Talk:2013 periodic review of Westminster constituencies

Incorrect flag removed once again

The Ulster Banner is not the Flag of Northern Ireland, see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Or if you want an external source try http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11431921. Northern Ireland does not have a flag other than the Union Flag. O Fenian (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than get into a) an edit war, or b) a talk page blanking session (I've noticed you have expunged me from all records on your talk page), I have removed all flags from the table doktorb _words^deeds 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Is there any source for the title "Sixth Periodic Review"? or is it just another WP neologism? I can't find any such mention on the various (English) Boundary Commission web pages. As this is not the next in the previous series, but the first in a new style of reviews, perhaps the title should be something like "2011-2015 Review of ...". Sussexonian (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Scotland calls it the Sixth (http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/newsarchive/) . The Welsh are calling the Sixth "general review" (http://www.bcomm-wales.gov.uk/2013_review/initial_newsletter_e.pdf). Northern Ireland calls it the 6th (http://www.boundarycommission.org.uk/) Seems good enough sources to keep the name doktorb _words^deeds 13:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. There are really two articles here, one describing the new process and another which eventually deal with the outcome of the 2015 review. There are so many flaws in the process, however, that I expect there will have to be more legislation before too long. Interesting times. Sussexonian (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the two articles in one, though I think it would be very difficult to justify splitting it into two. Thankfully Wiki is not paper so it should be fine in putting both sides in one. I was considering starting 4 articles for each country, but was advised that would be far too messy. I have not yet decided what to do later in the year when the first draft proposals are announced. Interesting times indeed! doktorb _words^deeds 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Status?

With the Lib Dems saying they will no longer support the Conservative proposals, what is the status of this? It seems unlikely that the changes to the rules (the number of seats being reduced to 600 and constituencies being divided according to the size of the electorate instead of the size of the population) will go ahead. Is a sixth review still due before 2015, or will it be delayed altogether?--86.179.225.42 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As of today this instant, it's still going ahead. No legislation has been introduced to stop it. No official order has been passed to delay it. I have put in the article a few sources to update the status, but last week the Scottish Commission released their revised recommendations and in October both England and Wales will do the same. Unless and until Parliament votes to stop it, the process will continue. doktorb _words^deeds 10:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Motives

Is it totally fine that the article makes no mention of the respective motives of the parties opposed to the review. In Labour's case, self-interest, and the LibDems, petulance at not getting their Lords reforms? Without this info, readers in 10 years time will have no idea why a standard PERIODIC review was opposed. --Elmeter (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

2018 review is "seventh review" - Commons Library

I chanced upon this House of Commons Library article which refers to the 2013 review as the "Sixth Periodic Review" but the 2018 review as the "seventh general review". Given that the 2018 review is completely separate from the 2013 (600 seats not 650, 2015 electorate not 2010), shouldn't it have a separate article entitled either "2018 Periodic Review..." or if we're feeling bold "Seventh Periodic Review..."? FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 08:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It does seem that the 2018 review should be moved to the Seventh Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies but I think the move should come after the final recommendation is published publicly. JDuggan101 (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. My initial reaction is to wait and see. If the use of "7th" becomes notable/official, we can split this article as required. For now, stick with one article for the Sixth unless and until the Seventh becomes officially confirmed. doktorb _words^deeds 21:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with you both. The final proposal for NI will have been handed to the government today, so we've just to wait on them tabling it now. FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 15:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Update needed

What't the current status of these proposals? Does primary legislation need to be passed to implement them? The article still says that "The process recommenced in 2016 with completion due in 2018." — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Naming

A few points:

• The 'sixth' review is over and was shelved in favour of the 2018 review. [1]
• You might call the 2018 review the seventh review, but it seems to me that a convention along the lines of '20XX review of UK parliamentary constituencies' would be far more sensible.
• In any case, the plan referenced in the article to reduce seats to 600 is off the table.[2] [3]

The above wasn't signed, but is the rationale for the proposed split. See also the naming convention for 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. mgSH 22:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)