Template talk:Scottish Westminster constituencies (style 1)
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Move template?
editI am trying to build a series of articles listing and describing Scottish Westminster constituencies for different periods from 1708 to the present, but I am finding this template difficult to relate to. I have already moved List of UK Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland to Scottish Westminster constituencies from 2005, which now includes links and protolinks for other articles in the series.
I was thinking of moving the template to Template:Scottish Westminster constituencies from 2005, but because it lists constituencies by party it will not fit that location indefinitely. An election will change the pattern and the template will not cover the entirety of the "current period" (which will end when results of the 6th Periodical Review are implemented). Besides, I am otherwise not happy with that way of listing constituencies, not least because for anyone looking for a link for a particular constituency it presumes prior knowledge of political condition.
Laurel Bush 14:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Life might be simpler in the long run if I work Template: Scottish Westminster constituencies into this one, putting content of this one effectively into a section called Current constituencies. Laurel Bush 11:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No. makes more sense to work this one into Template: Scottish Westminster constituencies. Laurel Bush 11:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Separate templates
editI really don't like this template, at least in the way it is currently used. What is the point of having a list of current constituencies attached to an article such as Lanark Burghs, which was abolished in 1832?
It seems to me that it would be much better to have a separate template for each of the periods in between boundary revisions, to make them collapsible (using the {{Navbox}} template).
Until then, I suggest that this template should be removed from all except the current constituencies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- The original intention of this template was that of getting easily updated links to period articles in to every constituency article. The current constituencies list was merged in later from another template.
Is it not the case that if a template is designed just for current constituency articles then when constituencies cease to be current someone has to remember to go round removing the link from selected articles?
Laurel Bush 10:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC).
- The original intention sounds good, but I don't think we have quite got there yet.
- I suggest that the best of looking at this would be not to think in terms of "current constituencies", but rather of constituencies in particular periods, the latest being 2005 onwards. So if the next boundary review is in, say 2015, then the template for the 2005-onwards group just needs to be changed to note the closing date ... and another template added for the new period, if the constituency still exists. But either way there's no need to remove the template.
- Obviously, some articles would carry templates from more than one period, e.g.
- Livingston would carry templates for 1983–1997, 1997–2005, and 2005–present
- Edinburgh South would carry templates for 1885–1918, 1918–1950, 1950–1955, 1955–1974, 1974–1983, 1983–1997, 1997–2005, and 2005–present
- Clackmannan would carry only one template, viz. 1983–1997
- Glasgow North East would carry only one template, viz. 2005–present
- How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds complicated, and like something I have been thinking of attempting. Can not as yet quite see it really working. Laurel Bush 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC).
Draft of separate constituency boxes
edit- OK, I have done a few drafts: see
- I have made a test age to demonstrate how they would look : see User:BrownHairedGirl/Aberdeen_North_constituency#Footnotes
- What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Maybe I am not really seeing your intention. I seem to be seeing a series of links to 'articles' which list constituencies, not lists for use in constituency articles. Laurel Bush 13:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
- Did you use the "show" button which expands the boxes? Then you'll see the lists of constituencies, inside the box. I will put one below this comment, and since it'll be the only one on the page it should be expanded when the page loads.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Plus another draft: User:BrownHairedGirl/Scots 1708-1832. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. That is making more sense. Looking pretty good now. A lot of work needed to get the system into all constituency articles. Laurel Bush 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
- Well, if you're happy with the layout, I can finish off the series and start deploying it (not too hard a job with AWB). What do you think of the way I have divided up the constituencies into burghs and counties? It seemed like a good idea to split the lists, and since there is no stable geographical division, the county/burgh split seemed like the best idea. The only real downside I can see with it is that county/burgh split is less relevant in recent times. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Old template
editWhat happened to the template that seperated the seats into parties, that was much better? AJUKTalk!! 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
See under Move template? above. Laurel Bush 16:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC).