This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This category is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Politics of the United Kingdom This category is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles UK Parliament constituencies This category is within the scope of WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Parliament constituencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UK Parliament constituenciesWikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesTemplate:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesUK Parliament constituencies articles

I believe I sort of started this category and Im thinking now I should have worked with one of my initial instincts as regards names of individual articles. Then eg Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross would be Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency and the risk of unintended duplicate articles would be rather less than at present. Laurel Bush 15:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Hi. I've jsut reverted the changes you made on this constituency's naming as - if you look at [[1]] you'll see it has pretty much been a de facto standard to use an ampersand and '(constituency)' in the articile naming. --Vamp:Willow 13:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was been no attempt to establish any standard until I myself got to work on creating the constituencies categories. Many many articles refer to constituencies in a vast variety of different ways and often so as to create confusing amibguity. Laurel Bush 13:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Why on Earth have all the constituencies been renamed contrary to policy? We don't pre-emptively disambiguate except in a very very few circumstances. Constituencies aren't one of these, or, well, haven't been. Especailly, paranthetical disambiguation is only to be used in necessary situations, because it looks dire.

James F. (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case, why are the constituencies named "[Whatever] UK Parliament constituency" when the category is "UK Parliamentary constituencies"? If you're going to have such disambiguation at all, then "Parliamentary" fits much better IMO. Loganberry 00:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me it is the category which is misnamed. Scottish Parliament constituecies are also parliamentary, and they are in the UK. Also, four areas of the UK have now at least two types of constituency (devolved parliament/assembly and House of Commons/UK Parliament): very often (perhaps usually) different types of constituency share the same name (without sharing the same boundaries) (See United Kingdom constituencies). Also, towns, counties, etc, may share the same name. In most cases a parenthetical disambiguator is essential. Laurel Bush 12:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with Laurel that the parenthetical disambiguator is essential in most cases, but I would add that it is very confusing to have some constituencies with the disambiguator, and some without. Much better to be consistent, and add (UK Parliament consituency) or (UK Parliamentary consituency) in every case. Personally, I can see a case for either usage, but whichever one is chosen, it is needed in every case. --BrownHairedGirl 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]