Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 11

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Mgp28 in topic Order of election results
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Separate articles for constituencies named "X and Y"

Latest comment: 4 months ago34 comments9 people in discussion

The current guideline for when a constituency needs to have a different article to a predecessor seat is its name being meaningfully different. If the name is the same, then constituencies are not split into multiple articles by time period (e.g. Bristol Central has had very different iterations over time but retains one article). On the other hand, name changes but minimal boundary changes generally result in new articles (e.g. Langbaurgh vs Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland). There are a few exceptions when the name change is minor, such as City of York redirecting to York rather than being a separate article.

The reason I raise this is that the most recent Boundary Review has involved a lot of adding small place names to constituency names whilst boundary changes are minimal. Oldham West and Royton becomes Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton; Burton (UK Parliament constituency) becomes Burton and Uttoxeter; Southend West becomes Southend West and Leigh; Nottingham North becomes Nottingham North and Kimberley; Wellingborough becomes Wellingborough and Rushden; North Warwickshire becomes North Warwickshire and Bedworth. There doesn't appear to be any consistent policy yet on what to do in such cases: in the first three examples the new name just redirects to the old name, implying that the "and X" is merely a minor title change, but in the latter three examples a new article already exists ready for the election.

I would propose a guideline that if the main part of a constituency name is broadly the same, one article is sufficient regardless of if small variations in that name have happened over time. This can be also extended into the past, for example, I'd suggest that both Tonbridge and Malling and Tunbridge be merged into Tonbridge, and following the election the Tonbridge article would begin with "Tonbridge (1918–1974 and 2024–present), known as Tunbridge from 1885–1918 and Tonbridge and Malling from 1974–2024, is a parliamentary constituency in Kent..."

