1752:. There is no real ambiguity. If we do make a break, it should not be between England/GB/UK, as the constituencies were generally the same for each. A split might be made at 1832, when rotten boroughs were abolished (or amalgamated); some boroughs were enlarged to include countryside beyond the old borough boundary; and some counties were split. There was theoretically a distinction between County and Borough consitutencies until the 1950 election, but I think it was of little practical importance. At present, we have the disambiguator (UK Parliament constituency) for all cases, but if we are going to split them, we might have "Aylesbury (Borough Constituency)" followed by "Aylesbury (County Constituency)". Bewdley is another case of this. South Staffordshire has existed at two periods for quite differnent areas. However, do we have someone who is willing to deal with this consistently over the whole of GB? Making the change would be a major undertaking.
1031:
this project should come to a consensus. Having visited the
Ipswich article I found several errors and started working on them, and engaged in discussion here as to ways to address JASpencer's concerns. Ipswich is not getting "special treatment" (I have no connection with the town or constituency), it is being brought into line with what is expected of all constituency articles (it is not a "new system" - confusing or otherwise), and as the page was on my radar it was a reasonable place to start, and while there may be many other constituency articles with similar issues I hold that every task starts with small steps - but not one step forward, two steps back ad infinitum ... that just sucks the life out of any contributor.
906:
here. I have used these tables extensively in my editing and have used the term n/a where I thought appropriate. I use the term n/a as an abbreviation for not applicable. The most common use of n/a seems to be in theĀ % change box for a party intervening in a contest, or where the previous election had been uncontested. Another use for n/a in this particular box could be in those circumstances when a constituency had experienced boundary changes to the extent that it could be misleading to talk in terms of a change inĀ %. In such a case, I think it would help the reader if an additional note to this affect was also included. I do not think that n/a should be used to mean not available as this could lead to confusion.
1010:(italicised) and n/a in lower case, and a missing "change=" field - which partially breaks a template. It also has inconsistencies in candidates' names - since I believe a candidate name should be consistent throughout an article I fixed these too. However, because one editor fails to understand the nature of the edits he keeps on reverting. After my two reverts I recused myself from editing as I did not want to engage in an edit war, and a previous contributor to the article (JASpencer) attempted to revert to my previous version but was again reverted by edit warrior Doktorbuk. The use of N/A is clear (although I'd prefer
1014:'s suggestion of an em-dash) - N/A means the party (or candidate, if an Independent) has no data with which to make a comparison since they did not stand in the previous election. By-elections should be compared with the previous election and general elections subsequent to a by-election should be compared to either the previous election, or the by-election - depending on the convention of the wikiproject. Boundary changes or most renamings are not taken into account - we preserve the fiction that a constituency remains the same constituency throughout its history, since that is how the constituency is treated by the
3032:, and the 1885 was the first general election in which all voters used the secret ballot). No Liberal candidate in 1885 would have campaigned as a 'Liberal Unionist' as the issue wasn't live in Britain until Gladstone's support for Home Rule was suddenly announced in December. It's possible, but unlikely, that a candidate in Britain might have mentioned their opposition to Irish Home Rule in the 1885 election campaign. So I suspect the Oxford DNB reference is probably a case of clumsy editing.
31:
296:. Since the only comment above agreed ("However, the normal rule is that we only have disambiguators in cases where they are needed."), I updated the naming convention and waited. Then today I moved one of the problem articles to conform to the naming conventions. One redirect was changed, and the links to it are both (a) not a problem) and (b) largely addressable through a template edit or two. I need you to stop your grossly negligent assumption of bad faith. --
2102:
1508:
more parliaments should be done with merged cells (rowspan= ) - this is done for post-1660 MPs (in the
Ipswich article) and I see no reason why it cannot be done for pre-1660 MPs as well. Redlinks should be unlinked - if someone is eager to write up the histories of any of thousands of otherwise unnotable or unknown MPs then that's when they should be linked, until then .. a sea of redlinks is a huge distraction from any article and should be avoided.
334:. It's the selection of a consistent naming scheme contrary to the broader consensus that is at issue. Certainly, if this project cannot agree on a guideline that conforms with the broader guideline, raising it at the pump would be the next step. Bold edits one disagrees with are often cast as "unilateral", but there's still nothing wrong with bold edits, and in this case, the bold edit simply followed from the issue raised here. --
1242:, there are listings of MPs that may not be that relevant to the current constituency. The seats are on different boundaries, the MPs are from years ago, in many cases there were two rather than one MPs, the electoral systems were unreformed and even the parliaments that they sat in (pre-1801) are different. Some of these are admittedly minor differences, but they add up to considerably differences.
2387:
sourced from the individual constituencies and not all local councils publish this information. Are Wiki editors dealing with particular areas of the country? There is only a certain amount of time and there is no point in duplicating what others have done. The
Electoral commission is supposedly collating all this data and meanwhile the House of Commons Library is quite a good source but not perfect.
3116:
2856:
1070:
them. I only recall this having been done for one election, following a very substantial boundary re-organisation. Furthermore, that data may not be readily available. I suspect that it would not be easy to incorporate. I have purposely decided not to interfere, only to comment. It is important that the constituency articles should as far as possible be consistent in format.
2232:
1521:
1431:
1317:
1176:
1127:
1044:
2219:
If the case (to move some history from some articles) were accepted it would have to be applied universally, thereby doubling the number of constituency articles - a most unsatisfactory outcome. If you're not interested in the summary of historic results on a small proportion of articles then skip through to the article section you are interested in.
3063:
elections in that period. How many candidates would need checking? Is there any way to bot-check whether the main election pages and the entries on the constituency pages actually agree on number of candidates for each party, etc? Just for that 26-year period. Would this also have affected local elections? I see from
501:: 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. A redirect or disambiguation page entry must always be made from the basic name.
134:: "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." I asked Doktorbuk to point me to such as discussion with the broader community, and they have not.
1951:
be why current constituencies have the most recent elections at the top. For historical constituencies I think it makes more sense to list the results in chronological order. I don't think it is a problem to have the results running in different directions depending on wether the constituency is live or not.
2969:
Just to add to that comment. Fred Craig did his best to get accurate designations but there is a later piece of scholarship which is authoritative - 'The
Candidates of the Liberal Unionist Party, 1886ā1912' by Wesley Ferris (Parliamentary History, Vol. 30, pt. 2 (2011), pp. 142ā157). Ferris in effect
2218:
I don't see any consensus for change. Naming and format of constituency articles has been previously well-covered, but keeps on resurfacing with monotonous regularity - that most editors don't see the need to revisit this topic every few months should not be seen as an excuse to slip changes through.
2045:
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on
Knowledge struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for
1950:
I have noticed that
Canadian constituencies tend to have most recent first, so UK constituencies are not unique. I have come across a number of live news blogs that have the most recent event at the top and when that news blog ceases to be live, the events then appear in chronological order. This may
1788:
I have no problem with the principle of splitting. I merely take the view that
English consituencies should not be split at 1707 or 1801 as there was no electoral change when Scottsih and then Irish members were admitted to Parliament. If a split is required, the appropriate dates will be the Great
1069:
At certain elections, the broadcasters have had a set of estimated results from previous elections, taking into account boundary changes. This meant that BBC treated a "hold" as if it were a gain, because the incumbent party started at a disadvantage due to the electorate having changed adversely to
1005:
and myself) all want the same thing - N/A to be used appropriately - but
Doktorbuk entirely misrepresents, or misunderstands, the corrections that JASpencer and myself have been making. The article currently has candidates that clearly stood in the previous election with N/A in the "change" field, as
1893:
Reverse order chronology works better. These are not articles of purely historical interest, these are areas where people live and vote. If someone was looking up something about the constituency it would be firstly about the present state of the constituency, and then the very recent past and the
1602:
A split at 1707 is wholly illogical, because there was no change in the constituencies between the
English and British Parliaments. The only change was that Scottish members were admitted. If we need splits at all, the best date will be 1832 (Great Reform Act) when many consituencies were changes:
1218:
These articles depart from the standard of all other articles. I would suggest that they be merged; the dates of
Pariaments removed; and the members' lists reformatted to match the rest. If there is a case for a split it is probably at 1885, when the constituencey was reduced to two members. If a
934:
I have always been under the impression that we use N/A to mean, essentially, both; there is no genuine difference in British politics between the two, and at first glance, any reader can see that a party did not stand in the previous election. I don't understand why Ipswich has been singled out for
385:
To be honest, I don't care who thinks they have a dispute with who, but it is clear that a dispute exists. (By definition, a dispute must involve more than one person.) With that in mind, bold/unilateral actions are generally unwise and likely to exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, if you believe
348:
You acted unilaterally out of spite. RFBailey has found you out, and your response is inadequate. There may be broad consensus in one direction, but this project has agreed to use a standard format, and unlike the suggestive instructions, our consensus has not been challenged, edited or questioned.
