Talk:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

Resolved

Manchester?

Where are the Manchester constituencies? (Withington, Gorton, Central etc.) unsigned

The Manchester seats are being shaken up, with a provisional date for revised recommondations for April 2006. The final recommondations should be published around December 2006/early 2007 doktorb | words 13:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Move article?

I do feel the article should be at Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election. Also, I am wondering whether there are similar articles (existing, planned or in development) for earlier general elections. Seems to me that, ideally, there should be a series of articles, clearly linked to each other as such. Laurel Bush 17:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

How speculative is the article?

Wondering whether the article lists only constituencies which would exist if the next election were called today, or represents changes which can be expected to become definite/effective if the election is still some years away. Laurel Bush 12:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC).

I think the readers of this article need to understand the way in which constituencies are decided in the UK; the seats currently listed have been agreed as final recommondations by the relevant boundary comissions, and once an order in council has been laid in Parliament, they will be in place for the next General Election. They will NOT be in place until all seats have been agreed and the order in council has been laid; were an election called for next week, only the already agreed upon and fought Scottish constituencies would exist as per the list. The rest of Great Britain/Northern Ireland would be on current (i.e 1997) boundaries. doktorb 08:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC).

Thanks. Pretty much what I had imagined. Thinking of putting the sense of it into the article. Laurel Bush 12:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC).

Laurel - I agree with your changes but I've tried to make it clear that the size and shape of the constituencies are agreed by the Commission, not Parliament. The final recommondations are decided by the Commissions following public consultation; Parliament can only accept or reject the WHOLE package. Thanks for the work you're doing on my page, other than the page title (which I'm not sure I still accept!) the page looks pretty good now. doktorb 16:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been technically (in three cases) disproved with the exceptions of the Isle of Wight (being split) and Na H'Eilanan an Iar (only being safeguarded as a separate seat) under statutory changes in 2011, thus enacting only part of the package proposed by the Commission and departing from it in fact, so it is Parliament who decides, however by convention no single party-proposed changes are put forward after final recommendations, only cross-party support changes, otherwise this would lead to national bad press, seen as blatant gerrymandering. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Chelmsford

Why is Chelmsford in this list? It was abolished in 1997. If the list includes Chelmsford, what else does it contain that is wrong & how much reliance can we place on it? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Okay. Now I've read the comments above. So Chelmsford is to be reinstated. Ah well. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yep - these are the final recommondtions of the 4 Boundary Commissions, as and when they publish their reports. Chelmsford is back !! doktorb | words 13:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jan 11th 2006 Update

On Jan 11th, the boundary commission released Final and Revised recommendations for West Yorkshire and Tyne & Wear. The Final Recommondations have been added here - the revised recommondations cannot be added until they are reported as Final Recomondations later in the year.

A few red links remain, these are either brand new constituencies or existing seats with modified names.

Next planned update is "summer" for Greater Manchester....

doktorb | words 11:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it just Greater Manchester left? Morwen - Talk 15:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Morwen - there are a few "revised recommondations" for Tyne and Wear left as well as the whole of Gtr Manchester. In the summer of 2006, the Commission release any revised recommondations for Gtr Manchester, so any seats which are untouched will be "finally recommonded" and put on this table then. Otherwise it's set to be end of the year/2007 for the outstanding seats.

In the recent updates, the whole of West Yorkshire has just been added so the picture for Great Britain is almost complete. Norn Iron do things differently so it's anyones guess with them.. =) doktorb | words 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Electoral Calculus

Electoral Calculus have completed their analysis of the boundary changes in England and Wales. Could their findings please be integrated into Wikipedia please? Their findings show that Labour will instantly have a reduced majority of 20, with the Tories benefiting the most (in fact the Lib Dems will have fewer seats.) David 10:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to merge this in. I agree it should be there it's just a matter of doing it smoothly - please amend if you think you can do better.Alci12 15:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Almost all done !

Today the Boundary Commission released their update for Manchester. New articles will have to be created for "Blakeley and Broughton"; "Worsley and Eccles South" and "Salford and Eccles".

Only Norn Iron is left to wait upon. doktorb | words 13:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We're missing a Northern Ireland one: Antrim North is not here. I know there is a proposal to rename it "Antrim Coast & Glens", but without it this whole list is incomplete. (If you count them, there are 649 not 650 on the list!). Shouldn't it go back in? Tobycek 14:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one Birmingham seat lost?

Is it just one Birmingham seat lost? According to Birmingham there are currently eleven Birmingham seats. Laurel Bush 09:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

Yes, read the Boundary Commission's report on the changes in the West Midlands, and you will see there has been the axing of one Birmingham seat. doktorb | words 09:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush 09:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC).