With the reason being that given the increasing tendency to add small towns to constituency names, it would be increasingly less easy to track changes from one election to the next. There's no benefit to the reader in having information about Harborough, Oadby and Wigston on a completely separate page to information about Harborough. Thoughts? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a perennial debate and thanks for starting it. When this project began we didn't really create the framework for these circumstances. In time some rules, official or otherwise, have been generally applied. The Bristol example you give is great, Newcastle has at least one too.
My "Wikipedia purity" tendencies think that we should try to keep one article per constituency name through COMMONNAME. However I am aware of exceptions which prove this rule: Dover and Deal, for one obvious one, and I think editors have already chosen to add Caerfyrddin to the Carmarthen article on a similar basis.
For reasons of clarity and cohesion, I prefer the article name to reflect that of the constituency, but of course, following the Dover and Deal example, retaining the results of X to show a through line with Z seems logical to me doktorb wordsdeeds 03:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Caerfyrddin/Carmarthen has the precedent of Na h-Eileanan an Iar (UK Parliament constituency) and Ynys Môn (UK Parliament constituency) retaining the same article as from when the constituency names were in English. Regarding the Dover and Deal example, I think it would be good to work out exactly what makes that an exception to the "one article per constituency name" rule, as any guideline on that will almost certainly apply to e.g. Burton and Uttoxeter as much as it does to Dover and Deal.
Aside from the question of "X and Y" names, we need to work out what other minor title variations warrant separate articles. "York" and "City of York" are currently one article, but "Tonbridge" and "Tunbridge" are currently separate, and "Hartlepool" and "The Hartlepools" are also currently separate. There are a few examples of minor name changes resulting from the boundary review: South Swindon becomes Swindon South, and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath becomes Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
To try and formulate a rule using our examples. If the constituency name has changed without a significant boundary change, then we prefer keeping the same article (so that should encompass Ynys Môn, Dover and Deal etc); if there is a clear boundary alteration, then we prefer separate articles. It's not perfect - I'm thinking of Ribble Valley/Clitheroe - but it's maybe a good foundation? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the rules that would fit most accurately with current practice are:
One article:
1) If the name is the same then there is always one article regardless of boundary changes (e.g. Bristol Central, Newcastle upon Tyne North);
2) If a change in the name is solely a translation from one language to another, there is one article (e.g. Ynys Môn, Na h-Eileanan an Iar);
3) If a place name is added with an "and" but this does not represent a major change in the constituency's borders– the place added to the name was already in the constituency's borders but just not in the name before– there is one article (e.g. Dover and Deal)
4) In the event of any other minor change in constituency name accompanied by only a minor change in the borders– there is one article (e.g. York/City of York; Barrow-in-Furness/Barrow and Furness)
Two articles:
5) A minor change in borders, but accompanied by a major change in constituency name, means a new/second article (e.g. Clitheroe/Ribble Valley; Lowestoft/Waveney; Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland/Langbaurgh)
6) The presence of an "and" in the article title reflects a significant change in borders with a new area being added to both the constituency's borders and to the name (e.g. Skipton/Skipton and Ripon)
Definitely not every article currently fits those practices, but I think that's simply thanks to inconsistent practice over time, so it's the best I can come up with. For example by these criteria Hereford and South Herefordshire should definitely be the same article as Hereford under rule 3 (the Dover and Deal provision- no major boundary changes).Chessrat (talk, contributions) 09:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm broadly in agreement. I don't want to split hairs, I'd say an example such as H&SH needs a separate article in my opinion. If those criteria are the foundation we're working on, I can't see much to disagree with. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
List of new constituencies which would not need new articles under these criteria, as far as I can tell:
1) Birmingham Hall Green / Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley
2) Bosworth / Hinckley and Bosworth
3) Brighton Kemptown / Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven
4) Broadland / Broadland and Fakenham
5) Burton / Burton and Uttoxeter
6) Bury St Edmunds / Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket
7) Corby / Corby and East Northamptonshire
8) Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East / Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch
9) Dover / Dover and Deal
10) East Lothian / Lothian East
11) Glenrothes / Glenrothes and Mid Fife
12) Harborough / Harborough, Oadby and Wigston
13) Henley / Henley and Thame
14) Hove / Hove and Portslade
15) Keighley / Keighley and Ilkley
16) Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath / Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy
17) Luton South / Luton South and South Bedfordshire
18) North Swindon / Swindon North
19) North Warwickshire / North Warwickshire and Bedworth
20) Oldham West and Royton / Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton
21) Richmond (Yorks) / Richmond and Northallerton
22) Rochford and Southend East / Southend East and Rochford
23) Sherwood / Sherwood Forest
24) Shrewsbury and Atcham / Shrewsbury
25) South Swindon / Swindon South
26) Southend West / Southend West and Leigh
27) Taunton / Taunton Deane / Taunton and Wellington
28) Wantage / Didcot and Wantage
29) Wellingborough / Wellingborough and Rushden
30) Wells / Wells and Mendip Hills
If I've missed any, please add them. Some of these feel quite clear cut whereas others are borderline. Going to ping other editors involved in these articles @Moondragon21: @JSboundaryman: @Nicole towler: so as to hopefully reach consensus before the runup to the election and the new boundaries coming into use. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd add Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (UK Parliament constituency) to your list, almost identical to Montgomeryshire (UK Parliament constituency) with the addition of a few wards. The constituency has largely been the county of Montgomeryshire since 1542. Sionk (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for starting this discussion @Chessrat:. I've done many edits on this topic and found the current guidelines not as helpful as they should be. This boundary review has been very hard to follow so I created many of the new pages and the new redirects to attempt to update the new constituencies before the general election. I have long thought that articles on UK constituencies should move to how like Canadian constituencies in terms of layout and naming. That way the articles stay the same despite name changes and boundary changes. It doesn't make much sense to have new articles for minor name changes especially when the boundaries are near identical. Historic names would then become categorised redirects.
1. I agree with this. It makes sense.
2. Agree, any articles with non-English names should have their English names redirected
3. This is where there's nuance. I think most would agree that "Langbaugh" is more different to "Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland" than "Dover" is to "Dover and Deal" so merging and renaming old pages isn't really necessary. In some cases the "and" means less than any additions to the constituency. "Dover" and "Dover and Deal" should be the same page as they are the same constituency fundamentally but I can see that other cases could be different. For example "Tiverton and Honiton" was formed out of the two constituencies of "Tiverton" and "Honiton" The historic boundary changes should be made clear to avoid confusion.
4. No issue with this, exception not rule.
5. Agree that such a name change would mean a new constituency.
6. Yes, no reason why Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath / Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy should be different pages. I think the unique case you mention are possibly merging the three pages of Taunton / Taunton Deane / Taunton and Wellington which could be a possibility.