314:
Incidentally, I was unaware that you had changed the naming conventions on 11 January because, unlike this page, it's not on my watchlist; that edit seems to have the appearance of a unilateral action. You could at least have informed the project of the change. If you think there is a problem with a
137:
Please update your naming conventions to align with the broader consensus, or bring it up at the article naming talk page or at the village pump to convince the broader community that the current naming convention is right. Otherwise, the "wasps nest" will continue to swarm out from time to time, as
1507:
Blank spaces exist because the Parliamentary record is fragmented, with several periods where the names of MPs are simply not known, and leaving a blank space shows this - the alternative is probably to write "Not known" in each blank, I prefer it how it is. Contiguous representation through two or
1030:
I doubt it would have had any effect on the edit warring. Finally, Ipswich has not been "singled out", JASpencer identified some concerns he had with the article and made some edits, I outlined my concerns with his edits (on this page), and reverted them while suggesting that if a change was needed
569:
Actually, having laid it all out like that I'm now feeling fairly neutral about the whole issue, as long as we make sure that 100% of articles have a dab page entry or redirect: it doesn't really matter that much what the article title is. But as this matter has been raised and caused acrimony (and
363:"Found me out"? There was nothing done in secret, or in haste. I "plucked" Nottingham South off of the top of the list above. Your conspiracy theories need as much work as your ability to assume good faith. "This project" (the Knowledge project) has decided not to qualify titles that don't need it (
3062:
Thanks. I suspect a number of other 'Conservative' candidates in the 1886-1912 period may have actually been Liberal Unionist candidates. Is there any way to easily systematically check this sort of thing? Would a combination of Craig and Ferris be the best sources to use? There were seven general
1807:
I also think that we should not get too worried about consistency as there are some constituency articles that are clearly unbalanced and others that aren't. When they get unbalanced then we will have a ready made solution, so it's not the end of the world that not all constituencies are dealt in
1370:
So the MPs should be in forward chronological order and the election results should be in reverse chronological order. The see of red that are for a large part the pre-1800 MPs (most specks of blue leading to stubs) should be in front of the election results and the discussion of recent electoral
1249:
I suggest that in these continuing constituencies there ought to be the option of splitting the article so that there is the equivalent of an historical constituency article which can have the full listing of MPs and if there are other historical details then they can also go in, in great detail.
153:
Having looked at all the material cited and the discussion both here and on your talk page, I am unable to understand what the issue objected to is. Clearly, it is not right for any project to formulate rules that are contrary to the general WP consensus. However, the normal rule is that we only
3001:
the 1885 and 1886 elections. Surely that must be wrong as the Liberal Unionists did not form until 1886, though the split appears to be more gradual than that. Would the name 'Liberal Unionist' have formally been used on ballot papers at the time? (Elections back then were a funny business with a
2271:
to creating an Ipswich constituency article for (say) pre pre 1918 Ipswich, pre 1832 Ipswich or pre (either) Act of Union Ipswich to create a more specialised list page showing the full list of MPs going back to the 1300s. There could be a shorter list on the page itself. Secondly, as Opera Hat
1803:
I actually agree that 1832 is a far more approrpriate date to split than either of the Acts of Union as the constituencies in most cases change their nature quite dramatically. The reason why I originally split Ipswich at 1707 was the fact that the name was factually wrong and I thought that was
1245:
I suspect that most readers are looking for current information and comparitively recent political history. So long lists of MPs in forward date order - particulalry in an early stage in the article may not be what the majority of readers need. This is particularly the case when the majority of
905:
I have read the brief comments made by the editors in the articles edit history. It is difficult to follow the dispute and the editors concerned would have made things easier for themselves had they discussed things more fully on the articles talk page. However, that discussion can now take place
3092:
another election. The difference was attributable to the name of the local association that adopted him. If there is doubt about the exact label, it is easier to on-line check that candidate's adoption announcement in the newspapers than to check what was in that candidate's election literature.
3091:
A Craig/Ferris combo will probably get most labels right. In my experience, the description is more likely to be wrong in wikipedia biographical articles than constituency articles. I once spent time researching a particular individual who was correctly described as LU in one election and Con in
2950:
FWS Craig in British Parliamentary Election Results lists Rucker in 86 as LU. Craig is reliable on this subject. The source in the Pudsey article calling him a Conservative comes from The Times which is less reliable on this subject. You should feel free to change this label to LU. I think it is
2386:
I have been checking a number of the Knowledge entries relating to the 2015 election results. The basic results - in terms of how many votes each candidate got - are probably usually correct but the figures for the turnout are not. The reason is that the total electorate for 7 May 2015 has to be
2319:
A split would also be bad in practice for editors, requiring a huge amount of additional work to implement the split across hundreds of articles, setting up navigational devices such as new categories and lists and checking that subpages are clearly linked. Even so, it will still impede checking
1542:
The best way to avoid this distraction would be to have the information on a separate page. It doesn't matter whether it's pre Act of Union (1707 or 1801), pre reform act or when it was a two rather than one page article. Even if it was a sea of blue it would still be a distraction as it comes
1347:
I have to agree that this proposal has limited merit. We all know that the project has a few make-do-and-mend elements which could be repaired. The balance, however, is not to cause too much disruption, and this proposal most certainly would. I think notes written into the articles would be more
1267:
I must stress that this is a reasonably small subset of constituencies that we are talking about. Essentially these are articles about constituencies that are currently in the House of Commons that have been around continuously for more than two hundred years. For Ipswich there are 26 of these
472:
JHJ has policy on his side; the project has its years of work and knowledge in this area on its side, and an eight-year-old local guideline. We have an impasse. Rather than slanging it out on this page, we evidently need to raise the question with a wider audience and seek consensus that in this
310:
JHunterJ, I'm going to stay out of any personal dispute you may be having with Doktorbuk, but I want to ask you one thing: what exactly is wrong with having a consistent naming scheme for constituency articles? This convention has been used in article titles about UK constituencies for almost a
2117:
is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating
1472:
is now a sea of blank spaces, red links and if you are lucky to get a blue link before 1510 they are almost certainly going to lead to a stub. Even more oddly this two screens worth of blankness and dead ends is before the Post 1918 MPs and the election results - which themselves don't go back
1295:
then the same could be said for all constituencies existing both before and after the Acts of Union, but that is a discussion that needs to take place on a WikiProject level, and should not be left to one editor deciding that Ipswich is a good place to start unilaterally changing a project-wide
1935:
I think that having recent ones at the top would work very well. That is the information that is most likely to be wanted. The MPs list should certainly be chronological (from earliest), but the election results boxes take up a lot of space. The alternative might be to have a separate "past
1286:
I see not benefit in splitting off parts of an constituency's history because you think the main article should concern itself more with recent history. The table/timeline should be shown in its entirety, and election result details since they are shown in reverse chronological order more than
400:
Yes, I dispute the local consensus. The personal dispute and assumptions of bad faith are not mine, and I wisely raised the issue here, waited, made the subsequent change to the guidelines, waited, and then moved a single article, and waited (and didn't have to wait as long). Consistent naming
2311:
Another malign side effect of a split is that readers would also lose the ability to search one page for a name. Imagine a reader who heard of someone called Kelly who was MP for Ipswich at some point. Right now, just open up the page, press Ctl-F and search for Kelly: hey presto, a link to
548:
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
2153:
We've been having quite a few arguments about whether or where to split the sixty odd continuous constituencies. While I still think that there is merit in splitting the constituencies one way around one of the major problems might be to hive off the lists of MPs as separate pages.
1162:
In a nutshell. If Knowledge is anything it is consistency - if there is an established format for a particular class of article then all articles in that class must conform to it. Article size, or the fact that it is the peculiarities of the City of London has nothing to do with it.
2165:
which would have the full list of MPs. Meanwhile the previous century of MPs would still appear on both the main and list pages. For any famous MPs from more than a century ago there could be some discussion in the history section but there would not need to be the full listing.
106:, I recently moved several articles that have a parenthetical qualifier to the base name, where the base name either did not have a page or had a redirect to the qualified name. The parenthetical qualifiers are used for disambiguation, and are unneeded where no ambiguity exists.
1405:
not be arbitrarily changed. If you want change then you need to raise your concerns here and garner enough support for them. That many constituencies inconveniently have over seven centuries of history is not a reason to park those histories in some dark corner, or to defy
2307:
The alternative idea -- of splitting out the earlier MPs -- if a bad idea in practice because it would impede readers by slowing navigation between the different sections. Instead of jumping around one page, readers would have to load another page with a separate ToC.
1268:
constituencies founded in 1295 (when borough constituencies were founded), 2 before that and around 15 up to 1570. There will be others (I stopped counting) but it is unlikely to be more than about 60, or less than 10% of the current House of Commons constituencies.
273:- you came here looking for permission to make moved. You did not receive that permission. Moving Nottingham South on its own has created approx 700 redirects, a wholly unsatisfactory situation. I cannot revert your grossly negligent behaviour. I need you to do so.
1971:
I really think all current parliamentary constituencies, and eventually historic constituencies, should use the same format for listing elections. I'm happy to do it but I need to know which format people want used. The compact one or the long separate boxes one?
1473:
before 1906, so medieval red links trump the electoral history of Ipswich since its been a one member seat under universal suffrage. These red links do need to be somewhere on Knowledge, but should they be taking so much space on a current constituency article?
1936:
election results" article for each constituency, comprising all but the most recent. This would not be necessary for shortlived ones, but would be useful for some of the more ancient, which could be cluttered up with dozens of election results boxes.
1863:
I must enter a protest against having even election results in reverse chronological order. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other publication of election results which lists them in reverse chronological order; it is always earliest first.
1677:
Of course the question would be what would you call them as the standard convention is "Foo (UK Parliament constituency)". Would it be "Aylesbury (UK Parliament constituency) (pre-1885)", "Aylesbury (UK Parliamentary borough)" or something different?
329:
I don't have a personal dispute with Doktorbuk, despite their possible personal dispute with me. There's no problem with having a consistent naming scheme for constituency articles, and many consistent naming schemes are possible that still conform to
2516:
I suggest that simply omitting the footnotes would improve these articles. If you feel that the information is of such relevance to individual constituency articles that it needs including in the lead, then the following would be an improvement:
2046:
the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please
1371:
history and election boundaries should be just before the Corporation or freeholder elected MPs? This is sinmply saying that there should be no improvement to these articles because inbalance isn't change and mediocrity isn't disruption.
2500:
Generally, if something is useful and relevant, it should be in the text. If it is not useful or relevant, it should not be in the article at all. Putting information in footnotes makes the significance or relevance of the information
97:
979:
I have always understood "N/A" to mean "not applicable". This seems to be about calculating swings between parties where a party stood on one election, but not the previous one. An alternative might be to put an em-dash in the box.
2970:
corrects the candidate designations given by Craig. As he doesn't mention Arthur William Rucker nor the Pudsey division, Ferris accepts that Craig's designation of Rucker as a Liberal Unionist is accurate. If that wasn't enough, the
2847:
2689:
My questions are: Do you think these would be beneficial to the Wiki articles on the constituencies? If so, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Is there any way to upload these in bulk, or will that be a manual process.
2169:
This would neatly sidestep the debate of where to split the constituency (there are a number of candidates), allow for some discrepancy between splin and non split pages, preserve the data and make for more readable main pages.
1658:
I think that these are clear cut, as there are clear points of rupture - Christchurch and Banbury being resurrected and Aylesbury and Christchurch being transformed from urban to rural. I'm not too dogmatic that any constituency
282:
2882:
809:
to link to the redirect rather than the article title. It doesn't look to me as if this is helpful, but I leave it to those more deeply involved in constituencies to follow it up if they think fit. There's also a section at
147:
117:
I looked up the past discussions, and Doktorbuk seems to be one of the most ardent supporters of this unnecessary consistency. If the titles truly need to identify themselves as UK constituencies (because that's part of the
2511:
The second footnote contains information about constituencies in general, which is properly placed in the article about constituencies. Putting it in a footnote in every single individual constituency article is massively
221:
2974:
of 17 June 1886 (p. 4) states "There is, it is stated, a probability of Mr. A. W. RĆ¼cker, who contested North Leeds at the General Election, opposing Mr. Briggs Priestley, as a Liberal Unionist in the Pudsey Division".
1894:
interest will decline in relation to how recent it was. If I knew how to report on the Knowledge viewing figures then I could probably show this by comparing the views of current constituencies and their predecesors.
122:
or whatever), then it shouldn't be in parentheses. If it's not part of the common name or whatever, the lead paragraph of the article is where such information is supposed to go, unless it is needed for disambiguation.
1569:
I think splitting the constituency at a particular date would imply that these were two separate constituencies. For borough constituencies like Ipswich, this would be misleading (unlike for Aylesbury or Devizes, see
1250:
The current constituency article could have a prominent link to the historical article as well as historical highlights such as historically important MPs, controversial elections and who controlled the franchise.
231:
3142:
2507:
Here, you're interrupting the sentence after a mere 4 words, to give some information in a footnote which is of very little interest and probably doesn't even need to be mentioned at all in individual constituency
560:. 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.
473:
complicated area, for all the reasons known to participants here, there should be an exception to allow standardised article titles for all UK constituencies, even where disambiguation is not otherwise necessary.
246:
1261:
1113:
The fact that one constituency has escaped convention is not proof that a split is desirable. All it suggests is that the two City of London articles need to be merged - thank you for pointing out this anomaly.
226:
3107:
2323:
Those are practical problems, but the conceptual problems are as great. Why is a more recent MP regarded as more significant than an earlier one? For example, split at 1885 would retain in the Ipswich list
408:
2875:
241:
2602:
I agree completely. I'd probably tend towards still including the information though - if a visitor to the article doesn't know this already, it saves them having to follow another link to find it out.
873:
occurring on this page. I am not involved and don't want to be, and have no opinion on who is right over how to use N/A - I would just like it to be settled by discussion and this seems the best place.
1575:
1297:
1233:
957:
uses it is that it discourages the information from being subsequently added, as it will be less obvious to editors that this work needs to be completed. You could almost call it a disruptive edit.
201:
953:
may have been under the wrong impression about the use of n/a and that if it has happened elsewhere, then it is also I think not beneficial to the reader. The problem with using it in the way that
647:
2376:
1945:
1873:
236:
211:
206:
1571:
1006:
well as N/A (probably misinterpreted as "Not Available") in "swing" and "majority" fields. No such data is "Not Available" to anyone with a calculator or the necessary math ability. It also has
216:
2079:
2935:
is an example where the Liberal Unionist candidate is marked as such. I haven't changed the Pudsey page, as I wanted to check the party is correct - are detailed 1886 election results online?
3067:
that coverage on Knowledge of UK local elections only really goes back to 1969, though there are three blue-links in the 1890s! How far back does the history of local elections in the UK go?
1399:
There is no suggestion that things must remain the same forever, just that changes to agreed and long-established practices that have been established by protracted discussions and consensus
2184:
1837:
1726:. I suppose as the latter was a constituency of the Parliament of Great Britain for 82 years and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for 117, "UK Parliament constituency" has the edge.
