I have noticed that all of the UK Parliament constituency articles are disambiguated with the suffix (UK Parliament constituency). This doesn't make sense for those constituencies whose names do not have other meanings. I moved the New Forest East article to remove the disambig but someone has now moved it back. -- Moochocoogle 12:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I realise that this is a rather pedantic point, and that it may be a little late to be making it, however I notice that in June the way this page suggests that date ranges for MPs should be given was changed from 2001–2005 (with an ndash and no spaces) to 2001 — 2005 (with an mdash and spaces). This seems to be at odds with the rest of wikipedia which follows the former style, as this is what is suggested at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). In fact, I am not aware of any English style guide that suggests the use of an mdash in date ranges. As such, I would like to see the advice in this page returned to the use of an ndash without spaces. JeremyA (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Constituencies which are in the County that Used to Be Avon seem to all have Entity=Avon in their infoboxes (except that one or two have Somerset). This produces a link to Avon, which is a disambiguation page. Is there any way to have the infoboxes link to Avon (county) as a piped link as in "shown within Avon"? (...and preferably still have them continue "and Avon shown within England"?) -- rbrwr ± 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if it falls within the remit of this project, but can someone offer advice on a default style for succession boxes? User:KuatofKDY has created the S-par template to use as a "header" for blocks of Parliamentary succession (or for other legislative assemblies, hence the text), but I still have some questions on style.
I'd appreciate any advice that can be given on these. Choess 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of response, I've created a small sample. Constituencies 1 and 2, and the letters representing the names of MPs, would all be wikilinked. Please comment, particularly on the formatting of the title. Choess 14:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the "style guide", under "history", only says "This section should be used to describe the history, demographics, and politics of the constituency, and any elections or note (close elections, resignations etc)." I think a key element, for many readers, will be to know what constituencies represented the area before and/or after the subject of the article, and this ought to be stressed - or perhaps should constitute a separate section. Perhaps this comes from living in Leeds, where only one of the five 1885 consituencies has had a continuous existence up to now while others have come, gone, merged, split, been re-created, etc over time! I supppose it's within "the history..." in the above list, but I'd like to see it given greater prominence and priority.
Point of style: is it "recreated" or "re-created", when somewhere like Leeds Central is revived? PamD ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In all the UK constituency articles, the table listing MPs looks like this:
While in the articles for Canadian Constituencies, it looks like this:
I thought I would ask, which looks better to people? I'm personally fond of the Canadian one, as it is easier to look at. That being said, I thought I would ask/suggest that we change the style to the Canadian one. I'm aware of the downside that many constituencies have been in existence since the Glorious Revolution, and therefore the lists/articles would be very long, as well as many other problems, but I thought I would put this topic on the table and gauge response.
Note:I am not suggesting that the current style is not good, I'm merely bringing up another idea.
Bkissin ( talk) 03:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Key
Liberal Conservative Monster Raving Loony SDP Liberal Democrats
Election | Winner | |
---|---|---|
1916 by-election | Herbert Fisher | |
1931 election | Sir Bufton Tufton | |
1966 election | Basil Fawlty | |
1987 election | Dave Spart | |
I've just added "A redirect or disambiguation page entry must always be provided from the basic name." in the Article name section. I hope it's uncontroversial, but I think it's necessary. Pam D 10:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#MP_lists_in_constituency_articles_-_format_change - just in case anyone has this "Style" talkpage watchlisted but not the main talk page. Pam D 09:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this style guide needs updated to reflect the consensus of using {{ Compact election box}} for election results? -- Gharbhain ( talk) 12:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
In the last few years it has become widespread for media organizations to commission MRP models to extrapolate poll data into constituency-level predictions. Recently, myself and some other contributors have been recording MRP predictions for the new Bicester & Woodstock constituency on its article. There is an active article on national polling, but MRP predictions for individual seats are not detailed there (it would be unworkable to do so). A discussion has begun on the talk page there as to whether such data belongs on a constituency article. This information is of undeniable interest to people, has specific relevance to the topic of the article, and is sometimes only transiently recorded elsewhere. Whilst I didn't add the list to the article, I have helped to populate it, and feel that the information should be presented there in some form (although I'd welcome input on the best format). I also think that keeping the list comprehensive has also kept the article to a WP:NPOV (given that any selectivity would be subjective). NPOV is obviously important at any time, but never more so than the closing days of an election campaign. Could the template evolve to include information such as this? I think it would be beneficial to do so more widely. LilRedCasanova ( talk) 22:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the style page should recommend an agreed order for election results.
My impression is that most articles list results in reverse-chronological order. Some former constituencies have results listed in forward-chronological order, for example Mid Worcestershire. Other articles use a mix of orders, such as Finsbury (a former constituency) which is forward for 1918–1945 then reverse 1880–1832; and Lichfield (a current constituency) which is reverse 2024–1922 then has a series of forward results, 1885–1918, 1868–1880, 1832–1865.
Elsewhere in Wikipedia I have seen forward chronology described as "more encyclopaedic", and this is the style recommended for timelines in lists( WP:CHRONO), and for events in biographies ( MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL). It is also the order stated here for members of parliament § Members of Parliament.
