Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage majorities and changes[edit]

An IP editor is changing percentages for majorities and other values in UK elections.[1][2][3] Where majorities have previously been calculated as the majority divided by the turnout, the IP editor is changing them to the difference between the rounded percentages for the candidates. Similarly, they change increases and decreases to be differences between the displayed rounded values. The changes are sometimes a mere 0.1%, sometimes more marked as errors are compounded - a majority's decrease of 0.6% becomes 0.8%[4] at Ealing Central and Acton (UK Parliament constituency) - and I've seen numbers fudged, for example to make 100%.

Their edit summaries today have been "the reader doesn’t use ‘exact values', but they would see this as a mathematical error. Changed to rounded values; we always use these". It is true that this has become common, because they've been doing this a long time with great persistence, though I think they stopped for a while after this altercation on my talk page.

Can anyone say what policy is, or what's desirable? Is the IP editor bringing UK articles into line with articles for other countries or making them exceptional? NebY (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles for constituencies named "X and Y"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]