1623:
I know this doesn't help much for the Ipswich example, but how about splitting articles where a current county constituency bears the name of a former borough constituency? After all, they
899:
1994:
I agree with you. Personally, I don't like the compact list as I don't think it is reader friendly. These are very much the minority and perhaps could be changed by someone like yourself.
1840:. It concerns uncontested ministerial by-elections where the seat did not change hands. Do they have inherent notability as by-elections or do they have to prove themselves through the
629:
2931:
initially lists the Liberal Unionists separately, but then gives results combined for 'Conservative & Liberal Unionist'. How should it be done on the individual constituency pages?
3076:
3041:
3011:
2755:
2304:. That works fine; I zoomed straight past the earlier MPs without seeing the list. But if I had wanted to see them, there was a set of handy links in the ToC to take me right there.
1586:(all the holders since the Conquest). Such a split would not be necessary for all constituency articles, but I completely agree that in cases such as Ipswich something should be done.
1888:
1853:
1798:
1783:
1761:
1697:
1612:
1574:
below). Better would be to have info on the boundaries of the constituency, the sitting MP, the most recent election result, etc in the main constituency article, and then a separate
89:
84:
2612:
262:
163:
2641:
Since it is part of a series, the UK Parliament constituencies series, it made no sense to update just one. Rather creating an updated map for all of them seemed the best approach.
1228:
623:
72:
67:
59:
2984:
1960:
1079:
989:
2199:
2003:
1921:
1903:
1821:
1735:
1713:
1687:
1672:
1595:
1382:
1357:
1277:
944:
2496:
I could not find any discussion of where this style was decided but from the ubiquity of it, I suppose there must have been some. However, there are several problems with this.
2068:
1058:
443:
380:
358:
305:
3135:
3101:
2960:
1652:
1107:
425:
395:
343:
324:
2841:
2396:
2213:
966:
929:
467:
725:
566:
Any thoughts? Maybe one or two more points as to why it's thought to be useful to have this uniformity? I've set out 4 subheadings below, to try to structure any discussion.
2281:
2262:
1552:
1535:
1482:
1445:
1331:
1206:
1190:
1157:
1141:
855:
1987:
915:
2272:
says, this clearly does not need to be universal. There are only around 60 articles that have this unreadable MP bloat - and they can be dealt with on an as needed basis.
411:
if the constituency identification is really needed in every title -- things that are necessary in the title for reasons other than disambiguation aren't put in parentheses
2246:
2328:, an early 20th-century MP who rose without trace to the obscurity of being Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Postmaster-General ... but exclude the noted economist
2780:
1407:
775:
693:
538:
2867:
2848:
2708:
2122:! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
526:
2584:
2162:
1410:. I agree there are improvements to be made - I'd like to see the History section include all names and renamings of constituencies instead of just the conventional
721:
488:
3028:
Party names were not given on ballot papers until 1970. The ballot itself was fairly new in 1886 (the first UK Parliamentary election held by secret ballot was the
681:
2944:
2716:
2686:
In total there are 632 maps in the series, so none for Northern Ireland. These are also very easily updateable once the boundary commission reviews are completed.
2143:
2596:
2729:
1858:
1723:
1603:
some boroughs were enlarged to take in adjacent areas; some counties were split; rotten boroughs were abolished and made part of nthe county consistuency; etc.
1095:
861:
840:
47:
17:
2091:
480:
2732:
and, if they see fit, revert some of today's edits to that article. I've had enough of this editor's idiosyncratic approach to the encyclopedia. (See edits to
1148:
So when you propose the merger of two not particularly small articles your only rationale is going to be uniformity with all the other constituency articles?
2822:
2704:
2148:
577:
In the meantime, could I suggest that everyone should hold off from making any more changes to constituency article titles while it's all under discussion?
2723:
717:
713:
571:
484:
2035:
606:
596:
750:
509:
Parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom have a long and complex history, sometimes corresponding to the name of a place and sometimes not (eg
186:
3002:
limited franchise, I have no idea how voting was actually done given there were 'only' about 9000 votes in the Leeds North constituency, for example.)
2792:
545:
574:: see 12:27 am, 21 December 2013Ā !), let's try and have a clear discussion in an appropriate venue so all sides will feel able to accept the outcome.
386:
that "many consistent naming schemes are possible", perhaps you could suggest one? And why is one which has existed for nine years suddenly wrong? --
2301:
349:
You had no reason to pluck Nottingham South from the air other than arbitrary petulance. Very good work by Nick to revert your unilateral decision.
2549:
2438:
181:
176:
2796:
2388:
522:
2320:
backlinks, because while an now always appears in a "Foo (UK Parliament constituency)" page, that won't necessarily be the case after a split.
1831:
697:
404:
use the base name, and add (UK Parliament constituency) if it's needed. This is the consistent approach used successfully throughout Knowledge
3093:
2952:
2205:
2040:
1995:
1952:
1019:
958:
907:
514:
171:
3127:
3108:
1789:
Reform Act 1832 and subsequent major reorganisations. Name changes and such like have caused this to happen automatically in many cases.
1774:
cases where a county division bears the name of a former borough - only in those where it was felt a single article was getting too large.
846:
Parliamentary boroughs (the unreformed two member borough based constituencies) were a distinct form of organisation. What's the problem?
709:
191:
1578:
including all the MPs back to the Middle Ages and all the historic election results. This is the format followed for offices held such as
517:, a current constituency with a name not used for other purposes). Some contituencies have been in existence since the 13th century (e.g.
1091:
2058:(Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.)
533:. Since 1979 there has been another set of parliamentary constituencies across the UK, the European Parliament constituencies, such as
1636:
1583:
1023:
476:
Can we try to agree (a) where it should be discussed, and (b) what wording we want, before going "external"? Here are some thoughts.
2830:
Electoral Statistics: Parliamentary and Local Government Electors in Constituencies and Local Government Areas of England and Wales
2381:
2293:
I am sorry to see this proposal, because it seems to me to be a bad solution to a non-problem; bad in concept and bad in practice.
1618:
1085:
534:
653:
2932:
2576:
system of election at least every five years. For the purposes of election expenses and type of returning officer, Wycombe is a
1719:
1292:
1027:
518:
2204:
I like Contents formatting. Contents makes it easy for readers to locate what they want on a page, no matter how big that page.
2553:
2442:
2015:
1693:
1628:
2997:
Thanks all. Confusingly, the 1993 and later 2004 onwards ODNB article all say that Rucker was a Liberal Unionist candidate in
2761:
I've the article edits, which seemed not to contribute anything positive to the article, but would welcome expert attention.
2504:
Footnotes and citations placed in the middle of a sentence are aesthetically displeasing and interrupt the flow of the article
2316:, briefly an IPswich MP in 1835. With a split, the same exercise requires loading a separate page and searching again there.
2928:
2371:
1026:
may have allowed interested members of this project to follow the discussion more clearly - but as I did explain my edits on
1015:
1627:
separate constituencies, with completely different boundaries and electorates, they just happen to have the same name. E.g.
2712:
2297:
2158:
1640:
1632:
1469:
1288:
1239:
863:
530:
111:
2111:
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that
2916:
1246:
constituencies are less than 150 years old (some a lot younger) and so have relatively short lists of MPs and elections.
1418:
is excessive - if a page doesn't exist for Sir Bufton Tufton, MP for Lymeswold, 1392-1393 then a redlink isn't helpful.
818:(linked from the former as "Further information") has a more thorough coverage, including sources. All a bit of a mess.
110:
took particular exception to my moves, and lashed out with some bad-faith assumptions about disruption and vandalism on
2588:
2129:
1979:
802:
510:
2912:
3064:
2799:
in Jan 2007 (text doesn't appear till you look at the source, as it's in a no-longer-used infobox template). But the
2341:
1966:
790:
549:
constituencies all have names matching UK Parliament constituency names, so their disambiguation is uncontroversial).
2915:
to the page of an unsuccessful candidate in the 1885 and 1886 general elections. While doing so, I noticed that the
198:
and here are the previous discussions around the topic (although none with the broader audience than this project):
2557:
2446:
2325:
2267:
Two things. Firstly this is not creating two constituency pages, it's creating subsidiary pages. I'm saying that
371:). The sub-project's consensus has been challenged, by others and by me. The only arbitrary petulance is yours. --
935:
special treatment, not least because the edits create a very confusing new system without any proper explanation.
2657:
705:
434:
Consistent naming schemes exist for our project, perfectly fine. Go away and play with somebody else's train set
3134:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion
2874:. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion
2681:
2675:
2669:
2663:
2651:
1931:
It would make it much harder to update an article after every election if the earliest results were at the top.
2096:
1238:
For a minority of constituencies (mostly borough constituencies) with a long historical presence, for example
479:(a): venue: Is a constituency a "Geographic name"? I think probably so, in which case we need an amendment to
311:
decade now (most were created around the time of the 2005 general election), so why the urge to change it now?
2871:
2048:
798:
781:
701:
2016:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lanark_and_Hamilton_East_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&redirect=no
806:
3029:
2927:
candidate. Should this be changed? They did merge in 1912, but before that they were separate parties. The
821:
On second thoughts I'm going to redirect that unsourced stub to the existing article which has more info.
154:
have disambiguators in cases where they are needed. Can you indicate what moved are being objected to?
2803:
1959 results call it a County constituency. Could someone with a definitive source clarify this? Thanks.
2561:
2450:
2082:, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated.
2052:
and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my
920:
Personally I treat blank as not available an N/A as not applicable. Otherwise it's just too confusing.
2329:
38:
3123:
2906:
2863:
2786:
2367:
2022:
315:"local consensus" that should be raised at the Village Pump or elsewhere, why not do so yourself? --
2626:
I have created updated maps. But am seeking approval/feedback before progressing with their upload.
3158:
2898:
2128:
To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to
2073:
1414:- a minor change that may address some of your concerns in the previous section. I also agree that
1219:
further split is needed I would suggest 1547, because inforation on earlier periods is less good.
553:
368:
289:
232:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 3#Article names, guidelines needed?
131:
3037:
2980:
2565:
2454:
2119:
2113:
2101:
1941:
1869:
1794:
1757:
1608:
1224:
1075:
985:
159:
2924:
2592:
2401:
2337:
1983:
1300:- no, I'm not supporting that either. Finally, section title changed to something more NPOV - "
870:
247:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 4#Constituency article naming
227:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 3#Article Moves - advice sought
222:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Progress#New "Manual of Style" sub-page
878:
has already reverted to his version thre times in three days and I don't want it to go beyond
2920:
2837:
2733:
2618:
1908:
I know these articles aren't stand-alone lists, so the guideline doesn't directly apply, but
815:
786:
687:
2300:, the first screenful includes a table of contents which allows me to jump directly to Ā§3.4
3072:
3007:
2940:
2700:
2569:
2482:
2360:
2345:
2087:
1975:
1841:
1468:
The constituency articles are diminished by the current attitude. Looking at the restored
601:
119:
8:
2608:
2577:
2573:
2486:
2469:
2356:
2277:
2258:
2195:
2180:
2031:
1917:
1899:
1884:
1849:
1817:
1779:
1731:
1709:
1683:
1668:
1648:
1591:
1548:
1478:
1378:
1353:
1273:
1257:
1202:
1153:
1103:
940:
925:
851:
643:
619:
557:
439:
364:
354:
331:
293:
278:
127:
103:
98:
Local consensus on naming conventions contradicts the broader consensus on article titles
1287:
satisfy the need to focus on recent political history. If there are grounds to separate
811:
242:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 5#Disambiguation...again
138:
editors familiar with the broader consensus try to fix the titles of these articles. --
3033:
2976:
2392:
1937:
1909:
1865:
1790:
1753:
1604:
1220:
1071:
1011:
981:
421:
391:
376:
339:
320:
301:
258:
155:
143:
1700:
would probably be sufficient for the earlier one, as for much of its existence it was
2645:
2636:
2333:
2009:
1692:
I think the current constituency would have to be the primary topic and so remain at
2023:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(UK_Parliament_constituencies)
730:
but I'm not sure how to formulate it as an RfC and whether this is really necessary.
662:: I'll leave this till it's had a week for people to comment, then take it forward.
3097:
2956:
2833:
2525:
2414:
2209:
2118:
easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested,
1999:
1956:
1296:
standard. Your rationale would suggest that from 1707 to 1801 there should also be
962:
911:
895:
2951:
helpful to distinguish between the two Unionist parties in constituency articles.
202:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 1#Initial thoughts
3131:
3068:
3003:
2936:
2359:
proposal would sweep all that history away into a dusty cupboard. Why, o why? --
2139:
2064:
2053:
1579:
2173:
As most election results are recent then they will not need to come under this.
237:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 4#Disambiguation
212:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 1#Disambiguation
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2832:(p.6), so it looks like it was a county constituency throughout its existence.
2813:
2771:
2746:
2604:
2349:
2273:
2254:
2239:
2191:
2176:
2027:
1913:
1895:
1880:
1845:
1813:
1775:
1727:
1705:
1679:
1664:
1644:
1587:
1544:
1528:
1474:
1438:
1374:
1349:
1324:
1269:
1253:
1198:
1183:
1149:
1134:
1099:
1051:
1002:
998:
954:
950:
936:
921:
883:
875:
847:
831:
794:
766:
741:
672:
639:
615:
587:
435:
350:
274:
217:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Progress#Disambiguation
207:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Archive 1#Progress page
107:
2658:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115987875@N04/21303127025/in/dateposted-public/ĀØ
2406:
Currently a large number of constituency articles start in the following way:
3152:
3139:
2892:
2879:
2682:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115987875@N04/21115246348/in/dateposted-public/
2676:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115987875@N04/21311267361/in/dateposted-public/
2670:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115987875@N04/21115032090/in/dateposted-public/
2664:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115987875@N04/20682016813/in/dateposted-public/
2652:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/115987875@N04/21115244688/in/dateposted-public/
2313:
2083:
1543:
before the more current information that the readers are more interested in.
879:
417:
387:
372:
335:
316:
297:
270:
254:
139:
2644:
So currently you can see the example map in, the second map on that page.:
2132:. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
891:
552:
This convention has recently been challenged by an editor who has cited
2135:
2080:
Category:UK Parliament constituencies articles needing expert attention
2060:
1912:
shows that earliest-to-latest chronological order should be standard.
525:). There are separate constituencies for the Scottish Parliament (eg
2804:
2762:
2737:
2472:(for the purposes of election expenses and type of returning officer)
2221:
1838:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Durham City by-election, January 1871
1510:
1420:
1306:
1165:
1116:
1033:
887:
822:
757:
732:
663:
578:
2646:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Edinburgh_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
2637:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Edinburgh_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
2190:
As the debate has gone quiet, is this an approach that could work?
698:
Knowledge:Article_titles#Proposed_naming_conventions_and_guidelines
2348:
who later became a noted free trader, and the noted land reformer
1234:
Proposed split of constituency history pre/post 1707 Acts of Union
126:
But, if a WikiProject wants to vary from the broader consensus at
1696:, though in most cases it would be by far the shorter article.
1090:
There is already a constituency article that is split at 1707:
3115:
2855:
2021:
I have advised the editor about the naming conventions here -
726:
Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)
481:
Knowledge:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_Kingdom
367:) and that sub-projects can't override the broader consensus (
890:. Could other editors please help resolve this. Best wishes,
2630:
2568:. As with all constituencies, the constituency elects one
1663:
to be split until it is in danger of becoming unreadable.
694:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies)
539:
Yorkshire and the Humber (European Parliament constituency)
2868:
Combined English Universities (UK Parliament constituency)
2849:
Combined English Universities (UK Parliament constituency)
1001:
has edit warred in reverting three times - we (Doktorbuk,
527:
Mid Fife and Glenrothes (Scottish Parliament constituency)
2585:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
805:
and has changed the links in a batch of articles such as
722:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
489:
Knowledge:Naming conventions (government and legislation)
3149:
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude
2889:
To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude
2481:
As with all constituencies, the constituency elects one
1197:
Can you point me to a Knowledge policy to support this?