Also, I agree with the point on Hereford and South Herefordshire. Pre 2010, the Hereford constituency still contained the southern parts of the county. And there is a similar issue is with Leominster and North Herefordshire. I think we could potentially use some of the ideas from the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada in order to figure out what to do. Thanks for starting this debate. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Chessrat. Thanks for addressing this issue. It is one I have been grappling with in the process of adding the proposed boundaries for all constituencies under the 2023 review. I am in total agreement with your suggested rules re one or two articles. The only complication which might result in some confusion, I think, is under rule (3), where the added place name is already within the current borders, but may not have been historically - e.g. Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket - although the town of Stowmarket is currently in the Bury St Edmunds constituency, it was only added in 2010. Indeed, Stowmarket was a separate constituency from 1885 to 1918.
In terms of your list, I suggest adding:
• Jarrow / Jarrow and Gateshead East
• Torridge and West Devon / Torridge and Tavistock
• Belfast South / Belfast South and Mid Down
• Monmouth / Monmouthshire
I would exclude Wells / Wells and Mendip Hills as I think this falls under rule (6).
I hope this helps. JSboundaryman (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I think historical circumstances of confusion can be a reasonable argument for different decisions on a case by case basis, e.g. Hereford and South Herefordshire is much the same as pre-2010 Hereford, but prior to 1918 Hereford was an urban borough seat. If it minimizes confusion then a seat like Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket having a separate article would be fine.
Most of the Mendip Hills are already in the Wells constituency and it is only a very small part that isn't so I wouldn't count that as an exception under criterion 6.
Jarrow/Belfast South I didn't include thanks to criterion 6 but again it's borderline so I'm fine either way on those.
Torridge and West Devon- agreed.
Monmouth/Monmouthshire I think is tricky thanks to the historic circumstances of both constituency names having a long history so it would mean merging sizeable articles with each other. According to the Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency) article, the Monmouth Boroughs seat was known as simply "Monmouth" until 1832, and the pre-1832 Monmouth Boroughs/Monmouth seat existed at the same time as the Monmouthshire seat. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Bury St Edmunds was also a borough seat prior to 1918, so yes, separate article for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. Also, Richmond and Northallerton were both borough seats prior to 1885, although the town of Northallerton has always been in the Richmond seat thereafter.
Happy to leave Jarrow and Belfast South off the list. Also Monmouth/Monmouthshire for reasons given.
I still think Wells/Wells and Mendip Hills should be separate because the seat has undergone substantial changes - losing just under half its electorate, including Glastonbury, Street and Burnham, partly offset by the addition of not insignificant parts of the District of North Somerset.
The following are further examples of historical name changes with no/little change to their boundaries:
• Carshalton / Sutton and Carshalton
• Harrogate / Harrogate and Knaresborough (Knaresborough PB prior to 1868; Harrogate created 1950, incorporating town of Knareborough)
• Scarborough / Scarborough and Whitby (alternated over time; Scarborough PB prior to 1918)
• Shrewsbury / Shrewsbury and Atcham (now reverted back to Shrewsbury)
• Sidcup / Old Bexley and Sidcup
• South West Staffordshire / South Staffordshire JSboundaryman (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with all of this, I think!
Was about to type a near identical response about Wells & Mendip Hills - if my maths is correct (via Boundary Assistant), then ~66% of the new electorate is from the 2019 Wells seat with ~18% from Weston-super-Mare (the rest from N Somerset/Bridgwater & WS).
I think that is probably significant enough to warrant a new article, that's the sort of shift mirrored in the newly named seats. Nicole towler (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Hadn't really realized the Wells change was so big! In that case I'm happy to agree with JSBoundaryman on all. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
So, for current review, it looks like it @Chessrat's list minus Wells and Mendip Hills, and Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, plus Torridge and Tavistock that don't need new articles. JSboundaryman (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Moondragon21 (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also just to recap the following new constituency names are redirects as of 18 May 2024. They will be renamed closer to the election:
Moondragon21 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Moondragon21. You have missed a few from @Chessrat's original list. E.g. Wellingborough and Rushden, which I have now merged into the existing article for Wellingborough. JSboundaryman (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I was just coming here to ask about these ones - is there any specific plan on when these will be renamed (or have we reconsidered that?). I'm agnostic on whether we should split out eg a historic "Wellingborough" or keep it in the same place as "Wellingborough and Rushden", but I think ideally it would be good for all the articles to fit wih the urrent form of the name to avoid confusion, and now the election is fully underway seems as good a time as any. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this should be done now that Parliament has been dissolved and the new constituencies are officially in existence. So we need to rename the articles, make the appropriate changes and designate the old pages as redirects. JSboundaryman (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone have any opinions on whether or not similar constituencies which already have separate articles should be merged, e.g. Edinburgh East and Edinburgh East and Musselburgh? These two in particular went EE → EE&M → EE → EE&M, with one MP's tenure including two of those changes, so merging them would seem to make sense. Mibblepedia (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This does not fall into @Chessrat's criteria above (the place added to the name was already in the constituency's borders but just not in the name before). The town of Musselburgh was not in the two versions of the Edinburgh East constituency, so they should be treated as two separate articles. JSboundaryman (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree, but it was in @Moondragon21's list. It's also not entirely true to say Musselburgh wasn't in Edinburgh East, it simply wasn't in either of the periods immediately before it was replaced by EE&M. I should stress that I don't have any strong opinions on this either way, I just want to make sure there's consensus on which constituencies do and don't get separate articles. Mibblepedia (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there was a consensus to @Moondragon21's list, but I don't have any strong objections either way on the Scottish ones (including Edinburgh East/ Edinburgh East and Musselburgh). I would however object to merging Romsey and Waterside, Romsey, Romsey and Southampton North - these are three very different constituencies. JSboundaryman (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Here are some cases of minor boundary changes which I don't think were covered by @Chessrat's criteria the way they were worded:
1. Name adds an area that's entirely/mostly new to the constituency (e.g. Luton South and South Bedfordshire)
2. Name adds an area that's partially (but not mostly) new to the constituency (e.g. Glenrothes and Mid Fife)
3. Name adds an area that was historically in the constituency (e.g. Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)
4. Name removes an area that's still in the constituency (e.g. Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch no longer mentions Kilsyth)
5. Name removes an area that's no longer in the constituency (e.g. Coatbridge and Bellshill losing Chryston)
6. Name change is uninformative (e.g. Lothian East from East Lothian)
Chessrat did list my examples for 1, 2, 4, and 6 as cases where there should be 1 article, but I think that was more about not creating new articles than merging old ones. Mibblepedia (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I've added an "original_name" field to the infobox for when the constituency's name at creation is different from the current name, see Na h-Eileanan an Iar for an example. Mibblepedia (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party here. What were the decisions for the following?

