Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies)

Background to the proposed naming convention[edit]

This text has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies and arises from discussion there.

Parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom have a long and complex history, sometimes corresponding to the name of a place and sometimes not (eg Leeds (UK Parliament constituency), a former constituency, and Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency), a current constituency with a name not used for other purposes). Some constituencies have been in existence since the 13th century (e.g. Canterbury (UK Parliament constituency), the newest were created in 2010 (Morley and Outwood (UK Parliament constituency)). There are separate constituencies for the Scottish Parliament (eg Mid Fife and Glenrothes (Scottish Parliament constituency)) and the Welsh National Assembly (Cardiff West (Assembly constituency). Since 1979 there has been another set of parliamentary constituencies across the UK, the European Parliament constituencies, such as Leeds (European Parliament constituency) (one of the larger number which existed 1979-1999) and Yorkshire and the Humber (European Parliament constituency) (post-1999).

The Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies has had a convention since 2005 to use the suffixes "(UK Parliament constituency)" and "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" uniformly, whether or not a constituency name is ambiguous, and a large body of work has been done to create these articles and name them consistently. (Welsh assembly constituencies all have names matching UK Parliament constituency names, so their disambiguation is uncontroversial).

This convention has recently been challenged by an editor who has cited WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:PRECISION. The project now seeks wider consensus for its long-standing convention that the naming of UK Parliament constituencies should be a special case, recognised in the naming conventions, as allowed by those policies.

PamD 13:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consultation[edit]

As specified at Wikipedia:Article titles#Proposed naming conventions and guidelines, this proposal has been advertised at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation) and is being made an RfC.Pam D 14:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB Please see the "Background" section above . PamD 11:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome[edit]

This discussion was closed on 2 April 2014, after there had been no contributions since 6 March 2014, with the result that the proposed convention was adopted. PamD 09:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion[edit]

The convention has been challenged multiple times, not just recently:

I haven't seen any reason for the need for deviating from the broader process (WP:PRECISION) of only using parenthetical qualifiers for disambiguating ambiguous topics, except for "it's our process". If disambiguation is needed, I fully agree that a uniform qualifier selection should be used. But if the title is not ambiguous, a uniform process of not qualifying it should also be used; if ambiguity is later introduced to Wikipedia, then disambiguation can occur. There is no benefit to the encyclopedia in qualifying them needlessly.

If the constituency needs the identification in its title (because it's the common name or something), it should be placed in the title without parentheses, such as Leeds UK Parliament constituency, or whatever the common name is. Unless the constituency is most commonly referred to in independent reliable sources as "Leeds (UK Parliament constituency)".

The "large body of work" done to deviate from the normal practice is not a factor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea of "common name" needs to be considered with "Naturalness" The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. as 99 times out of 100 one is going to write "Leads" not "Leeds UK Parliament constituency" and having to use the pipe trick each time with the full name is a pain.

Why not (UK parliamentary constituency)?