Just to clarify - there are currently 11 and will be 10 seats for the City of Birmingham council area but one of those is (and will be) Sutton Coldfield, which doesn't appear with the other Birmingham constituencies in the alphabetical list for obvious reasons. Esquimo 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Could we get a per-county summary of the numbers of seats: saying basically "Singles seats were deleted from Greater Manchester, West Midlands and Somerset, Warwickshire were given one extra seat" - type thing. Morwen - Talk 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, yeah. —Nightstallion (?) 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it could use a map

A visual map would be more informative. Jon 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The map should have a key for people who dont know what the colors represent unsigned

This idea has been implemented in a new table, following the style of the excellent US House of Representatives tables. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming

Not sure of the best place to say this - but the official names for the new constituencies are given in the statutory instruments as linked to at the top of the article, not whatever the ONS has decided to call them. I feel the primary source should be the name used (and are indeed the names used by Wikipedia titles - the page is correctly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton-under-Lyne_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29 not Ashton under Lyne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracos (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about punctuation? Incidentally, the way to link to Wikipedia articles within Wikipedia is to enclose the article name in square brackets, e.g., typing [[Ashton-under-Lyne]] produces Ashton-under-Lyne. -Rrius (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad link. Mostly punctuation (though I think hyphens in a name could be argued to be more). The Wikipedia style guide says just be consistent regarding periods, and so given the individual page names and the Statutory Instruments, I've removed them, along with the couple of "and"s and the Ashton name. Hope that's okay. Dracos (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2013 Review of UK Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries!

From midnight on Tuesday 13th September 2011 the proposed boundary changes for parliamentary constituencies in England will be published. Is there anything that this page requires to be altered ahead of the proposed changes, Please note the changes being announced are only provisional and are subject to change. Proposed Changes to parliamentary boundaries in Scotland, Wales and Northern will be announced at later dates. I don't recommend anything specific be added on the page yet to reflect the 2013 review but I will leave that up to the rest of you to decide but I do strongly recommend that as a result of the 2013 review all references to the 2006 review of parliamentary boundaries across be now removed from this as that information is no longer needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOTORAL1987 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

While the academic enthusiasm for mass-noting of these complex minor changes was well-founded, by Parliamentary frames of reference they kept a degree of malapportionment for NI, Scotland and Wales and the recommendations have been shelved for the time being. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Archived result of this discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. GTBacchus^(talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Constituencies in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 → List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies — Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC) These are now the constituencies represented by current MPs and will be contested in future by-elections and general elections until such times as a new boundary regime takes effect. As such, this article should bear the title that has, up till now, been used for the boundaries in current use. -Rrius (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. There is a horrendous interlocking mass of lists of constituencies around Wikipedia, none having the same format from one election to the next. Some work tidying these up would be a good plan (and yes I probably will do some myself!). The present article would be better named UK Parliament constituency boundary revisions, 2010 which actually describes the content. Then other information about the boundary revision process could be added to it rather than being scattered around lots of pages. Sussexonian (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that makes sense. There was no boundary review in 2010, and the most recent Scottish boundaries took effect at the 2005 election, not 2010. This article is a list of constituencies used at the 2010 election, which is the same thing as a list of current constituencies as they will be used for any by-elections and any general elections that take place between now and when new boundaries take effect. -Rrius (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. While the reasoning above would normally be sound - I'd hold on. DC has promised to redraw the boundaries before the next election; if he does manage it, this'll be the only one for which they're used. Wereon (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the idea of the move is sound, and the name suggested is fine. I do agree that there is a shambolic mass of pages listing constituencies (List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cornwall etc.), many of which were not updated properly to reflect the new constituencies which took effect this year. Also, while David Cameron may want another review, they take a rather long time to carry out: the last review (in England and Wales) took from 2000 to 2005, and didn't become law until 2007, so any revisions are unlikely to be in place for the next election, even if that's not until 2015. --RFBailey (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies should be the name - that's what it is now. Should DC/NC get round to changing anything (I doubt if DC wants to change anything...), then it can be renamed to something like List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies 2005-2015 to show the historical system of that era, and allowing the old page page to stay current.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2013

Boundary changes

I have just identified some unaltered constituencies under the new heading "Boundary changes". I am thinking it would be useful to have info under this heading more or less of the kind under "Notes" in Former United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. (The latter Notes, however, are very variable in quality and reliability.) Laurel Bush 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

