles in a general task force category and a more specific category through a single parameter.

I could add separate task forces for each body, such as Westimster constiutuency task force, Stormont constituency task force and London Assembly constituency task force but with each one linking back to this project. Each task force could then have its own assessment data. The one issue with that though is you end up with 5 or 6 sets of specific assessment data instead of a single set of general data - that may be an advantage or disadvantage depending on your perspective. Road Wizard (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that Category:UK constituencies articles would be a subcat of Category:Westminster constituencies articles. One generic category, with a more specific subcat. Further task forces could be created later for Scotland, Stormont, etc if editors want.

Does that sound workable? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at WPBannerMeta if there are any limits on the number of task forces that the template can support. When we have an answer we can plan how many potential task forces there will be, even if they aren't all implemented straight away. Road Wizard (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

←Thinking back to my proposal in 2009, I suggested that the scope of this project should be to cover articles with UK election data as there is significant overlap between the election and consituency templates and sources. This seemed to gather agreement from the editors in the subsequent discussion. If we go with that line then we would come out with the following task forces:

UK election data - flagged on every article with UK election data including constituencies, elections and some politician articles. Discussion would be directed here for issues about handling election data but more general issues would be referred to a more appropriate project like UK Politics. This task force would provide a catch all category that would work similarly to the one you suggested above.
X-constituencies - if you want a more specific task force for discussing a type of constituency. Again I would direct discussion here though as you will be discussing the same issues as the election data task force. Also, the more we separate the discussion areas the more likely it is that the task forces will become inactive.

Are there any other issues that you think should be in this project's scope? We still have the UK Politics project as a catch all for anything that isn't covered here. Road Wizard (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-readiug my comment of 15:30 yesterday, I see that what I wrote wasn't quite what I meant :(

This project has very few active members, and even the wider-svoped UK Politics project is not very busy ... so I think that we might sustain one active task force, I don't think that a proliferation of task forces in viable at this point.

What I had hoped was that we could create multiple assessment categories without crating a similar proliferation of task forces. However, when I re-read your comments, I wonder is that possible? Does the banner template require a one-to-one relationship between task forces and categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as I can work out you need 1 template variable for each set of assessment categories. For example, on a Stormont constituency article you would need a stormont=yes variable to add it to the stormont assessment categories and on a Westminster constituency article you need a westminster=yes variable to add it to the westminster assessment categories.

The template calls these variables "task forces" but we don't have to treat them as separate entities. We could pipe the links so that they all refer to the same project page, like so:

This page is supported by the election data task force.

This page is supported by the Westminster constituencies task force.

This page is supported by the Stormont constituencies task force.

They appear as separate flags on the banner but all discussion is referred back to this one project.

The key question is which topics are best handled by UK Politics with its 28k article scope and which topics would benefit from a more focused view. As issues of election data and constituency articles are closely linked I think they should all be referred here for discussion. Broader issues of political biographies, legislation and government bodies should be retained at UK Politics (unless someone sees a benefit of having a task force for those later on).

Once we have settled on the topics included in this project we can then create "task force" variables to split the assessment data however you want. Road Wizard (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the banner in my sandbox and renamed the parameter westminster-constituency. The banner will place articles in assessed categories under the format Category:XXX UK Parliament constituencies articles and also in Category:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies articles. If this project wants to tag constituencies from other legislatures in the future then you can either decide to place them in the same general categories at that time or set up more specific categories for them. Remember that the purpose of these categories is to help manage the content under the control of this project, not to distinguish between the different types of articles (which are covered by main-space categories). An advantage to keeping the articles in the same category structure is that you can find Good content from one legislature and apply the same lessons to the articles of another. Road Wizard (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hull West (UK Parliament constituency)

Should this be at Kingston upon Hull West (UK Parliament constituency)? All the other Hull constituencies are of that form, and Official names of United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies in England suggests they always have been (albeit hyphenated before 1950). Prouder Mary 14:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I've just tried to re-direct it and got this:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.