2923:
as the Conservative candidate, when in fact he was the
2730:
talk:South Gloucestershire (UK Parliament constituency)
1096:
City of London (elections to the Parliament of England)
537:(one of the larger number which existed 1979-1999) and
18:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies
2828:
It's also listed as a county constituency in the 1977
112:
User talk:JHunterJ#Disruptive moves without discussion
2635:
Where someone wanted the Edinburgh West map updated:
1722:(for the current constituency, established 1955) and
793:
but has just been re-created as an unsourced stub by
2728:
Would an expert from this project please comment at
718:
Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
714:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
630:
Discussion: wording of proposed supporting statement
485:
Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
168:
These are the ones I had attempted to fix recently:
2528:
2417:
1724:
Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) (1708ā1918)
187:
Haltemprice and Howden (UK Parliament constituency)
2795:has identified it as a Borough constituency since
2793:South Gloucestershire (UK Parliament constituency)
2650:As a further set of examples I present: Ashfield:
546:Knowledge:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies
288:No, I came here pointing out the problem with the
2014:Can someone please advise how I deal with this -
182:Milton Keynes North (UK Parliament constituency)
177:Milton Keynes South (UK Parliament constituency)
1859:Reverse chronological order of election results
882:. The editors who disagreed with Doktorbuk are
523:Morley and Outwood (UK Parliament constituency)
2540:
2489:system of election at least every five years.
2429:
2253:Why would it have to be applied universally?
2149:An alternative approach to old constituencies
1304:" is a poor description of what is proposed.
515:Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency)
172:Nottingham South (UK Parliament constituency)
130:, there is an accepted way to get there, per
3128:Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency)
3109:Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency)
2724:Gloucestershire South/ South Gloucestershire
2332:who was an Ipswich MP in the 1820s, Admiral
1770:I don't think this would have to be done in
192:New Forest East (UK Parliament constituency)
1092:City of London (UK Parliament constituency)
710:Knowledge talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board
409:Nottingham South UK Parliament constituency
2534:
2423:
1637:Christchurch (UK Parliament constituency)
1584:List of Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers
1576:List of Members of Parliament for Ipswich
1470:Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)there
1298:Ipswich (British Parliament constituency)
535:Leeds (European Parliament constituency)
2933:Rossendale (UK Parliament constituency)
1720:Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency)
1704:a constituency of the "UK Parliament".
1293:Ipswich (English Parliamentary Borough)
700:and so have advertised the proposal at
519:Canterbury (UK Parliament constituency)
14:
1832:Byelection Article for Deletion debate
1694:Aylesbury (UK Parliament constituency)
1629:Aylesbury (UK Parliament constituency)
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3030:Pontefract by-election in August 1872
2537:
2531:
2426:
2420:
2161:there could be a page created called
2041:Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
791:United Kingdom constituencies#Borough
2919:section for the 1886 election lists
2298:Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)
2159:Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)
1641:Devizes (UK Parliament constituency)
1633:Banbury (UK Parliament constituency)
1289:Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)
1240:Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)
864:Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency)
607:Discussion: wording of proposed text
531:Cardiff West (Assembly constituency)
25:
2917:Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency)
529:) and the Welsh National Assembly (
521:, the newest were created in 2010 (
487:, or is it an entity coming within
23:
3126:discussion has been initiated for
3114:
2866:discussion has been initiated for
2854:
2130:Knowledge:WikiProject X/Newsletter
2100:
1582:(an article about the office) and
803:Truro (UK Parliament constituency)
797:who has also made a redirect from
789:was since July 2013 a redirect to
511:Leeds (UK Parliament constituency)
24:
3172:
3065:Template:United Kingdom elections
1018:and the government. I agree with
505:Explanation to accompany proposal
483:and should raise the question at
2629:This was instigated by MapLift:
2524:
2413:
2382:2015 UK General election results
2230:
1698:Aylesbury (borough constituency)
1619:County v. Borough constituencies
1572:County v. Borough constituencies
1519:
1429:
1412:Foo (UK Parliament constituency)
1315:
1174:
1125:
1086:City of London pre and post 1707
1042:
29:
1808:exaclty the same way overnight.
1804:open and shut. How wrong I was.
1408:constituency naming conventions
1348:useful than a wholesale change
706:Knowledge:Village pump (policy)
491:, or ... any other thoughts?
2717:19:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
2475:
2462:
814:, and the second paragraph of
812:Borough#Parliamentary_boroughs
13:
1:
2872:Combined English Universities
799:Truro (Parliamentary borough)
776:14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
751:14:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
702:Knowledge talk:Article titles
513:, a former constituency, and
263:21:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
164:20:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
148:14:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
2144:16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
2092:04:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
682:17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
648:14:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
624:14:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
597:10:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
444:05:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
426:02:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
396:02:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
381:02:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
359:23:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
344:23:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
325:21:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
306:18:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
283:18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
7:
2282:09:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
2263:09:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
2247:05:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
2214:19:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
2200:19:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
2069:22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
2056:. Thank you for your time!
2036:08:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
2004:20:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
1961:19:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
1854:21:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
816:Reform_Act_1832#Composition
10:
3177:
2668:Altrincham and Sale West:
2613:08:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
2597:06:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
2296:Looking at the article on
2185:12:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
1988:21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
1946:14:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
1922:15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1904:07:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1889:01:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1874:19:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
1822:08:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
1799:12:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1784:18:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
1762:14:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
1736:23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1714:22:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1688:16:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1673:16:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1653:16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1613:12:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1596:18:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
1553:19:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1536:18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1483:09:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1446:03:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
1229:12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1207:22:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1191:17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1158:16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
1142:04:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1108:01:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1080:12:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
1059:04:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
990:14:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
967:06:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
945:09:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
930:22:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
916:18:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
900:13:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
756:And have made an RfC too.
3143:20:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
3111:listed at Requested moves
3102:08:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
3077:10:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
3042:10:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
3012:07:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
2985:18:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
2961:17:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
2945:17:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
2851:listed at Requested moves
2656:Arundel and South Downs:
2631:http://nacis.org/maplift/
2397:17:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
1967:Standardisation of Format
1383:21:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
1358:10:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
1332:08:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
1278:22:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
1262:21:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
856:15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
841:14:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
2883:20:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
2842:21:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
2823:06:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
2781:14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
2756:14:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
2377:18:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
2049:review the proposal here
801:to the long-established
654:Discussion: other issues
2336:, Gladstone's brothers
2163:List of MPs for Ipswich
2078:This is a notice about
1836:I've started an AfD at
494:(b): text: As a draft:
3119:
2925:Liberal Unionist Party
2859:
2583:I also posted this at
2105:
2097:WikiProject X is live!
3161:for this WikiProject.
3118:
2921:Arthur William Rucker
2901:for this WikiProject.
2858:
2734:South Gloucestershire
2674:Aldridge-Brownhills:
2104:
1028:Doktorbuk's talk page
787:Parliamentary borough
782:Parliamentary borough
42:of past discussions.
2797:BHG added an infobox
2570:Member of Parliament
2483:Member of Parliament
2346:Thomas Milner Gibson
2157:So for example with
1016:Electoral Commission
2578:county constituency
2574:first past the post
2552:represented in the
2487:first past the post
2470:county constituency
2441:represented in the
407:use something like
3120:
2929:1886 election page
2860:
2106:
1022:that notes on the
1012:User:Peterkingiron
3162:
2907:Liberal Unionists
2902:
2787:County or Borough
2720:
2703:comment added by
2375:
2334:Home Riggs Popham
2269:as an alternative
2250:
2059:
1978:comment added by
1539:
1449:
1335:
1194:
1145:
1062:
696:. I've looked at
602:Discussion: venue
554:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
369:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
290:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
132:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
95:
94:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3168:
3156:
3155:|deny=RMCD bot}}
3148:
2911:I recently made
2896:
2895:|deny=RMCD bot}}
2888:
2820:
2811:
2778:
2769:
2753:
2744:
2719:
2697:
2554:House of Commons
2547:
2546:
2543:
2542:
2539:
2536:
2533:
2530:
2490:
2479:
2473:
2466:
2443:House of Commons
2436:
2435:
2432:
2431:
2428:
2425:
2422:
2419:
2366:
2363:
2302:MPs 1918āpresent
2249:
2242:
2237:
2234:
2233:
2220:
2108:Hello everyone!
