Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Separate articles for constituencies named "X and Y"

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

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

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

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

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

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)

RfC on Notional results and listing of result outcomes

There are two questions:

  1. Should 2024 UK Parliamentary constituency articles contain notional results in table format in the election results section?
  2. How should results of the 2024 parliamentary constituencies be listed for boundary changes of seats and for brand new seats?

LawNerd123 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Percentage Changes in election boxes

Can the percentage bar for changes in percentages still be kept in please for the general elections where boundary have taken place. Removing them does not look neat or tidy please, thank you. Torres2000X (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This is style over substance and not a helpful retention. "Removing them does not look neat or tidy" is not a substantive reason for retention it is a call for aesthetics over purpose. The removal indicates that no change is possible when a new seat is drawn and new boundaries are drawn. LawNerd123 (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with what LawNerd123 is saying. It has been standard Wikipedia practice in the past to include changes in notional results in UK Parliament constituency articles, like notional results for the 2005 general election for 2010 results and notational results for the 1992 UK general election for the 1997 UK general election. It would be terrible to take away notational change information when that information is very useful. We need a ruling on this. 2607:FEA8:53D7:DF00:64B3:1207:CE4D:670C (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I can see both sides here. Notional results are used by BBC, Sky etc having been calculated by professors in an official capacity, and they can be cited easily enough. To reach a comprise, can't we show the notional results without including percentage changes? doktorb wordsdeeds 04:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection to Notional results being in the main text of the article. It is though misleading in the election results as notional results are not people voting but a psephological calculation. I am not opposed to a notion results text section containing all of the notional results for a seat. This in my opinion only applies to boundary changes and not new seats as a new seat is a new seat and that has never had the electorate it currently has in any way shape or form prior to being created. LawNerd123 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
You're removing all of them though. Is there anyway we can get LawNerd123 to stop removing percentage changes until a decision has been made on this. And I don't agree with LawNerd123 on new seats. I think percentage changes and notional results should be included for new seats also. We still need a ruling on this. 2607:FEA8:53D7:DF00:9801:5E1F:CCBD:7FA8 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
No compelling or policy reason for retention has been given for keeping the confusing, and mathematically misleading information. If you want a separate section on notional results and to put it in the pros be my guest. Notional results are not elections no one voted in a national result, they are academic calculations. So listing them in elections is misleading, confusing and downright incorrect. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
But you don't have consensus to make such a sweeping decision. When every media source uses notional results as a starting off point, Wikipedia has to at least consider referencing them, surely? doktorb wordsdeeds 03:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Considering that consensus was attempted and there was silence I went with the bold. There is no point hanging around forever waiting for people yo reply when you have done all you can to initiate a discussion. the argument of "wait forever on a wall of silence goes against the very essence of Wikipedia which is to make the changes and discuss them afterwards. Making the changes and then having a discussion no one took part in is not an excuse for others to go well you don't have consensus. That is ridiculous. Finally, the "every media source" argument is the biggest red herring and failure of decision-making and not analysing the merits of something that could be argued. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