So if someone can help me work out how to get it back to the right page, please let me know. I've never learned how to go over redirects doktorb _words^deeds 15:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved! Blanking the redirect was what caused the problem, I think - if there's only a single redirect edit, it should normally allow a move. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the double redirects but otherwise left other articles as is, since the names seem to be generally used interchangeably. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, oops, that would have been me then! Cheers Andrew.doktorb _words^deeds 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies

Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politicized edit warring

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox
- Talk:Rotherham by-election, 2012#Politicized edit warring
- Talk:Rotherham by-election, 2012#Campaign
- Talk:UK Independence Party#Fostering row
  - Rotherham by-election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — currently protected because of edit warring
  - UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — currently protected because of the same edit warring
  - Denis MacShane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  - Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  - Nigel Farage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Consider this a challenge if you like. Can you U.K. Wikipedians do a better job of dealing with your domestic partisan political issues in the weeks prior to an election than the U.S. Wikipedians do? ☺ The talk pages for the by-election and for the political party need you. Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Stephen

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jessie Stephen#Request for verification of a few points. -- Trevj (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency disambiguation (again)

In case anyone's missed it, there's a discussion going on here about the form disambigation in constituency article titles....again. --RFBailey (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safer seats, more marginal ones - not safe as houses if just noticing a large majority - a collaborative essay

Let this be guidance to those thinking of repeating some very historic edits. Unfortunately the edits in question were from I suspect local residents simply echoing too much local journalistic shorthand, or particularly election night analyses on TV news broadcasts. The problematic area, is constructing the most bold (and potentially undemocratic in the FPTP system) political assertion (which cannot be substantiated unless supporting the incumbent) that state that a seat is categorically a safe seat/area where there has been a change in the last 30 years of party. This particularly misleading as a result of swings seen in various seats in 1979, 1997 and to an extent in 2010 and so, to avoid bias, and to use a more academic and historic lens, it is much better to use a qualified statement in such regular seats. I am not talking about for example Rotherham or Richmond, Yorks on the political map. This can be a comparative adverb such as "more" "less" "safer seat" or "tightly fought" or wide adjective where appropriate such as "large majorities". It is however, acceptably verging on the side of undeniably basic but permissible analysis to point out "x has been a safe seat" in elections from xx to date (or to say 1955) which can be justified where there really are very large (+10,000) for a very long time.

Examples - The worst passages

These have included has always been a safe seat/area which when including the forerunner seats of even the most long-held bastions of pompous twaddle is only (in modern history terms) ever true of two or three locations in the UK, in which case that is poor and sloppy exaggeration since the Conservative Party of Benjamin Disraeli and its predecessor are not the same as today's tory party and it is unlikely to reflect marginal results. And just as bad I have fixed, from supporters (even inadvertent) of the two other main UK parties, phrases they more commonly should avoid is now generally considered a safe seat and safe xxx seat which reek of the strong bias they connote to the careful reader. A few unequivocal and politically neutral references are mandatory at the least. With these, it is acceptable, if undeniable, to say "Y has since its creation [in 0000, preferably] been a safe seat". The term Tory throughout is also slightly deprecated, though, based on what I have read across the whole range of political articles, will accept it in mid-prose about members as a group, but not if placed there in the plural. Also never write it at the start. Stating ZZZ ward is e.g. conservative-voting is also a (brazen lie/ naive glamorisation/naive insult) (pick one) shorthand giving the majority in ZZZ too much weight. We must have a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and I have based this essay on the combined WP:Consensus from reading hundreds of constituency articles and diligently working on them without cause for complaint on peer-review. Equally, I would welcome any similar questionable findings below for peer review, if possible emboldened, which you have found and which should be avoided so as to avoid suspicion of BIAS. This will help future edits. Many thanks everyone on this project list who I have not identified with any of the politically ignorant who write the propaganda found in only a minority of articles. Adam37 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Safe seat" does not mean that there is no possibility whatsoever of another party winning, just that there is considered to be very little chance of it changing hands, and the term should be used in line with this common meaning.

What are needed are reliable sources. If reliable sources say that a seat is safe, then that's useful information for its article - for example, the Electoral Reform Society drew up a list of seats which it considered to be safe at the 2010 election. Obviously, the date of these sources is relevant - as you say, a seat which was safe in 1997 may well now be marginal or even safe for another party. In other cases, reliable lists of seats by percentage majority are available and these could be used as references, where this is notable (e.g. "...at the 2010 election, this was the Liberal Democrats' safest seat, by percentage majority"). "Is now generally considered" suggests that there's no reliable source for this, or the writer couldn't be bothered to find it. Where sources permit, there is the possibility of giving further detail - areas of the seat where particular parties are more or less likely to win votes, and how this has changed over time.

Except in historical context, "Tory"/"Tories" is a bit slangy, but it's a useful alternative to writing "Conservative Party" repeatedly in a paragraph, so long as the equivalence of the term is clear, and it's not being used as any sort of insult. Warofdreams talk 16:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am not advocating what you put or think I might be with "generally considered" but, in such a description if just unqualified, there is an inherent judgment call that is politically capable of bias. So yes reference always if absolutely true. This is where I fundamentally disagree with you:

a seat which was safe in 1997 may well now be safe for another party

In my view, even if Joe Bloggs is the most wonderfully popular politician and his party is now soaring in the ratings, even if just on a local level, if the seat can fall just 15 years ago, that is not safe. I could right now go around finding reliable sources for at least 20 conservative seats which are on present polling 50/50 of a Labour win and quote these as saying these are conservative "safe seats" but 10 of these will fall. The point is not to encourage incumbency by such an old-hat dichotomy when used in a black/white way. There are 50 shades of grey when it comes to safe and not safe. That is the whole point. As to the "tory" question you simply repeat exactly my point. I daresay we agree almost on everything and that as regards my point on very strong assertions being made of "safe seat" hither and thither, willy-nilly, too assertively (as neatly described) even with references (Which opens up a new debate, as I have seen everything from Spectator to New Statesman used and all shades in between), I am sure a few more viewpoints would be welcome. In particular, if a relatively recent landslide (eg roughly post 1945) has swung the seat then that should mean it is not safe, nor one with a slender majority, but my essay, is really a whinge about those who have put bold and unreferenced claims for either party, and a reminder not to dabble in possible fictions. I have amended the essay to feature your reference point, Warofdreams, good call. As regards sub-level analysis, that is even more fraught, if you take a massively growing place such as the village of Cambourne or even a closure of a factory, or start of a new plant somewhere you throw complete party preferences often to the wind. Or indeed just because Dame X X is standing as the local councillor. Certainly that sort of analysis has its place only in the boundary change analysis, as that is past, rather than crystal ball gazing as all people must in deciding whether it is vital to vote tactically or whether to even, most commonly, vote at all. If I were for example to revert the only handful of strong and wrong assertions I have found in all 650 constituency articles, they would once again stoop to the level of the newspapers at their worst in using the "safe" shorthand as much as they do: no-one would even bother to turn up in a majority of the seats. What they mean is large majority, most of the time. In many of these, mass apathy is only a direct effect often of people's own doubt, this is evidenced by those very assertions I have found. Such doubt similarly also fuels recessions as identified by the shadow chancellor on Radio 4 yesterday. The point is to use more academically sound language.Adam37 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with much of what you write, hence my statements on the use of "Tory" and avoiding "is generally considered"-type phrases.

More detail is almost always better - we have few or no constituency articles which are overlong and in need of focusing. There are, clearly, many other problems with them; I'm pleased to see the work you've put into tidying them.

If we have sources which state that a seat is safe, we should use them - it is not justifiable to make up our own rules. In particular, it's not up to us to avoid incluing relevant sourced information in advance of even a morally justifiable cause, such as increasing turnout.

And the sources must be the foundation for what we write. An arbitrary rule such as 'if the seat has been held by another party post-1945 it is not "safe"' is not the common understanding of the term, and would mean that seats like Liverpool Riverside or Glasgow Central cannot be called safe, even though they patently are, by any usual definition.

If you can find reliable sources which say that a seat is safe for the Conservatives, these are useful for the article. If a source makes wild claims that twenty seats are safe when ten are sure to fall, it's not reliable. Anything from the Spectator to the New Statesman could well be reliable, but if they make controversial claims, the sources should be made clear and any reliable counter-claims be included (e.g. Before the 2010 election, The Guardian described this constituency as a safe Labour seat, while the Daily Telegraph argued that the Conservatives could achieve a surprise victory).

Again, with sub-level analysis, if a seat is sufficiently interesting or has sufficiently engaged local media that reliable sources are available, we should include them. It is relevant and interesting to mention that e.g. the seat contains a rapidly growing village which saw councillors from the Liberal Democrats elected to the local council over a particular time period, or that Labour occasionally win one ward in a seat but the others are safe Conservative seats (again, with a source). We know that this doesn't necessarily predict the result of the next election, but that's not the purpose of this section of the article - it's to provide detail on the political make-up of the area. Warofdreams talk 13:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherwell/Banbury Parliamentary Constituency

The page for Cherwell/Banbury Parliamentary Constituency seems to be missing the election result for 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.175.37 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit soon for the 2015 election