Also there is a POV problem with the name the "UK Parliament" as it was the English Parliament which subsumed the other Parliaments in the so called acts of union which were closer to annexations than unions. For the example Black Rod and his banging on the door to the Commons is an English tradition as are all the other old traditions (Indeed it was the threat to English Parliamentary traditions particularly those of the commons that prevented the early Stuarts implementing a union of the Parliament). What traditions at Westminster come from any other Parliament? But as Wikipedia editors prefer to pretend that 1707 and 1801 were the creations of new Parliaments why is it that we list English members of parliament pre-1801 as members of a (UK Parliament constituency)? -- PBS (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When disambiguation is needed, yes, "(UK parliamentary constituency)" should be used. When disambiguation is not needed, the qualifier should not be used. So Leeds (UK Parliament constituency) but Nottingham South. If others (not I) make the claim is that "UK parliamentary constituency" is a necessary part of the title for reasons other than disambiguation, then it should be Leeds UK Parliament constituency and Nottingham South UK parliamentary constituency. But I don't think that it's a necessary part of the title. No opinion on the second paragraph. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ is suffering from blindness. Many institutions have seat disambiguation signifers , in brackets, including Canada and Ireland, and the European Parliament. I understand that we need to follow rules, but the rules don't fit the reality of the project. The brackets are needed because that follows the convention of disambiguation. doktorb _words^deeds 18:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk is suffering from an emphasis on the editors instead of the project. The brackets don't follow the convention of disambiguation. The conventions of disambiguation are (a) when there's ambiguity, qualify and (b) when there's not, don't. These brackets aren't needed (except when there's ambiguity), nor are the qualifiers for "many institutions" (except when there's ambiguity). The rules would fit the reality of the project just fine -- so far, no one has indicated exactly what problem is being addressed by this deviation from the broader guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you accept that the phrase 'UK Parliament constituency' effectively categorises all seat articles into one group? By changing from what we've had over five years, at least, we are opening up the possibility of confusion and disarray? When the new boundaries were agreed for 2010, articles used the disambiguation and nobody complained. It's accepted, and acceptable. doktorb _words^deeds 20:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are used to categorise articles. If you're trying to use title qualifiers as categories, that could be the source of the problem. Can't you accept that by changing to what the Wikipedia in general has had for longer than five years, we will reduced confusion and disarray? When the new boundaries were "agreed" in 2010, the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS guidelines were not followed, since the WikiProject did not bother to work with the broader community that such action is right until now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what damage has been done since the articles were created in the run up to 2010? (In large part, by me, incidentally). We have not been censured, we have not been penalised, we have not caused a serious loss of information or damaged other projects. doktorb _words^deeds 10:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is your argument that the we ought not use the broader consensus here because you've managed to create a large number of articles contrary to it? Or are you advocating for the elimination of the broader guideline entirely, because you see no harm in ignoring it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that your ignoring my questions says all it needs to. I'm saying the broader consensus shouldn't be used to fix what isn't broken. In effect, removing disambiguation signifiers is a form of disruptive, unconstructive editing. doktorb _words^deeds 18:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're ignoring the pertinent questions:

What's reason for the need for deviating from the broader process (WP:PRECISION) of only using parenthetical qualifiers for disambiguating ambiguous topics, except for "it's our process"?
Or, rephrased, what problem is being addressed by this deviation from the broader guidelines?

Or the follow-on questions:

What are you trying to use titles as categories, instead of using categories as categories?
Can't you accept that by changing to what the Wikipedia in general has had for longer than five years, we will reduce confusion and disarray?

Please read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. here, the broader consensus should be used to fix what's broken (the use of titles as categories, the use of disambiguating qualifiers when there is no ambiguity, not using WP:PRECISION, not following WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to work with the broader community). If there were nothing broken, the list of discussions above wouldn't exist. If nothing's broken, we (the broader community) should get rid of WP:PRECISION and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or update them to reflect this new consensus that nothing's broken. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(invited by the bot) If you folks would like to get more outside input, my suggestion is to make it clearer exactly what the question is, and when the main issues are, and maybe a bit of context as this is an area where I think that country-specific knowledge is being presumed. I spent some time reading here and still don't sufficiently understand those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can sum it up (although several subsidiary issues have been raised). Should all UK Parliament constituencies have the dab extension as is done with WP:USPLACE and so be an exception to the rule of WP:PRECISION. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to UK Parliament constituencies changing their naming convention to use a longer natural title, as is done with WP:USPLACE (and I've suggested that they do so, if it's important to have "UK Parliament constituency" in the title). The question here, though, is "Should all UK Parliament constituencies have a parenthetical qualifier, even when not necessary for disambiguation, and so be an exception to the rule of WP:PRECISION?" WP:USPLACE does not do this. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is, yes, it should. It's telling that new articles are created using that format, evidence that is recognised and accepted. It's telling that consensus has always fallen to the status quo. It's telling that nobody is suggesting that it would be acceptable to create approx 700 redirects per article. We're heading towards a general election, to move constituency articles on masse would skirt into POINT territory, IMO. doktorb _words^deeds 13:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is "yes, we should vary from the guideline because we vary from the guideline." It's not accepted (see the broader consensus at WP:PRECISION which it is contrary to, and the discussions linked above). The only thing "telling" about the "consensus" for the status quo is that it's never followed the advice of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to engage the broader audience. I am suggesting that it is acceptable to create redirects by moving the unambiguous constituency articles to unqualified titles (or to titles with "UK parliamentary constituency" without parentheses, if that's a necessary part of the natural title). No POINT territory is being skirted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: You say your problems are "that country-specific knowledge is being presumed". OK, I'll try to help.

The 650 members of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom are elected one per constituency. These "constituencies" have boundaries which are defined independently of local government boundaries,by the , and have been reorganised and renamed many times over the centuries. They have names, as explained above, which sometimes correspond to those of a town or area (eg Leeds, a historical constituency), and sometimes are unique (eg Leeds North West, a phrase not used for any other purpose). In short they are a vast and complex collection of entities, and the editors at WP:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, have done a lot of work over many years to create and disambiguate a consistent set of articles for these constituencies (the current 650 and all their predecessors). It was agreed to use a standard add-on bracketed disambiguator of "(UK Parliament constituency)", whether or not the constituency name is ambiguous.

An editor has recently objected to this, and has moved some constituency articles against the policy of the Wikiproject, citing WP:PRECISION. When reverted, he has challenged the project to obtain wider consensus for this rule, which would be an exception to the normal rule whereby unambiguous names ("Leeds North West") are not given bracketed disambiguators. The constituencies are linked, of course, from the very many articles about individual MPs over the centuries, and from articles about the settlements they relate to.

This discussion is an attempt to obtain that wider consensus, so that the status quo can continue and the constituencies can continue to have the bracketed disambiguation consistently. I hope this gives you enough UK context to clarify. Please ask if you have any further questions.

Personally, my heart sinks at the notion of messing around with this well-formed set of articles, for the sake of following a rule, while the encyclopedia has thousand upon thousand of articles with titles like "Foo (something)" which are not linked from "Foo" (whether this is absent, or an article, or a dab page). That problem really matters as it hides articles from readers. The UK constituency discussion has arisen because someone wants to follow the letter of a set of rules, going against the wishes of the set of people who create and maintain those articles. Very sad. But the rules have scope for an exception, if wider consensus can be found. This is the venue for that consensus to be formed. PamD 14:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "messing around", nor is it proposed for the sake of the rule. Using the guidelines is proposed for the sake of the reason underneath the guidelines: the titles of articles do not need to replace or replicate the article ledes; they are only as precise as necessary, because we opt for natural, common-name titles for articles, and parenthetical qualifiers are not natural or common-name and so are only used to resolve ambiguity, because the encyclopedia has a technical limitation keeping two articles from existing at the same title. As I mentioned several times, we can get rid of the guidelines if the reason underneath them is no longer the consensus. Fixing the thousand upon thousand articles with "Foo (something)" when "Foo" is unambiguous is a good goal, not "messing around" (see also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). No articles would be hidden from readers, and none of the links in the very many articles would be broken (since links to redirects are not broken, and the redirects would exist). We would be moving from one well-formed (but over-precise) set of article titles to another well-formed (and correctly precise) set of article titles. But I still haven't seen an answer to the question "What problem with the application broader consensus of WP:PRECISION would be addressed by this exception?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ you state "natural, common-name titles for articles" yet the natural common name is not going to include a natural dab extension, in that sense parenthetical extensions are useful. However there is another important point to consider, "naturalness" in the AT policy is defined as

The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. (my emphasis)