We should keep the notional figures, as in this version, but we should make it clearer that the percentages relate to the notional 2019 result - perhaps adding a footnote to the column header which links to a note saying "Percentage change is shown relative to the 2019 notional election results for the revised boundaries / the new seat" with a link to the notional result on the parliamentary website. PamD 07:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally would be in favour of a completely separate section, and if there is to be an inclusion of these notional results there has to be inclusion of notional results going all the way back to when they started. Otherwise it is selective inclusion of the information which is the worst possible outcome. This is though only for seats with boundary changes. For new seats notional results are the ultimate confusion. A new seat has never been contested before and should not give any impression that it has in any way shape or form. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no logical difference between a new seat and a seat which has kept its name with 50% change in voters. PamD 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Then by that logic there can be no change in percentage shown as the boundaries for a boundary change and a new seat have no people voting companion (an election) just some confusing academic research. I wholly agree with your position of no change in percentage being shown for election results for new seats or new boundaries. LawNerd123 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
No, by my logic the official notional figures can be used to provide percentage changes both for new and for changed seats. PamD 23:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The easiest way to create confusion is to add in changes in votes from a fictional election. A good academic theory notional elections are but a notional election is a fictional election. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
This is not a ‘fictional election’, it is a baseline to give context for how a new seat voted in real life. All media organisations use notional results and it would be ridiculous for Wikipedia to be the exception. Icc27 (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
It is when no one goes to the polls and it is done in a university on a spreadsheet. This In an encyclopaedia not a media outlet or a news site. LawNerd123 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Notional results are used by all authoritative news organisations (e.g. the BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c06k8ge1ng7o.amp) and they are also used by Parliament itself (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10009/). Notionals are a tool to reduce confusion and are uniformly treated as such elsewhere. One user’s personal problems with them clearly should not trump every source on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icc27 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. PamD 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the sheep approach above of well so and so does it do
let’s be zombies and just lose all critical analysis and reason and follow blindly.
They were not used for 2010 and 2005 or earlier boundary changes so why add them now this is recentism gone wild. It’s also a POV violation to only add for 2024. Add all or none.
There is no value having a confusing notional result
There is no value listing seats as held or gained when they are new seats or new boundaries. That is just completely and 100% wrong and misleading.
All I’m seeing as an argument is other use them so we should be sheep
Which is no argument at all.
I’ve offered alternatives like add a separate section or add in the pros but that seems to be conveniently ignored by the bulls here trying to impose without trying to find any common ground. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
What a bizarre comment. UK election results are presented with changes from notionals. This is non-controversial, hence the sources I posted above all using them, except seemingly with you.
Notionals provide helpful context for the reader, and it is unfortunate that they are not included for every set of new boundaries on Wikipedia (though they are on many pages). Icc27 (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The biggest problem is when there are brand new seats with some magical perception and some magic gain or hold input
a new seat is a new seat and that has never been fought before and to claim anything other than a new seat win is preposterous. Additionally couponing vote changes is just flat out confusing and wrong.
like wise new boundaries are new boundaries just the same name no I e has ever actually done any voting on those boundaries. Listing them as anything but new boundary wins is misleading and inaccurate. Likewise claiming some percentage changes is fanciful and confusing.
The claims of well we’ve done notional before dies not make it accurate, correct or the right carry on. Fixing things which are wrong would never be done with that approach.
If you are hell bent on having some of this notional stuff add it in the text but leave it out if the election results as a notional result is not an election but an academic calculation.
Stick to actual voting in the election results not academic exercises no matter how many news outlets use them to claim as so called actual election result. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the sheep approach above of well so and so does it do: but that's just it: Wikipedia does follow what other reliable independent published sources do, such as the BBC news announcements of election results. PamD 20:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
You have changed your tune since you commented on my talk page after I updated Westmorland and Lonsdale. It cannot be right to simply go well the news uses it so we must. That would mean nothing gets verified and violate WP:V. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary, the two sources for the note I have just added to Waveney Valley (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2020s make it quite clear that reliable sources call this seat a "Green win from Conservative". I can't remember what I first said about W&L and haven't the stamina to check, being involved in real life matters like hospital visits. I know I didn't know anything about notional results before seeing them reported in Wikipedia, and now understand them to be a source used by all main media and the Parliament website itself in calculating swings.
The distinction between "new seat" (eg Waveney Valley), "old seat dramatically changed by boundary changes but retaining same name" (eg Leeds NW), old seat given new name but pretty much unchanged, and other variations is pretty meaningless. In each case, we should follow the reliable sources of BBC and other media and Parliamentary website, and use the notional 2019 results as the baseline for changes, just as they do. To do otherwise verges on WP:OR. Too stressed and tired to fight this one, keeping my energy for commutes to hospital. I hope some other editors will weigh in on this. PamD 20:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I see no reason to call a seat a gain when it is a new seat or new boundaries when that is the accurate and correct verbiage.
It is not OR to call something what it is that is a stretch when clearly the bright line.
Any change in boundaries with the same name is a new boundaries win.
Any new boundaries with a new name is a new seat.
This is not OR and it is dishonest to claim it is OR.
"it quite clear that reliable sources call this seat a "Green win from Conservative"". this is easily covered in the boundaries section as this is where it should be listed. That is a claim made by the academics. You can have news media outlets use the notional but that does not make it the actual accurate election results. it is just an academic calculation of the boundaries likely to have returned based on the new boundaries at a previous election. It is not an actual election in any way shape or form.

Finally, the change in the number of seats has nothing to do with the actual election results when the boundaries are all changed, please. News media are desperate to give numbers to make their lives easier, but that does not mean that they are basing the numbers they are giving as accurate reflections of an actual election that took place previously.