This led to approx. 60% complete collaborative content for the period when changes were planned with the largest changes summarised to help most of the small % of electorate affected, all written in the present tense e.g. "loses part to x and y" or "loses Brompton to ...", however has been as per other changes carefully incorporated to individual articles, which has been accomplished by various editors, such as me, since your helpful comment of 2006. This has resulted in the Fifth PRWC (since the first in 1950) information being available to the affected small minority of voters, well done. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorting

I've merged the tables and made them sortable, seeing the differences in size between Orkney and Isle of Wight is illuminating 82.69.90.226 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone has evidently changed them back, but I don't know why. In UK Parliament terms, there is no reason to use the separate countries/province, especially as the official regions of England are not used. I wanted to compare the constituency sizes, and the article is now useless for that, if the Western Isles constituency and the Isle of Wight are not in the same list. Salopian (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

While the Boundary Commissions are rightly or wrongly divided to allow for separate administration, also perhaps to assist justification of the extra representation per parliamentary consensus for various countries of the UK at various times, one table I agree is more logical with an extra column for country. My new, improved table will take on board all of your helpful suggestions with columns for: party abbreviation and country.

The pre-2010 changes are a piece of history, not I see, reflected in other countries' articles and not really encyclopedic as very difficult to summarise in such a tabular form while doing them any justice whatsoever. It does now unfortunately, indeed, seem a little odd to include mention of these changes which should be covered in the articles themselves, and of course in many cases the preceding 1997 changes were more dramatic in the most politically studious people's minds may be more relevant, once again debatable. In most cases the changes as described, complex, indeed tend to only affect one village/neighbourhood/town/city district or part of one of these (typically 0 to 3 wards), or of course getting rid of shared wards universally which took place in the Order made for that year. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Some Parties?

Maybe we could add a column, or colour, denoting the Party that holds the seat now? Just a thought, but it would help for clarity, and would be sortable. --RobNS 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Constituency	Electorate	Party	County	Boundary changes
Aldershot	66,499	Conservative	Hampshire	Minor alterations
Aldridge-Brownhills	58,695	Labour	West Midlands	Little change
Altrincham and Sale West	69,605	Lib Dems	Greater Manchester	Minor alterations

This comment, unopposed to date, has helped to inform my intended edit of today's date: an excellent idea. Colour-coded with key will work best and give the Americans, French and Germans a run for their money in their own articles on the subject of national chamber country divisions. Adam37 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Rethought and tempered to something a little less extreme. As the boundaries are separate from who wins them and often have a long, occasionally socially interesting history, even prompting the original main editor to add a column attempting to detail each change, this article is the apolitical version. The idea of describing the changes and doing them justice is virtually impossible and diversionary from the main content i.e. whether there is any perceived or actual malapportionment

A link to the colourful, political one List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 is now given, as is the correct constitutional format which is to say all constituencies are legally equal and legally to one institution. This should be ranked higher than the expediency of undertaking separate boundary reviews, on an increasingly frequent basis since the reforms of 1987 and 1992, by country naturally. The default order of the table created is by country to permit boundary commission analyses to continue be made on a logical basis however this I suggest is wide open to debate. Adam37 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Extra columns?

At Talk:Opinion polling in United Kingdom constituencies, 2010-5, I think we have identified reasons for a couple of new columns. Firstly, a column for the region, and secondly a column that will allow quick and easy spotting of whether a constituency is listed at that page. I think this is a suitable venue for both. DrArsenal (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Having done quite a bit of work on this page in the past, the addition of a region here seems really important. I was attempting to work out the number of MPs per region. It is hard work as it stands! Crooked cottage (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's there now! (for England only, as W,NI & S are each counted as a single region, for those who don't already know...) DrArsenal (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Humberside

Several constituencies list "Humberside" as the largest local authority. But Humberside has not been a local authority since 1996 - it was split into the four unitary authorities of Kingston upon Hull, East Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire. Some constituencies reflect these new names (Brigg and Goole for example) but others don't. (And Cleethorpes, oddly, says Lincolnshire despite being NE Lincs to my knowledge.) Did the rest ought to be updated? 83.100.130.80 (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC) E

Tabs

I don't understand what's happening here. I think it may just be me being a little bit picky, but should the electorate list be in alphabetical order by its named constituency? If you have a link which lists the constituencies in alphabetical order rather than by which non-sovereign state it is in, I would be much grateful. (Once you have given a link, you can later delete this section.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.7.23 (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

List sortable by Size?

Adding this information would make this list considerably more interesting. At present there is nowhere on Wikipedia that compares Parliamentary Constituencies by size. Also having the electorate size three times for the last three elections is pretty irrelevant considering boundary changes etc.--109.246.154.9 (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It already is! DrArsenal (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Electorate?