I frequently write biography articles on Civil War MPs and the like, because I do that, I find it "natural" to use the dab extension and it saves me time as I do not have to go and check if I have linked to the correct article or a borough article or a dab page by mistake. This particular dab extension is not going to prevent a reader searching for the correct article and often it is going to help in ordering the returns from a search in a better order (as a search is likely to include the word constituency). As the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA have to be balanced when deciding on a name, one has to present arguments on balance, and to date JHunterJ your arguments here have not convinced me that brevity in this case is necessarily best solution. I hope my arguments have helped you reconsider you position, if not I look forward to presenting arguments to refute mine and so change my mind. -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you find natural and what other editors find natural are apparently two different things. There is no indication anywhere that parenthetical qualifiers are used for any natural use, but rather are used for disambiguation. Like others, you have cast this discussion as if the burden is on me, when the guidelines (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) put the burden on the WikiProject desiring the deviation from the guidelines. To date, the local project's arguments have not convinced me that parenthetical qualification is needed when no ambiguity exists. And I repeat, brevity is not the issue: if verbosity is needed, Leeds UK Parliamentary constituency is verbose and avoids the deviation from the broader guidelines -- win-win. I hope that helps you reconsider your position. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ the consensus is that when naming articles a balance of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is to be used. To insist that the balance selected here is only a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, is a statement of your opinion not of fact. The fact is that to date you have not gained much support for your opinion, and until you do perhaps you should tone down the claim that the opposition to you views are merely a (misguided) local group -- as such statements are not going to help build a consensus. I am by the way not a member of the WikiProject but I am a fairly frequent user of the pages they oversee. -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposed naming convention. It is useful to readers that, in unifying the form of the article name, we solve a lot of difficulties which we would otherwise get into over the correct application of WP:COMMONNAME. To see what I mean, take an example the article Romford (UK Parliament constituency). There the reader finds described a continuum since 1885. However, what the entity was called was actually constantly changing. In the case of Romford, the actual full name for the entity which sent members to Parliament was:

1885-1918: Southern or Romford Division of the Parliamentary County of Essex
1918-1945: Romford Division of the Parliamentary County of Essex
1945-1950: Romford Parliamentary Borough
1950-1974: Romford Borough Constituency
1974-1983: Havering, Romford Borough Constituency
1983-: Romford Borough Constituency

(Indeed if the maps are examined, the area covered changes very significantly: it begins by covering a large area along the north bank of the Thames, then gets progressively cut back.) I anticipate that I may be challenged that some or all of these were long form names and not therefore common names. True, but the point is that in most cases the name used was not Romford constituency. Almost all reference sources before 1945 did denote divisions of Parliamentary counties in a way which referred to the County. Many sources in 1885-1918 made reference to the alternate compass point names which most county divisions had. Most sources in 1974-83 referred to constituencies in Greater London with the London Borough of which they formed a part.

Another point to note is that the word 'constituency' was not used in legislation prior to the late 1940s and not in names until 1950. It was, however, used unofficially as a catch-all term for Counties, Boroughs, Cities, divisions thereof, and Universities, which returned Members to Parliament.

If therefore, it is decided not to have a uniform naming convention for Parliamentary constituencies, and we just go by WP:COMMONNAME, it will not be a simple matter of working out what that common name is. For many articles covering a wide span of years, the common name will have changed during the currency of the article. I assume it is not contended that it will help readers to split up the Romford article into separate sections for the different precise names.

A subsidiary point is that, even when a constituency has a name which is reasonably distinctive, as for example Romsey and Southampton North (UK Parliament constituency), the term 'Romsey and Southampton North' always has a geographic meaning separate from that of the Parliamentary constituency. Because all constituencies are supposed to consist of a community with some degree of local identity, the name (even if strikingly inappropriate eg by referring only to areas at one end of it) must have some resonance. It isn't just an area brought together once every five years to have a vote.