Should I propose WP:SPLITs for any of these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, we agreed Keighley/Keighley and Ilkley, and Sherwood/Sherwood Forest should NOT be separate articles (therefore Belfast South/Belfast South and Mid Down, and Heywood and Middleton/Heywood and Middleton North should be separate). JSboundaryman (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I've just been doing some checks - I believe Heywood and Middleton North & Belfast South and Mid Down are now the only two seats which have not been either moved to the new name or split out. Everything else is now at a pagename matching the Boundary Commission one. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not new to writing UK government articles but am new to this project, so this discussion is very interesting. I get the impression this is the first large scale fundamental review of UK Parliament constituencies since the birth of Wikipedia. So previously editors would have created articles for political divisions which had a similar name (but often wildly different geographical areas), for expediency purposes, but now we're facing a chance to review this approach in a 'live' situation. Is there some way this project could develop guidelines with some consensus - and write them down somewhere accessible - so we can go fore-armed into merger/split/deletion discussions? Sionk (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sionk: It's not, there was one in the early 2000s (see Fifth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies) that mostly took effect at the opening of nominations for the 2010 United Kingdom general election (they had already taken effect in Scotland, see 2005 United Kingdom general election in Scotland). You might be interested in Category:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom disestablished in 2010. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on sub-talk page

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Style#Opinion_polling (a sub page of this one) that may be of interest to watchers here. LukeSurl t c 11:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Chester South and Eddisbury (UK Parliament constituency) listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Chester South and Eddisbury (UK Parliament constituency) to be moved to Chester South and Eddisbury. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Useful source for describing 2023 changes

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Perhaps a bit late, but I have just discovered that UK Parliament has nice clear summary pages describing the overlap between old and new constituencies, such as this. It gives a clearer idea, to complement the detailed lists of wards which don't really give an overall picture. PamD 12:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Electoral Calculus problem

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Many of the election results on constituency pages just use a reference from the Electoral Calculus website, but this fails verification as it does not give the names of all of the candidates and the number of votes for some candidates is summerised on the site under Other, thus you cannot verify the votes for all of the candidates. I think we need to find another source that gives the names and votes for all candidates in an election and tag all uses of just this reference as {{failed verification}}. Keith D (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Keith D Commons Library will have a full dataset shortly, covering all candidates - expected around the end of the week once all the paperwork has come through & been checked, I think. This is probably the best possible source in the long run, especially as they're now moving to having a public site for it - https://electionresults.parliament.uk/ - this gives a single page per constituency per election (eg Yeovil 2019), but also a single CSV file per election (eg 2019 csv) with individual counts for each contestant. I believe the 2024 data will be put up in the same way.
For the time being, there's a complete dataset from Democracy Club - it's pretty reliable though not validated in the same way the Parliament one will be. It currently has votes cast for all candidates, but isn't comprehensive for things like total turnout & spoiled ballots, since those aren't always announced by returning officers in a consistent way. (scroll to "download CSV"). Again, individual per-candidate counts. Though it seems like it might be more straightforward to wait a week and then bring everything up to speed with the Parliament data. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the older election results from the 20th century which the reference just gives the winning candidate and counts for the main parties, grouping the count for smaller parties under other. Keith D (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Order of election results

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a discussion about the order of election results at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style § Order of election results, which might be of interest. Please consider participating in the discussion there. Mgp28 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Archive_11&oldid=1252343641"