Surely the electorate number should only be from the last election (2017)? What relevance does the number of people on the electorate in 2000, nearly 20 years ago, have today? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm flagging this up in an inappropriate way - I've been doing some spreadsheet analysis of electorates and constituencies and have noticed that the figures for the four countries in the section:

Parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom

although being headed as "Electorate 2017" , seem not to match with the figures given lower in the page in the

Electorate summary - Average electorate per constituency for each constituent country

section. If you crunch the numbers to get the arithmetic average of the "Electorate 2017" column for each Country, this matches the 2015 figures, with one exception.

Here's the figures from my calculations having used those 2017 tables:

England: 73517.2607879925 Scotland: 69483.593220339 Wales: 57043.85 N. Ireland: 68709.1666666667

And here are the figures as retrieved 20191213T1139 from the Wiki page

England 72,107 Scotland 69,484 Wales 57,044 Northern Ireland 68,709

so, a match on Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. I've rechecked my calculation for England average, again 73517.2607879925

Two errors, or data discrepancies then;

Year date as given in the two tables - they can't BOTH be 2017

and

There is an error somewhere in the England figures - either in the average, OR, in the detail constituency table.

Perhaps somebody more familiar with the source data could take a look at this?

Thanks. Brian Tan TanBrian (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Geographical area

At Brecon in the last couple of days I heard the assertion that Brecon and Radnor is the largest constituency in England and Wales by area. This seemed an interesting statistic to check, but wasn't included in this article, though this seems the logical place for any such figure to be given. I've added largest and smallest in UK from the parliament website, but I can't find a source for Brecon and Radnor apart from the previous MP saying so in his maiden speech - likely to be reliable, but another source would be good. Does anyone know of a listing of constituencies by geographical size? PamD 18:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The ONS gives three values for each constituency for the land: gross; net of inter-tidal; and net of lakes, reservoirs etc. AND inter-tidal. And the MP was wrong; Penrith is about 3% larger. I've tried to add these figures to the page, but other than copying and pasting 650 values, I can't see how to do it. I can't see how to add a column to a table. The ref. is https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/search?collection=Dataset&sort=name&tags=all(PRD_SAM_ELE) and I've refined it into four sheets of a spreadsheet, so if anyone can do the edit and wants to, I'll provide it (or go to the ONS page, if you like). Nick Barnett Nick Barnett (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are they split by country?

What is the point of splitting them up by country? It makes the data harder to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.120.191.60 (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Page name

Shouldn't this be United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies per both WP:COMMONNAME and also the official usage ([1])? "Parliament constituencies" seems to be a usage particular to Wikipedia and is grammatically hard to justify.----Pontificalibus 07:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is a clear consensus that a move is in order, and within that a somewhat narrower consensus for the unambiguous proposed alternative title. BD2412 T 04:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

United Kingdom Parliament constituencies → United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies – per both WP:COMMONNAME and also the official usage ([2])? "Parliament constituencies" seems to be a usage particular to Wikipedia and is grammatically hard to justify. --Pontificalibus 09:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. -- Calidum 03:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Per nom. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Proposed title is slightly clearer and more standarder. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think this title clarifies that it's "consituencies of the UK Parliament" (ie Westminster) but excludes "constituencies in the UK which are constituencies of other parliaments". So we have , which is not a subset of this, but also , which is included. PamD 15:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@PamD: Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies are called just that on Government websites though, and that is the only other parliament in the United Kingdom (Wales and Northern Ireland are both assemblies). This is a common usage argument in my book. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat: that seem a bit misleading. The Scottish Parliament is the only other assembly or parliament which currently has constituencies in the UK, but we also have articles for:

1. The UK's former European parliament constituencies (1979-2020)
2. The constituencies of the Parliament of Northern Ireland (1922-73)
3. The constituencies of the London, Wales and Northern Assemblies, each of what may reasonably be considered to be "parliamentary constituencies". (Yes, some ppl would disagree, but others wouldn't, so there will be at least some confusion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: There has been a Welsh Parliament, and hasn't been a Welsh Assembly, for over a year. DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: thanks for that correction. (I just think of the new name as "Senedd", and foolishly overlooked the English-language name). I think it strengthens my point that there are articles on several other sets of articles on constituencies within te UK of an entity called "Parliament". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill and BrownHairedGirl: Uh oh. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) is long established and agreed upon. doktorb _words^deeds 06:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: Indeed, and I think it's a bit silly. I think the alternative proposal is a reasonable compromise. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per PamD. The proposed new title creates an unhelpfully broader meaning, which causes ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest ALT1 rename to Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, per WP:NDESC. That is slightly less concise, but it is unambiguous and it is also easily recognisable because it incorporates the title of Parliament of the United Kingdom.
    Ping participants above: @Calidum, YorkshireExpat, HumanBodyPiloter5, PamD, and Doktorbuk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1: unambiguous, which is what we seek. PamD 08:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1: Decent compromise. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom Proposal is ambiguous due to there being more than one parliament in the United Kingdom (and grammatically incorrect by capitalising 'parliamentary'). Number 57 19:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - The risk of there anyone being confused about which constituencies "United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies" refers to is basically zero, and it's closer to common usage and better English. Every other parliament in the UK is qualified by an additional identifier when being referred to. "Parliament", with no qualification, is understood as referring to the parliament of the United Kingdom by common usage (see, e.g., here). There seems to be a lot of "Wiki has done this in the past so will continue to do it in the future" above, when actually a lot of practises established on wiki are simply the OR creations of a handful of editors at some point in the past. FOARP (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@FOARP: Agree fully. The current name is not good. The alternative is reasonable so I caved, but certainly tortured English. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Huh? @YorkshireExpat: in what way is Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom tortured English? It's a simple "X of Y" phrase. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Grammatically it is, of course, fine, but there's a much simpler way of saying the same thing (the original proposal (forget the incorrect capitalisation)). If I submitted the alternative proposal as copy for any reasonable British English newspaper, I'd hope the editor would laugh me out, which takes us back to WP:COMMONNAME, not to mention the fact that the institutions themselves use the style of the original proposal. Then again, I am not a professional writer, as may be apparent from this :). As I said before, yours is a decent compromise. Also found this amusing. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat: unfortunately, your proposal does not say the same thing, because your proposal is ambiguous.

The purpose of a newspaper is different to that of an encyclopedia, but even so I'd have little regard for a newspaper editor who laughed at accurate phrasing.

Your usage may be less ambiguous in certain contexts, and news reporter are usually referring to (or assuming) a particular context. But here on Wikipedia we are writing for a global audience, so we prefer terminology which is unambiguous.

My proposal is not a compromise. It's the only option on the table which satisfies WP:PRECISION --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I feel we're going round in circles, but ok.

Agree that a newspaper is different to an encyclopedia, and that they are writing for a local audience. However, the fact that such things as {{Use British English}} exist suggest that colloqualism is accpected to some extent (although I recognise it was probably started to stop people arguing over spelling), and part of the educational remit of the encylopedia may be to educate the reader on that colloquial use of language.

Your proposal may satisfy WP:PRECISION, but does not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, therefore it is a compromise.

We can agree to disagree :). Your alternative is better than the current one. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: clear and unambiguous.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should I add a column for Current Member?

This would be a lot of work, so proposing it here first to see if anyone is going to object!

We have List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election but this is not the same as a list of current MPs, as far as I can see there is no Page on Wikipedia which lists all current members of the British Parliament! which is daft.. I think this would be an appropriate place to do so. Clearly the current sitting member for a constituency is very relevant information.

A list of current members of parliament will have so much overlap with this article, that it would be a little odd to try and maintain both. Any thoughts? Objections?

a. A new column title "Member of Parliament" b. Text to be Members Name (Members Party or Independent) (as per the 'Constituency' template)

JeffUK (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• See [3] doktorb _words^deeds 13:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I Mentioned that above.. List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election is not a list of current MPs; it's a static list of the people who won in the last GE which is not the same thing. JeffUK (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It indicates byelections and defections so it isn't static. Your column duplicates a list we already maintain. doktorb _words^deeds 14:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• If you do add the column, I suggest we make it sortable on surname using eg {{sort|Farron, Tim|[[Tim Farron]]}}. PamD 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

*But perhaps the optimal solution would be to broaden the scope of List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election to include all MPs elected on or since that general election, with clear identification of those who are no longer MPs or, indeed, no longer alive, as well as the addition of those elected in byelections? PamD 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is already a full list at List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) which uses italics to indicate those members who are no longer sitting (alive or dead), and is being updated (ie includes Kim Leadbeater) (but hasn't adjusted its ranking figure for the demise of David Amess, who is listed, in italics, as number 7). We don't need three lists of current MPs. PamD 16:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, that's the better place to start, thanks JeffUK (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the initial observation that the List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election is not a list of current MPs; however I don't think this article is the appropriate article to include the current MP - we should have a separate article for this. List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2019–present) does not do this at it still includes MPs who have died or resigned since the 2019 general election. This discussion is pertinent to the discussion on merging the current 2 articles (Talk:List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election#Merger proposal), which seems to have petered out without a conclusion. I have added my thoughts to this discussion. JSboundaryman (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)