Talk:St Marylebone (UK Parliament constituency)

A constructive joint essay to DoktorBuk and others such as myself long in the tooth in UK politics

Example

@Doktorbuk:

1950–1974: The Metropolitan Borough of St Marylebone wards of Bell Street, Bryanston Square, Cavendish Square, Church Street, Dorset Square, Hamilton Terrace, Lord's, Park Crescent, Portman Square, and St John's Wood Terrace.

1974–1983: The City of Westminster wards of Baker Street, Cavendish, Church Street, Lord's, and Regent's Park.

Question

Describe, as if an interested reader in boundary changes but unaware of the Local Government Act 1973, and without imputing an arcane level of local knowledge how the degree of location change to voters' constituency can be adequately or meaningfully summed by reeling out the above two lists of wards? Adam37

Observation: we, from much external reading and being blessed with good eyes looking at constituency maps, can see if these have been completely rezoned, resized, reshaped and/or renamed hence as if often the case (as true here) cover the same zone despite such change but nowhere is that currently stated. A meaningful change I wish to see but some others are being precious in the wording about? Adam37

Question 2

Describe why it is good here to simply jump, as statute quite fairly can, to a new unit of local government without recording one replaced the other. Adam37

Question 3

(Elsewhere) Why is the precise but nigh impenetrable statute's list often re-reeled off in toto when only 1 or 2 wards changed. Phrases that can prevent such spot-the-difference headaches are "otherwise the same wards" or shorter words to state the changes. e.g. New Line: ("as above but Park removed; Church added"). Adam37

Question 3B

(Elsewhere) If Park and Manor are merged as Park, due to purely internal reconfigurations then how is that fairly and properly clarified compared to when Manor has been lost to a neighbouring seat. (likewise splits). My understanding is where it is the former then we simply don't bother to explain but when the seat's scope has actually changed then we do bother to set out some text describing this. Correct? Or are we keeping it nice and sly like the statutes did.Adam37

Question 4

Is it any wonder why most of our articles on Westminster seats languish at Stub/Start when they are quite so impenetrable on such actual changes. And breaching WP:NOTSTATUTE by being far too concentrated on form and not SUBSTANCE. In fact don't they obfuscate for the local voters who want to know what possible glints of local pressure gerrymandering (which does to that degree go on) or on the contrary making more of a toss-up seat in terms of socio-economic mix changes, e.g. large area to the east added, normally called XYZ, rather than Park ward added of the LB of...'. - Adam37 Talk 10:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC) [you have been reading this far too fast "possible glints" means any land lost or gained, not some political monologue as I also remove like you.- Adam37 Talk 18:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)]