I certainly think there should be consistency within articles. I also suggest that having election results consistently presented in forward chronology would be in line with other style guidance. I would like to add a statement to this effect in § Elections, and would be keen to learn whether there is consensus for such an addition. Mgp28 ( talk) 13:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed that all of the UK Parliament constituency articles are disambiguated with the suffix (UK Parliament constituency). This doesn't make sense for those constituencies whose names do not have other meanings. I moved the New Forest East article to remove the disambig but someone has now moved it back. -- Moochocoogle 12:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I realise that this is a rather pedantic point, and that it may be a little late to be making it, however I notice that in June the way this page suggests that date ranges for MPs should be given was changed from 2001–2005 (with an ndash and no spaces) to 2001 — 2005 (with an mdash and spaces). This seems to be at odds with the rest of wikipedia which follows the former style, as this is what is suggested at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). In fact, I am not aware of any English style guide that suggests the use of an mdash in date ranges. As such, I would like to see the advice in this page returned to the use of an ndash without spaces. JeremyA (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Constituencies which are in the County that Used to Be Avon seem to all have Entity=Avon in their infoboxes (except that one or two have Somerset). This produces a link to Avon, which is a disambiguation page. Is there any way to have the infoboxes link to Avon (county) as a piped link as in "shown within Avon"? (...and preferably still have them continue "and Avon shown within England"?) -- rbrwr ± 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if it falls within the remit of this project, but can someone offer advice on a default style for succession boxes? User:KuatofKDY has created the S-par template to use as a "header" for blocks of Parliamentary succession (or for other legislative assemblies, hence the text), but I still have some questions on style.
I'd appreciate any advice that can be given on these. Choess 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of response, I've created a small sample. Constituencies 1 and 2, and the letters representing the names of MPs, would all be wikilinked. Please comment, particularly on the formatting of the title. Choess 14:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that the "style guide", under "history", only says "This section should be used to describe the history, demographics, and politics of the constituency, and any elections or note (close elections, resignations etc)." I think a key element, for many readers, will be to know what constituencies represented the area before and/or after the subject of the article, and this ought to be stressed - or perhaps should constitute a separate section. Perhaps this comes from living in Leeds, where only one of the five 1885 consituencies has had a continuous existence up to now while others have come, gone, merged, split, been re-created, etc over time! I supppose it's within "the history..." in the above list, but I'd like to see it given greater prominence and priority.
Point of style: is it "recreated" or "re-created", when somewhere like Leeds Central is revived? PamD ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
In all the UK constituency articles, the table listing MPs looks like this:
While in the articles for Canadian Constituencies, it looks like this:
I thought I would ask, which looks better to people? I'm personally fond of the Canadian one, as it is easier to look at. That being said, I thought I would ask/suggest that we change the style to the Canadian one. I'm aware of the downside that many constituencies have been in existence since the Glorious Revolution, and therefore the lists/articles would be very long, as well as many other problems, but I thought I would put this topic on the table and gauge response.
Note:I am not suggesting that the current style is not good, I'm merely bringing up another idea.
Bkissin ( talk) 03:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Key
Liberal Conservative Monster Raving Loony SDP Liberal Democrats
Election | Winner | |
---|---|---|
1916 by-election | Herbert Fisher | |
1931 election | Sir Bufton Tufton | |
1966 election | Basil Fawlty | |
1987 election | Dave Spart | |
I've just added "A redirect or disambiguation page entry must always be provided from the basic name." in the Article name section. I hope it's uncontroversial, but I think it's necessary. Pam D 10:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#MP_lists_in_constituency_articles_-_format_change - just in case anyone has this "Style" talkpage watchlisted but not the main talk page. Pam D 09:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps this style guide needs updated to reflect the consensus of using {{ Compact election box}} for election results? -- Gharbhain ( talk) 12:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
In the last few years it has become widespread for media organizations to commission MRP models to extrapolate poll data into constituency-level predictions. Recently, myself and some other contributors have been recording MRP predictions for the new Bicester & Woodstock constituency on its article. There is an active article on national polling, but MRP predictions for individual seats are not detailed there (it would be unworkable to do so). A discussion has begun on the talk page there as to whether such data belongs on a constituency article. This information is of undeniable interest to people, has specific relevance to the topic of the article, and is sometimes only transiently recorded elsewhere. Whilst I didn't add the list to the article, I have helped to populate it, and feel that the information should be presented there in some form (although I'd welcome input on the best format). I also think that keeping the list comprehensive has also kept the article to a WP:NPOV (given that any selectivity would be subjective). NPOV is obviously important at any time, but never more so than the closing days of an election campaign. Could the template evolve to include information such as this? I think it would be beneficial to do so more widely. LilRedCasanova ( talk) 22:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the style page should recommend an agreed order for election results.
My impression is that most articles list results in reverse-chronological order. Some former constituencies have results listed in forward-chronological order, for example Mid Worcestershire. Other articles use a mix of orders, such as Finsbury (a former constituency) which is forward for 1918–1945 then reverse 1880–1832; and Lichfield (a current constituency) which is reverse 2024–1922 then has a series of forward results, 1885–1918, 1868–1880, 1832–1865.
Elsewhere in Wikipedia I have seen forward chronology described as "more encyclopaedic", and this is the style recommended for timelines in lists( WP:CHRONO), and for events in biographies ( MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL). It is also the order stated here for members of parliament § Members of Parliament.
I certainly think there should be consistency within articles. I also suggest that having election results consistently presented in forward chronology would be in line with other style guidance. I would like to add a statement to this effect in § Elections, and would be keen to learn whether there is consensus for such an addition. Mgp28 ( talk) 13:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)