2074:Expert attention
2057:
1990:
1750:leave well alone
1718:I've just found
1538:
1531:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1509:
1448:
1441:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1419:
1416:"the sea of red"
1334:
1327:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1305:
1193:
1186:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1164:
1144:
1137:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1115:
1061:
1054:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1032:
838:
829:
773:
764:
748:
739:
679:
670:
594:
585:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3176:
3175:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3150:
3132:Batley and Spen
3130:to be moved to
3113:
2909:
2890:
2870:to be moved to
2853:
2814:
2805:
2791:The article on
2789:
2772:
2763:
2747:
2738:
2726:
2698:
2621:
2527:
2523:
2494:
2493:
2480:
2476:
2467:
2463:
2416:
2412:
2404:
2384:
2361:
2245:
2240:
2235:
2231:
2228:
2151:
2099:
2076:
2043:
2034:
2012:
1973:
1969:
1861:
1834:
1748:Much better to
1621:
1580:Lord Chancellor
1534:
1529:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1444:
1439:
1434:
1430:
1427:
1356:
1330:
1325:
1320:
1316:
1313:
1236:
1189:
1184:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1088:
1057:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1040:
943:
867:
832:
823:
807:Nichols Randall
784:
767:
758:
742:
733:
690:
673:
664:
656:
646:
636:Broadly support
632:
622:
613:Broadly support
609:
604:
588:
579:
572:partly my fault
470:
442:
357:
281:
100:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3174:
3164:
3163:
3159:Article alerts
3124:requested move
3112:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3088:
3087:
3086:
3085:
3084:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3051:
3050:
3049:
3048:
3047:
3046:
3045:
3044:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3015:
3014:
2990:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2964:
2963:
2908:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2899:Article alerts
2864:requested move
2852:
2846:
2845:
2844:
2801:London Gazette
2788:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2725:
2722:
2705:Heikki.vesanto
2693:Best regards,
2662:Amber Valley:
2620:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2560:since 2010 by
2514:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2502:
2492:
2491:
2474:
2460:
2459:
2449:since 2010 by
2403:
2402:Constituencies
2400:
2383:
2380:
2350:Jesse Collings
2330:Robert Torrens
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2265:
2222:
2150:
2147:
2098:
2095:
2075:
2072:
2042:
2039:
2030:
2011:
2008:
2007:
2006:
1968:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1948:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1860:
1857:
1833:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1805:
1765:
1764:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1599:
1598:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1511:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1421:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1372:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1352:
1341:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1307:
1281:
1280:
1235:
1232:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1166:
1117:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1034:
1003:User:JASpencer
999:User:Doktorbuk
993:
992:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
939:
884:User:JASpencer
876:User:Doktorbuk
866:
860:
859:
858:
783:
780:
779:
778:
689:
686:
685:
684:
655:
652:
651:
650:
642:
631:
628:
627:
626:
618:
608:
605:
603:
600:
564:
563:
562:
561:
550:
542:
502:
469:
468:Moving forward
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
438:
414:
413:
412:
405:
353:
312:
277:
268:
267:
266:
265:
251:
250:
249:
244:
239:
234:
229:
224:
219:
214:
209:
204:
196:
195:
194:
189:
184:
179:
174:
108:User:Doktorbuk
99:
96:
93:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3173:
3160:
3154:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3144:
3141:
3137:
3133:
3129:
3125:
3117:
3110:
3103:
3099:
3095:
3090:
3089:
3078:
3074:
3070:
3066:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3043:
3039:
3035:
3034:Sam Blacketer
3031:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3024:
3023:
3022:
3021:
3020:
3013:
3009:
3005:
3000:
2996:
2995:
2994:
2993:
2992:
2991:
2986:
2982:
2978:
2977:Sam Blacketer
2973:
2972:Leeds Mercury
2968:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2942:
2938:
2934:
2930:
2926:
2922:
2918:
2914:
2913:this addition
2900:
2894:
2887:
2886:
2885:
2884:
2881:
2877:
2873:
2869:
2865:
2857:
2850:
2843:
2840:
2839:
2835:
2831:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2821:
2819:
2818:
2812:
2810:
2809:
2802:
2798:
2794:
2782:
2779:
2777:
2776:
2770:
2768:
2767:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2754:
2752:
2751:
2745:
2743:
2742:
2735:
2731:
2721:
2718:
2714:
2710:
2706:
2702:
2694:
2691:
2687:
2684:
2683:
2678:
2677:
2672:
2671:
2666:
2665:
2660:
2659:
2654:
2653:
2648:
2647:
2642:
2639:
2638:
2633:
2632:
2627:
2624:
2619:Updated Maps?
2614:
2610:
2606:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2594:
2590:
2586:
2581:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2559:
2558:UK Parliament
2555:
2551:
2545:
2522:
2518:
2510:
2506:
2503:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2488:
2484:
2478:
2471:
2465:
2461:
2458:
2456:
2452:
2448:
2447:UK Parliament
2444:
2440:
2434:
2411:
2407:
2399:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2379:
2378:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2358:
2353:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2321:
2317:
2315:
2314:Fitzroy Kelly
2309:
2305:
2303:
2299:
2294:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2270:
2266:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2251:
2248:
2243:
2229:
2227:
2226:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2171:
2167:
2164:
2160:
2155:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2121:
2116:
2115:
2114:WikiProject X
2109:
2103:
2094:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2071:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2055:
2051:
2050:
2038:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2024:
2019:
2017:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1949:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1938:Peterkingiron
1934:
1933:
1932:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1866:Sam Blacketer
1856:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1844:guidelines.
1843:
1842:WP:NOTABILITY
1839:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1812:
1806:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1791:Peterkingiron
1787:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1754:Peterkingiron
1751:
1747:
1746:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:Peterkingiron
1601:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1568:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1541:
1540:
1537:
1532:
1518:
1516:
1515:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1447:
1442:
1428:
1426:
1425:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1333:
1328:
1314:
1312:
1311:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1241:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1221:Peterkingiron
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1187:
1173:
1171:
1170:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1143:
1138:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:Peterkingiron
1068:
1067:
1060:
1055:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
995:
994:
991:
987:
983:
982:Peterkingiron
978:
977:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
949:I think that
948:
947:
946:
942:
938:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
913:
909:
904:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
872:
865:
857:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
842:
839:
837:
836:
830:
828:
827:
819:
817:
813:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
777:
774:
772:
771:
765:
763:
762:
755:
754:
753:
752:
749:
747:
746:
740:
738:
737:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
688:Proposal made
683:
680:
678:
677:
671:
669:
668:
661:
658:
657:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
633:
625:
621:
617:
614:
611:
610:
599:
598:
595:
593:
592:
586:
584:
583:
575:
573:
567:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
507:
506:
503:
500:
499:Proposed text
497:
496:
495:
492:
490:
486:
482:
477:
474:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
410:
406:
403:
402:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
313:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
271:User:JHunterJ
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:
243:
240:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
203:
200:
199:
197:
193:
190:
188:
185:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
169:
167:
166:
165:
161:
157:
156:Peterkingiron
152:
151:
150:
149:
145:
141:
135:
133:
129:
124:
121:
120:WP:COMMONNAME
115:
113:
109:
105:
102:In line with
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3157:, or set up
3121:
2998:
2971:
2910:
2897:, or set up
2861:
2836:
2829:
2816:
2815:
2807:
2806:
2800:
2790:
2774:
2773:
2765:
2764:
2749:
2748:
2740:
2739:
2727:
2699:āĀ Preceding
2695:
2692:
2688:
2685:
2679:
2673:
2667:
2661:
2655:
2649:
2643:
2640:
2634:
2628:
2625:
2622:
2589:66.91.24.128
2582:
2572:(MP) by the
2566:Conservative
2550:constituency
2520:
2519:
2515:
2495:
2485:(MP) by the
2477:
2464:
2455:Conservative
2439:constituency
2409:
2408:
2405:
2385:
2357:WP:RECENTIST
2354:
2326:John Ganzoni
2322:
2318:
2310:
2306:
2295:
2292:
2268:
2224:
2223:
2175:
2172:
2168:
2156:
2152:
2134:
2125:
2124:
2120:check us out
2112:
2110:
2107:
2077:
2047:
2044:
2026:
2020:
2013:
1980:86.3.238.222
1974:ā Preceding
1970:
1930:
1862:
1835:
1771:
1749:
1701:
1660:
1624:
1622:
1513:
1512:
1423:
1422:
1415:
1411:
1401:
1400:
1340:
1309:
1308:
1301:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1237:
1217:
1168:
1167:
1119:
1118:
1089:
1036:
1035:
1007:
869:There is an
868:
834:
833:
825:
824:
820:
785:
769:
768:
760:
759:
744:
743:
735:
734:
729:
691:
675:
674:
666:
665:
659:
635:
612:
590:
589:
581:
580:
576:
568:
565:
558:WP:PRECISION
541:(post-1999).