Adam37 I neither have time nor patience to answer the questions in this format. Here is my stance, and as 650 current pages and hundreds (if not thousands) more have this format without any similar objection, I know that my stance is the one accepted by the wider community and will remain so. Wikipedia articles reflect the facts and evidence. It is factual and true to say that in the 1970s, this constituency was created using specific wards from one specific authority; and that by 1983 the authority was now a newly constituted London Borough, while the wards had similar names in most cases. We, as editors, put this in an article in a clear, neutral, easy to read format. To focus on the last question, we cannot go into details of what wards could make Seat A better for Party B, or that gerrymandering may have occurred, because of neutrality. This articles detail the seat, the boundaries, and the results. Anything else can go into a blog, YouTube video, or messageboard (I recommend VoteUK). doktorb _words^deeds 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Doktorbuk granted about opining, but one should at least do what some of these 650 do and explain whether some territory was added or taken away. Never allow a jargonese statute alone to stand.- Adam37 Talk 18:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I was never suggesting we put ANY ward level political commentary. I used a hot word there as 100% agree never to make that sort of thing (opine), I just wanted to explain to all readers of this talk page that this is something of such consequence to media that sometimes people's local pressure has been interpreted by party politicians (especially) (and vice versa) as being arguably totally at odds with history and seemingly having a very clear political effect; those sort of arguments to and fro like mad dogs whenever any major redrawing of a county is done for instance. I don't propose for one second we venture down that never-ending quagmire.- Adam37 Talk 18:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S. if you now stand for deliberately omitting to mention if a seat has gained or lost any land then you are making a new policy up on the spot and guilty of hiding change in an electorally deceitful manner. Based on your previous years of hard work turning wikipedia green I am quite sure that is not your intention.- Adam37 Talk 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not denying anything. We find the wards which form a constituency, and we put them in the article. Anything additional to that is unnecessary. doktorb _words^deeds 19:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What does "I am not denying" mean. Foremost one quotes the statute: fine. But cast the net out there (most other seats) and you will see the non neologisms, especially when added or removed, are used. The neologisms are wards, which themselves in the relative lifetime of any normal seat shift a lot (these are known by a select part of each district's residents); recommended reading George Orwell's 1984. (hypothet.) Park and Park Hill wards then (later) Park North, and Park East and Lower Park Hill wards (when redrawn), are all dandy and fine for precision (first in list) but most articles also make mention when any other territory is added or gained and from/to what seat. Helpful articles also confirm none was added or gained as those blessed to be able to see the maps may well be able to see, as here. Your otherwise supposed position or stance is a minority one i.e. to be slavishly beholden to the letter of the statute only. That is not English law nor wikipedia policy and never has been. For obvious reasons. If your stance were correct then every ward would have its own article and of course be normally read-up on or written out to residents when it is constantly redrawn every 8 years or so (per fair apportionment which is why wards get redrawn to keep a strict size (a quota) and don't have to describe an area one bit, and can be renamed as per an official's fancy, with right to objections, but usually a matter of officialese ephemera. Let me remind the public that wards themselves do not have any standalone rights and very often omit the name of the settlement they cover entirely. I think you are bringing trust into the equation. You believe I will write about politics. Tempting but no. And certainly bringing in the fact that I am a writer of writing out a purely graphic geographic fact and not a slavish lover of council nor pre-set officialdom, which per WP:NOTSTATUTE and WP:JARGON are to be translated to plain terms people understand. For instance it might be making th e article properly accessible to say that park of Hyde / Regents Park falls into the seat (were that not obvious) (and if it were removed at some date). I don't think that is doing harm. It might be informative to say that the town centre of Croydon was removed from the seat (read the Croydon seats and you will many such mentions). These are not hard facts to grapple with. Unless that is you insist all articles be written by an truly unseeing and to most people unhelpful machine.- Adam37 Talk 17:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason and policy by which articles regularly describe if the total shape has changed (and you know why you cannot normally find works that do so other than maps, complexity) is WP:PRIMARYCARE, which allows such description and imposes the duty of good faith on these illustrations.- Adam37 Talk 18:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Providing an original illustration Suppose that a Wikimedia contributor inserts a photograph or other media file to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a person, place, or other topic. Editors who do this routinely assert that the photograph depicts the subject of the article. The Wikimedia community assumes good faith that the illustration really depicts the thing. For example, it is not necessary to provide other pictures of a person or place as supporting evidence that a photo insertion into Wikipedia is what the content provider claims that it is, except in the case of a dispute. Creating a photo and uploading it for use in Wikimedia projects is an act of creating a primary source without third-party publishing and review by any established authority.

An article about a painting [this applies to maps by analogy]: The painting itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the colors, shapes, and figures in the painting. Any educated person can look at Georgia O'Keeffe's Cow's Skull: Red, White, and Blue, and see that it is a painting of a cow's skull on a background of red, white, and blue. It is not an acceptable source for claims about the artist's motivation, allusions or relationships to other works, the meaning of the figures in the painting, or any other matters of analysis, interpretation, or evaluation: Looking at the painting does not tell anyone why the artist chose these colors, whether she meant to evoke religious or patriotic sentiments, or what motivated the composition.