Another point, also brought up by PBS above and which I absolutely endorse, is that it's far easier for editors to be able to guess the location of an article on a particular constituency if there is a consistent naming system. If it's not adopted, then editors will be in the position of having to guess whether each particular constituency is going to be at the simple name, or whether it will have been disambiguated.

Finally - what harm does it do? If an unfamiliar user puts in the constituency name in the search box without "(UK Parliament constituency)", they just get redirected automagically. If the name is ambiguous they have to follow a disambiguation link, but they would still have to do so if this proposal was not adopted. Defeating this proposal isn't going to help anyone find a constituency article quicker. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to add the qualifier uniformly, even when unneeded for disambiguation, there will still be exactly the same matter of working out what the common name is, since there will have to be something before the qualifier. So it doesn't solve any difficulties. In the example given, the constituency appears to be commonly named "Romsford", and so that would be the title if it weren't ambiguous.

What harm does it do to add (film) to the end of the title of every film article? Or (playwright) to the end of the title for every playwright article? Etc., etc. -- this is the parallel question I've been asking (and still hasn't been answered): what is the problem that is being solved by varying from the broader consensus? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it's reasonably easy to guess what constituency name will be used for the main article. Individual difficult cases don't invalidate a general observation. Your second point is surely the epitome of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; if we were discussing a proposal to add " (film)" to the end of every article about a film, or " (playwright)" to everyone who wrote plays, then it might be relevant. But we aren't and it isn't. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I surely don't understand the point you're making in the first two sentences there, but the second point is definitely not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What harm does it do to ignore WP:PRECISION for all projects, if the "reason" for ignoring it here is "why not?" We are discussing why WP:PRECISION shouldn't apply here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"there will have to be something before the qualifier". The reliable source gives the common name. A classic example is a copy and past from a DNB article on Wikisource, or the biographies at History of Parliament Online.

Parliamentary constituencies are an unusual type of named set, because there more often than not it is not the primary name, (in that sense it is rather like tube stations in London), so more often than not the name needs a dab extension. I would be just as happy if the name and extension is a redirect for those relatively few article titles where there is no other similar name, but the experience of dash and ndash in an article title, like diacritics and non-diacritics, is that both versions often do not exist and although searches find both, links to the "wrong one" tend to be red, so I think creating pages without the dab extension will over time lead to inconsistencies and a break with the policy statement "[what] editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles". -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing unusual about a type of named set whose elements need qualifiers more often than not. The broader consensus can handle those sets too: the elements of such a set get qualifiers more often than not (but still not when the qualifier isn't needed). I also would be happy the with name + extension redirects, which would have to be created, you're right -- just like the name-without-extension redirect would need to be created under the current local consensus (even now, both versions do not exist, which hinders the readership). I disagree that using the simpler title and a qualified redirect will lead to any additional inconsistencies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close?[edit]

I move for the matter to be closed. Consistently, editors have made the case for the convention of article title to be retained: only one editor has made the case for the opposition. Further discussion appears to return quickly, and without resolution, to the same narrow and niche arguments, a sure fire sign on-line of debate for the sake of debate.

The project as a whole is about to enter a very busy period, with candidates being selected for all 650 constituencies. It would be dereliction of duty for us to be forced into anything that stops the updating of records for the same of 'housekeeping'.

PRECISION has been found to not be a suitable 'one size fits all' policy, and use of it in these discussions, perennial as they are, has been found ineffective. Use of 'UK Parliament constituency' for each and every article has been, once again, shown to fit policy on searching, titles, editorial judgement, and visitor expectation.

It would be best for the project to move onto far more pressing concerns - 650 constituency articles with 'correct' names will be useless without candidate details or results, doktorb _words^deeds 04:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The busy-ness of the project as a whole is irrelevant to this discussion. There is no possibility of dereliction of duty, nor anything proposed or possible that would stop anyone from any updates of any records.

No such conclusions have been shown. The questions of why the application of WP:PRECISION would not work here have been avoided, not answered.

The "case" for the "opposition" (since you insist on forcing this into a model that isn't suited to it) has been made by Warofdreams, Mibblepedia, Joolz, Steinsky, OldakQuill, Sjorford, Hroðulf, SilkTork, and JHunterJ (see links above to previous discussions).

No one is keeping the project from its pressing concerns, and applying WP:PRECISION to this project will not interfere with any of its work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cases have not been made, or else we would have changed by now. The case for the defence has been made time and time again - and you're insisting on going around in circles to every editor who makes the case for the project to retain the system it has been using since the 2005 general election. Your opinion about the impact suggests you don't know what the reality of the project really is. The impact of such a massive upheaval in the run up to the next election could be disastrous. I move we close this discussion, as we've closed the others that have reached similar conclusions. doktorb _words^deeds 12:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising and closing discussion[edit]

The proposal was put forward by PamD on 17 February 2014. It appears to be supported by Doktorbuk, PBS, and Sam Blacketer, and opposed by JHunterJ. The only other participant in the discussion, North8000, apparently from outside the UK, stated that they did not understand the question and asked for clarification, but did not return after an explanation was given for him/her. There have been no comments since 6 March (and that was a request for closure), and the RfC has now expired. I note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure that "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." I believe that the consensus is clearly in favour of the proposed (and pre-existing) naming convention: only one person has opposed the proposal, which has been advertised in all the relevant places.

I hereby close the discussion, with the result that the proposed naming convention is accepted. I will link to it from appropriate places. PamD 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I failed to realize that what I posted looked like a question, and failed to watchlist the article. I just got the ping in your last post. I read the subsequent talk page. I could go deeper to more thoroughly analyze and form an opinion if you wish. My quick superficial view is that I can see valid arguments in both directions, but lean a bit towards the project's convention. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late arrival, I would like to add my opposal to this convention. I do not see why unambiguous names need to be disambiguated. Number 5 7 06:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there has still been no response regarding the open question of why the application of WP:PRECISION would not work here. I do not think this discussion is close-able with the result that the naming convention is accepted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your thoughts, but feel that that there are 2 false premises in your post. One is the false dichotomy that the choice is between "your preferred approach would not work" and "use your preferred method". This ignores the case-choice that your preferred approach would work but that the alternate is preferable. The second premise is that WP:PRECISION, if it were to hold sway, clearly supports your preferred approach. IMHO this is not the case. While a maim principle of it does support your approach, IMHO other portions of WP:PRECISION support the opposite, and they are also an integral part of it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, the real dichotomy is between "follow the broader guidelines" and "do not follow the broader guidelines". The proposal here is for the latter, but no reason to do so has been given. Second, what portions support the conclusion that unambiguous title should have qualifiers? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JHunterJ is trying to reheat the argument in this closure section. I think the horse is in no fit state to be flogged, sir. doktorb _words^deeds 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if you don't have an answer to "why do we need to break from the guidelines?", it's probably best to fall back to cliches. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've yet explained what harm is done to the reader by breaking from WP:PRECISION on this particular subset of articles. This is Wikipedia where we do not have to follow rules/guidelines/conventions if there's no reason to. The project has now engaged with all editors and no-one else seemed to have a problem with what it was doing. I suggest further discussion is unlikely to produce any advance on this point. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the usual misdirection of the burden. The burden isn't on the broader consensus (WP:PRECISION) to justify its application on each individual project/page/etc. The burden is on the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to explain why breaking "free from" the consensus is necessary on a particular project/page/etc. You haven't read WP:IAR. It doesn't say "we do not have to follow rules/guidelines/conventions if there's no reason to". Ignore all rules says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." How does WP:PRECISION prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? (Or, why do we need to break from the guidelines?) See also Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means#What "Ignore all rules" does not mean: "Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a premise in the above that this is in conflict with WP:PRECISION. IMHO that is not the case because WP:PRECISION allows for this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the case, because WP:PRECISION does not allow for this. Without know what you're (mis)reading in WP:PRECISION, it's difficult to make a more useful reply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much: I would have supported the proposal, had I come here in time. Agathoclea (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A fair and reasonable conclusion. I trust we can now move forward with more pressing concerns, such as the forthcoming local elections, for which we are lacking hundreds of articles. doktorb _words^deeds 19:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Examples[edit]