504:
498:
493:
478:
475:
471:
365:WP:PRECISION
332:WP:PRECISION
294:WP:PRECISION
292:contrary to
269:
136:
128:WP:PRECISION
125:
116:
104:WP:PRECISION
101:
78:
43:
37:
2834:Warofdreams
2680:Aldershot:
2562:Steve Baker
2451:Steve Baker
2344:, the Tory
1910:WP:SALORDER
1020:User:Graemp
862:Dispute at
36:This is an
3069:Carcharoth
3004:Carcharoth
2937:Carcharoth
2512:redundant.
2364:HairedGirl
90:ArchiveĀ 11
85:ArchiveĀ 10
2605:Opera hat
2274:JASpencer
2255:Opera hat
2192:JASpencer
2177:JASpencer
2054:talk page
2010:Page move
1914:Opera hat
1896:JASpencer
1881:Opera hat
1879:I agree.
1846:JASpencer
1814:JASpencer
1776:Opera hat
1728:Opera hat
1706:Opera hat
1680:JASpencer
1665:JASpencer
1645:Opera hat
1588:Opera hat
1545:JASpencer
1475:JASpencer
1375:JASpencer
1270:JASpencer
1254:JASpencer
1199:Opera hat
1150:Opera hat
1100:Opera hat
1024:talk page
922:JASpencer
888:User:Fanx
848:JASpencer
795:JASpencer
401:schemes:
79:ArchiveĀ 9
73:ArchiveĀ 8
68:ArchiveĀ 7
60:ArchiveĀ 5
3140:RMCD bot
2880:RMCD bot
2713:contribs
2701:unsigned
2696:Heikki
2623:Hi all,
2508:articles
2501:unclear.
2389:Cantab72
2372:contribs
2084:Iceblock
1976:unsigned
1302:MP Cruft
871:edit war
418:JHunterJ
388:RFBailey
373:JHunterJ
336:JHunterJ
317:RFBailey
298:JHunterJ
255:JHunterJ
140:JHunterJ
2556:of the
2521:Wycombe
2445:of the
2410:Wycombe
2028:doktorb
1350:doktorb
955:doktorb
951:doktorb
937:doktorb
640:doktorb
616:doktorb
436:doktorb
351:doktorb
275:doktorb
39:archive
3094:Graemp
2953:Graemp
2368:(talk)
2342:Thomas
2206:Graemp
1996:Graemp
1953:Graemp
959:Graemp
908:Graemp
892:Boleyn
880:WP:3RR
2736:etc)
2548:is a
2437:is a
2362:Brown
2355:This
2136:Harej
2126:Note:
2061:Harej
2032:words
1661:needs
1354:words
1291:from
941:words
644:words
620:words
570:it's
440:words
355:words
279:words
16:<
3153:bots
3136:here
3098:talk
3073:talk
3038:talk
3008:talk
2999:both
2981:talk
2957:talk
2941:talk
2893:bots
2876:here
2838:talk
2709:talk
2609:talk
2593:talk
2564:, a
2453:, a
2393:talk
2340:and
2338:John
2278:talk
2259:talk
2241:talk
2210:talk
2196:talk
2181:talk
2140:talk
2088:talk
2065:talk
2000:talk
1984:talk
1957:talk
1942:talk
1918:talk
1900:talk
1885:talk
1870:talk
1850:talk
1818:talk
1795:talk
1780:talk
1758:talk
1732:talk
1710:talk
1684:talk
1669:talk
1649:talk
1609:talk
1592:talk
1549:talk
1530:talk
1479:talk
1440:talk
1402:must
1379:talk
1326:talk
1274:talk
1258:talk
1225:talk
1203:talk
1185:talk
1154:talk
1136:talk
1104:talk
1094:and
1076:talk
1053:talk
986:talk
963:talk
926:talk
912:talk
896:talk
886:and
852:talk
724:and
692:See
660:Note
556:and
544:The
422:talk
392:talk
377:talk
340:talk
321:talk
302:talk
259:talk
160:talk
144:talk
3138:. ā
2878:. ā
2808:Pam
2766:Pam
2741:Pam
2370:ā¢ (
2225:Fan
2018:?
1772:all
1702:not
1625:are
1514:Fan
1424:Fan
1310:Fan
1169:Fan
1120:Fan
1037:Fan
1008:N/A
826:Pam
761:Pam
736:Pam
667:Pam
582:Pam
416:--
253:--
3151:{{
3122:A
3100:)
3075:)
3040:)
3010:)
2983:)
2959:)
2943:)
2891:{{
2862:A
2715:)
2711:ā¢
2611:)
2595:)
2587:.
2580:.
2541:Ém
2468:A
2457:.
2430:Ém
2395:)
2352:.
2280:)
2261:)
2244:|
2238:|
2212:)
2198:)
2183:)
2142:)
2090:)
2067:)
2002:)
1986:)
1959:)
1944:)
1920:)
1902:)
1887:)
1872:)
1852:)
1820:)
1797:)
1782:)
1760:)
1734:)
1712:)
1686:)
1671:)
1651:)
1643:.
1639:,
1635:,
1631:,
1611:)
1594:)
1551:)
1533:|
1527:|
1481:)
1443:|
1437:|
1381:)
1329:|
1323:|
1276:)
1260:)
1227:)
1205:)
1188:|
1182:|
1156:)
1139:|
1133:|
1106:)
1098:.
1078:)
1056:|
1050:|
988:)
965:)
928:)
914:)
898:)
854:)
728:,
720:,
716:,
712:,
708:,
704:,
638:*
424:)
394:)
379:)
342:)
323:)
304:)
261:)
162:)
146:)
114:.
64:ā
3096:(
3071:(
3036:(
3006:(
2979:(
2955:(
2939:(
2817:D
2775:D
2750:D
2707:(
2607:(
2591:(
2544:/
2538:k
2535:ÉŖ
2532:w
2529:Ė
2526:/
2433:/
2427:k
2424:ÉŖ
2421:w
2418:Ė
2415:/
2391:(
2374:)
2276:(
2257:(
2236:N
2208:(
2194:(
2179:(
2138:(
2086:(
2063:(
1998:(
1982:(
1955:(
1940:(
1916:(
1898:(
1883:(
1868:(
1848:(
1816:(
1793:(
1778:(
1756:(
1730:(
1708:(
1682:(
1667:(
1647:(
1607:(
1590:(
1547:(
1525:N
1477:(
1435:N
1377:(
1321:N
1272:(
1256:(
1223:(
1201:(
1180:N
1152:(
1131:N
1102:(
1074:(
1048:N
984:(
961:(
924:(
910:(
894:(
850:(
835:D
770:D
745:D
676:D
591:D
420:(
390:(
375:(
338:(
319:(
300:(
257:(
158:(
142:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.