I noticed on Eastbourne (UK Parliament constituency) we have a Prospective Candidates for the 2015 General Election table already. I want to remove it on the grounds of WP:FUTURE but I thought I would get some opinions first. I looked at a couple of other constituencies but did not find anything similar. Is there any precedent? Periglio (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of precedent, we've listed prospective candidates for local council elections before the Statement of Persons Nominated was published and they were actual candidates (albeit not quite so far ahead). I wasn't actively editing far enough back to know if there's a precedent with Parliamentary candidates, though. Either way, my view is that there's no reason not to list prospective candidates who have been officially announced, as long as we have a reliable source. Historically speaking, major party candidates rarely die or withdraw once selected. Prospective candidates in competitive seats will often get local media coverage as prospective candidates long before the official campaign starts, and so I think that their existence is sufficiently notable to include.Bouncelot (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MPs 1654–1659

A bit out of scope I know, but comment would be welcome here on what category names should be used for the Members of Parliament who sat at Westminster during the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland in the 1650s. Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the discussion was closed as no consensus. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Periodical Review (abandoned)

As we all know the Sixth Periodical Reviews of constituency boundaries were commenced in 2011 only to be abandoned in 2013 due to a change in the law. What I want to question is the actions of one editor in systematically removing any and all mentions of the individual recommendations made during the earlier stages of the reviews from articles about constituencies. In all four countries the Commissions produced initial recommendations and revised recommendations. Clearly the fact that the review did not conclude and the new boundaries will not be put into effect makes them of less interest than actual boundaries that were used, but I would say they are still worthy of some note.

Constituency articles frequently note proposals made during early stages of reviews which were later abandoned or altered. As the poet says, The Road Not Taken is just as interesting. Why should we not look down it as far as we can? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there has been no reply here in over a month. I would encourage outside opinions as one editor is now edit-warring in the apparent belief that there is consensus that the abandoned 2013 review must not be mentioned on any constituency article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the edit warring editor, not me. No reply in over a month tells me quite a lot, actually, namely that I am right and you are wrong. I am considering bringing your disruptive vandalism to the attention of administrators. doktorb _words^deeds 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must take whatever action you think appropriate. But in general no reply indicates no consensus. I would prefer to hear your justification for removing these particular abandoned proposals but not others. Why is it worth noting that the Third Periodical Review initially proposed a Paddington constituency but later abandoned it, and not worth noting that the Sixth Periodical Review did the same? Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An incident report has been created. doktorb _words^deeds 18:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I note that the premise that the website of the abandoned Sixth Periodic Review is not being preserved is false. It is being archived, as are all UK Government websites, by the National Archives. The website is available at [1]. That constitutes a primary source; the proposals of the Sixth Periodic Review generated considerable interest at the time, and were the subject of considerable national and local newspaper coverage which provides adequate secondary sourcing. Boundary reviews are not fundamentally different from other things; things that were proposed but did not happen can become featured articles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has created numerous constituency articles for other countries, I have to agree that inclusion of the Sixth periodic review is notable. It generated considerable interest and press coverage at the time and is exactly the type of information (historic boundaries and proposed boundaries) which I'd expect to find in such articles. Ideally the articles should contain details of boundaries proposed and implemented for every review, including the sixth. A further point, at the risk of crystal balling here, the third(?) periodic review in the late 60s was postponed and subsequently implemented. While the sixth has been abandoned completely, it's more than likely that many of the changes proposed during that will find their way into the next review as electorates in the time period between then and the forthcoming seventh review will not have changed that much. I see no reason to omit that information. Valenciano (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MInor tweak to Style page

I've added "A redirect or disambiguation page entry must always be provided from the basic name.": it shouldn't need saying, but does. For any discussion, please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style#Missing_links to keep it in one place. PamD 10:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick query

I'm trying to get a draft version of Parliamentary representation from Cornwall done for Derbyshire, but there's one thing puzzling me. Does anyone know (or can work out) what the Bolding of certain constituencies represents? it doesn't appear to be an extant vs. historic thing or a BC vs. CC distinction, so is there any particular reason?

ImperatordeElysium 22:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperatordeElysium (talk • contribs)

Well, I've created the page here. Any help with sources would be greatly appreciated.ImperatordeElysium 21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not remember why I set up the list with some names bolded, but it looks like the bolding was to identify the key geographical term used to modify strict alphabetical order. For example Cornwall is bolded, but the compass point named divisions which follow immediately after are not. They would not be in that position in the list if strict alphabetical order was being used. --Gary J (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]