I have illustrated the naming convention by showing a few examples, I hope non-controversially. PamD 23:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to encourage you to add more examples. Especially, what forms of "basic name" exist or should exist? Should there be a basic name that contains a comma? For example, Louth, Lincolnshire (UK Parliament constituency), contains a comma and the parentheses, so it appears to use two different types of disambiguation. It looks a bit strange, but it might well be intended like this, and there isn't a better way of doing it. So providing an example like this clarifies that it is the intention. Should a basic name contain parentheses? I'm asking because Richmond (Yorks) (UK Parliament constituency), moved to this name in 2006, looks decidedly odd to me. Schwede 66 17:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish constituencies[edit]

Why does the guideline prescribe "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" when every article that I see in Category:United Kingdom constituency stubs has "(Parliament of Scotland constituency)" as the disambiguator? Nice to see that it's consistent, but why does it not align with what the guideline says? Schwede 66 17:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing two different things. The Parliament of Scotland existed from the early 13th century until it was abolished in 1707, governing the sovereign state of Scotland. It is not formally the same body as the Scottish Parliament (est. 1999), which governs the devolved institutions of Scotland within the United Kingdom. A Parliament of Scotland constituency is therefore not the same thing as a Scottish Parliament constituency. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would explain it nicely. Schwede 66 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment discussion[edit]

I posted my proposal here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(UK_Parliament_constituencies) and do so here too. I would like to amend this just to add that all Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru constituencies articles are named using the same device relevant to their institution. The disambiguation has served us well and I hope this amendment is not controversial! doktorb _words^deeds 13:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What RCAT should be used?[edit]

At Talk:East Kilbride and Strathaven § Correct Rcat tag, @Wbm1058 and I are discussing what redirect tag to use on a base name page. I think {{R from incorrect name}} is appropriate. Is there a usual RCAT that's used? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PamD, I hope all is well. Do you know the answer to this question? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps {{R from less specific name}} might be appropriate? PamD 00:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorrect. That refers to the base title. I don't follow why the need for the parenthetical. The natural title would simply be East Kilbride and Strathaven UK parliament constituency.

If there isn't a new, special Rcat created to handle this special case, then I suppose {{R from short name}} would work. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{R from incorrect name}} is appropriate. Using the parenthetical is required by this naming convention: United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies (current or defunct) should have a uniform suffix of "(UK Parliament constituency)" or "(Scottish Parliament constituency)" as appropriate, whether or not this is required for disambiguation. Thus, the correct name (i.e., title) of the article is East Kilbride and Strathaven (UK Parliament constituency), and the base name, East Kilbride and Strathaven, is incorrect under Wikipeida's naming guidelines. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that, in the Lisa Cameron biography, the sentence:

"Grant Costello was named SNP candidate for East Kilbride and Strathaven later that day." is incorrect, and must be changed to:

is incorrect, and must be changed to:

"Grant Costello was named SNP candidate for East Kilbride and Strathaven (UK Parliament constituency) later that day."

to correct it. I just bypassed the redirect to fix it. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the right link, but it needs piped to display correctly in the article. Done. PamD 11:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if it needs to be piped so that readers see "East Kilbride and Strathaven" then that's obviously not an incorrect name. That's why I changed the template to {{R from short name}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{R from less specific name}} works for me as well. I think this is kind of a grey area as to which template is better for this case. As in Reading, England or Reading, Berks. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with less specific name rather than short name. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]