Finally the personal aside about hospitals is not relevant as it is attempting to attack me through the use of 'woe is me I give in". Please refrain from that kind of tactic as it is manipulative. LawNerd123 (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
You must realise that your approach is simply ‘I don’t trust these academics and the rest of the world be damned’.
That is not productive. Notional results are an integral part of the reporting of UK election results. It is unfortunate that you don’t agree with that, but that’s just how it is.
I am relatively ambivalent about whether a seat is reported as a gain/hold or new seat (though gain/hold is the accurate way to report it) but voteshare changes are integral. Icc27 (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
No it’s not, and your claims and conclusion-jumping are nonsense.
The claims you make are simply a personal attack trying to cast aspersions.
This boils down to claiming notional results and actual elections are the same they are not. LawNerd123 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I made no personal attack against you (rather rich from someone who has just attacked another user for having the temerity to get ill) but I apologise if you took it that way.
What I did was make a simple statement of fact. Your argument against including the notional results boils down to the fact that you personally don’t like them. I personally do like them and find them useful, so let’s call that 1-1.
However this site is not a personal plaything for either of us, and I (and others) have produced several highly reputable sources who use notionals. Can you produce any reputable sources which do not use notional results? Icc27 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
You are stuck record and going round in belligerent circles
it is clearly not worth trying to discuss things with you considering how toxic you are showing yourself to be
I’ve made clear why your position is absurd yet you keep falling back on it lie a silver bunker actually give some reasons beyond see others using it and u want it in the results
The word compromise seems vacant from your vocabulary and carry on
You will not engage with any of the suggestions I have made and have shown contempt for the administrators notice board directions LawNerd123 (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Jesus, and you just accused me of making personal attacks. Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.
Sadly there is not a lot of compromise which can be achieved here, given the subject of ‘should changes be in the election box’ is either a yes or a no - though I did concede that I am ambivalent about whether boxes say ‘gain’ or ‘new seat’.
I have asked if you can produce a source to back up your point of view. Can you? I would have to assume not. Icc27 (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
OK time to disengage with you you are not a person who is wiling to discuss in good faith. LawNerd123 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Persistent vandalism of UK constituency pages by user LawNerd123 and because this affects hundreds of pages I am placing increased restrictions in this area. No editor is to make more than three reverts in 24 hours across the subject as a whole. Editors must also stop blind reverts and labelling other good faith contributions "vandalism". Timrollpickering (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

To everyone arguing the toss to keep in notional results these comments sum up perfectly the problem. National results are a barrier to understanding as no one apart from political hacks and a few academics have any idea what the actual earthly idea a Notional Result is: here --LawNerd123 (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@LawNerd123: you've misunderstood my statement. It does not support including or excluding notional results. This should be obvious, because I also had no idea what the opposite of notional results is or at least I didn't before I looked into it a bit. My point was solely that people need to have some idea of what is being asked if they are able to give meaningful feedback on what's proposed and this applies whether you want to include notional results or whatever's the name for whatever you want to include. To give a very simple example, if you were to ask should we include the median wage or the mean wage, plenty of people will not understand this. In such a case, it might be relevant to offer a brief explanation or at least link to something explaining the difference. Most people are more likely to have experience with mean at least as something simplistically called an average which generally means the mean although both median and mean can be considered averages. But this doesn't mean either mean or median is clearly superior. In fact it's probably a little easier for people to understand what a median is when you explain it even if medians come up less often in general. Clearly none of this means we should never include either means or medians. Going by your logic, we shouldn't include either one! Now median vs mean is such a basic part of statistics that some might argue it's not necessary since anyone who doesn't already understand might not be able to offer meaningful feedback and I don't intend this to be a real-world example. Instead I simply used it to explain why the fact that some explanation is needed doesn't mean either is superior since you need an explanation for both of them. My whole point was plenty of people have no idea what is being asked at all, not that notionals is something inherently hard to understand. This is because you're getting into a fairly technical area of different ways elections results may be presented and probably the majority of people don't know such specifics. Even if they have experience with them, they probably have no idea what they are called. I still don't know what the sort of results you want to present are called. But whatever you call what you preferred option is, I'm guessing the vast majority of people will have no idea what this is either; and no idea what makes it different from notional. Like with the median vs mean example, the logical conclusion of this based on your reasoning is actually we shouldn't include either notionals or whatever you want to include meaning we have no results which is fairly obviously not what we want to do. Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies/Archive_11&oldid=1280257670"