Talk:Thirsk and Malton (UK Parliament constituency)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)