While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTE: 2015 will still be used if UK elections are planed well for 2015.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko ( talk • contribs) 12 May 2011
It has come to my attention that there is not a standardised way of naming articles about the elections to the Scottish Parliament. A debate on this has been set up at Talk:Scottish Parliament general election, 2003#Standardisation of elections to the Scottish Parliament naming convention and the conclusion drawn from this will therefore be applied to all articles about these elections (including this article) anyone whishing to contribute to this discussion should do so on the 2003 talk page as a means of having only one debate taking place at the same time, any discussion on this talk page will not be taken into account in the debate. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Given that the polling figures for the UK Independence Party and the Scottish Green Party are at very similar levels and that UKIP have polled significantly higher than the Greens in the recent Aberdeen Donside by-election, 2013 and the Dunfermline by-election, 2013 it seems strange that the party does not currently have its own column for the AMS regional vote polling data. I suggest that this is changed. Since incumbency is irrelevant to opinion polling (you can't sit on a poll), it seems that the case for a UKIP column is just as valid as that for the Greens. JamesCocksworth ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
People have wide monitors these days. Nothing wrong with letting people have the information, is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.210.190 ( talk) 13:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It would make sense to me, it's the most important consideration when it comes to who actually can form the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.210.190 ( talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The "Opinion Polling" section for this election is getting quite large, I think it will soon be time for this section to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFindlay12 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with this notion too, though I am not a regular contributor to this page. The section feels unwieldy in terms of its size in relation to the size of the article as a whole. Also, older polling results, whilst they give an indication of changing opinions and trends, are of questionable relevance to this article. I would recommend splitting the section off and leaving just the graphical representation of the polling and a bit of background on trends. iMarc89 ( talk) 06:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted to the infobox that has been on the page for some time. There are five parties in the Scottish Parliament. Including four of them without the other one makes no sense. The SGP were considered nationally important enough to be given seats on the Smith Commission, so it would seem odd to conclude they were not nationally important enough to be included in the infobox for next year's election.
The discussion on the UKGE page related solely to the UK election, the consensus on that article does not carry over onto this one. The UK parliament is a completely different situation, as there are nine parties represented, and the last result was strange in that a party that came third in vote share won fewer seats than those that came 10th and 11th. There are no such quirks in the Scottish result and only five parties, so the infobox should be straight-forward issue. In any case, the consensus for the next UKGE is currently in favour of the "Israeli-style" infobox, rather than the sort displayed here. Frinton100 ( talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Try as I might, I can't see how the "Graphical Summary of Polling" matches its '3 poll trend' description. The lines currently end with Greens below LibDems. Yes, there were odd polls in the autumn that had the LDs a point ahead of the Greens, but never two in the same 3-consecutive-poll segment, and always with Greens ahead of LDs in at least one poll in any 3-consecutive-poll segment (and usually by a lot more than one point). DrArsenal ( talk) 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Surely a notable feature of this election (for the UK) is that the voting age will be 16? Sumorsǣte ( talk) 08:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to move the Opinion Polling, thus bring this page into line with the last for election pages. Look at 199, 2003, 2007, 2011 -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 20:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
WEP are fielding Anne Beetham in Glasgow and Lee Chalmers in Lothian, but I don't really know enough about Scottish politics to know where to add it? The London mayoral election has a list of possible candidates and their selection processes, perhaps I'm jumping the gun a bit? There's an article on it if it helps. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 20:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Where does the results come from? BBC has different ones: SNP 60, Tories 25, Labour 20, Greens 6 and LibDems 4 with 14 results stillto come. -- 2A02:908:C38:3300:E504:D061:B21B:1707 ( talk) 07:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.: Now SNP 63, Tories 27, Labour 22, Greens 6 and Libdems 4 with 7 results left.
Could anyone explain why SNP, getting by far more votes than any other party in AMS, came only 4th with just 4 seats? -- 2.28.75.228 ( talk) 10:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Previous election articles have four parties' results in the infobox. This has five. Why the change? Four seems plenty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a boundary problem with your regional map going back to the start. Cunninghame South is in West of Scotland. Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.119.22 ( talk) 12:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
-Sorry, this map is fine. The preceding map used last time for the 2007 Scottish Parliament election is flawed as it shows Cunnigham South in West of Scotland rather than South of Scotland where it should be. I thought the 2011 and 2016 map was also flawed but looks like Bcomm has changed the boundaries and it's fine. The 1999, 2003 and 2007 regional map however has an error. -Same guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.119.1 ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I adjusted this article to place the regional vote above the constituency vote. Those anon edits were mine, I forgot to log in. Another user reverted this. I'd argue that the regional vote should go first because it is more important to determining the composition of the Scottish Parliament. For example, the Greens got very few constituency votes in this particular election, but their regional votes ensured that they would win 6 seats. Anywikiuser ( talk) 14:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Which of the following maps is your preference to be used on this article?
Map A: which has each constituency result as a solid colour in line with how the BBC presents its election results for the Scottish Parliament, and how most other British First Past the Post elections are presented on Wikipedia.
Or
Map B: which shows constituency results where saturation of colour denotes size of majority (in line with how First Past the Post election results are presented elsewhere on wikipedia, such as in Canada).
Brythones ( talk) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Scottish Parliament election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.snp.org/node/17079{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stirlingnews.co.uk/app/news/roundup/articles/2015/07/05/537935-msp-to-stand-down/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
After some clashes with Sport and politics I would like to set the record straight on the layout of constituency seat pages (case of Ayr).
Which of the following options do you believe would make for a more appropriate layout of constituency seat pages?
Members of the Scottish Parliament section
LAYOUT A:
Election | Member | Party | Portrait | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ian Welsh | Scottish Labour Party | ||
2000 by-election | John Scott | Scottish Conservative Party |
| |
2003 | ||||
2007 | ||||
2011 | ||||
2016 |
LAYOUT B:
Election | Member | Party | |
---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ian Welsh | Scottish Labour Party | |
2000 by-election | John Scott | Scottish Conservative Party |
Is it appropriate to use pictures of election counts in the article?
Should MSP's from similar constituencies which were renamed in 2007 be mentioned in the article? (For example Aberdeen North being renamed to Aberdeen Donside but the boundaries were hardly changed at all).
Thanks, Brythones ( talk) 16:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Also is commentary of election results (such as "________ was the third most marginal seat in Scotland") generally acceptable or unacceptable? Are pictures of candidates and election results being declared acceptable or not? Sport and politics ( talk) 18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The second layout is a damn sight easier to read and is inline with all other UK constituency articles. If every single election is included with pictures, then the sections will become unwieldy and unhelpful. The section is for members who have represented the seat. It is not for every election ever contested. That is covered by the election results section. There is little value including the additional information, it is just clutter, and makes the presentation of the information much poorer.
The redrawn constituencies should also only be named in the created from for the current seat. If there is inclusion of previous seats, where in some cases seats are created from up to five different seats, it would be ridiculous to include all of that information, and all of those election results. At the moment it appears as if someone has conducted original research to say well seat A was made from B and C, but for easiness I am only going to include B, not B and C. Make life easier for everyone, the reader and the editor. Only include the current seat by its current name, unless the seat has only had a name change. Sport and politics ( talk) 16:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I have added another proposal from a similar discussion here. This is for completeness.
In answer to that point there should be as little clutter as possible. Additional picture and text commentary around results displays detracts from the information being displayed. if the information is noteworthy or a picture genuinely adds to an article sure include them in the main part of the article. The information displays of election results and members elected should be as clean and easy to understand as possible. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Nilfanion: I wholly agree with your revised position on the election boxes. The way the boxes are presented at the moment show when a member started and ended representing a constituency, with the first election they won and the first election their successor won.. I can though see the reasoning behind the presentation change proposed, but if that were to be moved forward with would take MSPs out of line with AM and MPs. If a name is retained but boundaries changed I agree, the article should remain but a section break in results and clear explanation of the change is needed in the text. Sport and politics ( talk) 11:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This is what layout A looks like without the portrait.
Election | Member | Party | |
---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ian Welsh | Scottish Labour Party | |
2000 by-election | John Scott | Scottish Conservative Party | |
2003 | |||
2007 | |||
2011 | |||
2016 |
It is bottom heavy and does not display the information as crisply as option B. Sport and politics ( talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Party | Member | Election | |
---|---|---|---|
Scottish Labour Party | Ian Welsh | 1999 | |
Scottish Conservative Party | John Scott | 2000 by-election |
Sport and politics ( talk) 17:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
So you mean this?:
Election | Member | Party | |
---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ian Welsh | Scottish Labour Party | |
2000 by-election | John Scott | Scottish Conservative Party | |
2003 | |||
2007 | |||
2011 | |||
2016 |
Or
Party | Member | Election | |
---|---|---|---|
Scottish Labour Party | Ian Welsh | 1999 | |
Scottish Conservative Party | John Scott | 2000 by-election | |
2003 | |||
2007 | |||
2011 | |||
2016 |
Brythones ( talk) 17:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The biggest problem I have with all the tables so far in this thread is that they are focused on the elections. As these tables are used in sections titled "Members of the Scottish Parliament" not "Election results", they should therefore be primarily focused on the members themselves. I've had a look at the practices used on various articles, for the UK and other countries, paying particular attention to featured lists. These things are relatively standard across the broad range of lists of politicians I checked, so I would consider them essential:
The party colour is generally the first column, but is sometimes put with the party name. Either works. When we focus on the people, its obvious that the portrait is important and should be included when available. A blank space isn't ideal, but the absence of a picture for some isn't grounds for removing the valuable images we do have.
There's plenty of other things that could be added, which I'd class as optional, such as:
The first of these isn't really relevant in UK politics. Term length is problematic due to electoral cycles. The last point is the one that has the potential to cause clutter - is it necessary to link the 12 elections won by someone who was MP for 50 years? My opinion is no. The other two points are potentially interesting and I'm neutral on adding them.
All of this leads me to the following proposal:
Portrait | Name | In office | Party | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ian Welsh | 6 May 1999 | 21 December 1999 | Scottish Labour Party | ||
John Scott | 16 March 2000 | Incumbent | Scottish Conservative Party |
I firmly believe this format runs rings around the other formats suggested to date, because it is focused on the members. I don't see the need to link the elections in this table, as there is another section of the article dedicated to that information. I know this is different to other UK articles but if this works for Scottish parliament constituencies, I see no reason why this cannot be rolled out.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand the comments regarding harm, can you expand on those please @ Nilfanion:. Also the claims of who is and is not honoured with a picture based on length of service is original research, and cannot be implemented evenly. Either its pictures of all or pictures of none. It cannot be pick and choose on arbitrary criteria such as length in office. An example where this would fall apart is a newly elected individual in their first term who unseated a long time multi-term incumbent. Its all or nothing. I favour having none, but am open to hearing the points for in more detail. Sport and politics ( talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with that. These are not articles on the members concerned. there is also a potential for overuse of pictures on Wikipiedia and this is an example of it. This feels like there is move for inclusion because its nice to have them. Its all or nothing when it comes to pictures, it will look ridiculous to have images of some and not others. Images of members are for the members dedicated page. Sport and politics ( talk) 10:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we should change the article title to 2016 Scottish Parliament general election as that how the Scotland Act 1998 refers to elections to this body as. See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/part/I/crossheading/general-elections Ciaran.london ( talk) 16:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NOTE: 2015 will still be used if UK elections are planed well for 2015.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko ( talk • contribs) 12 May 2011
It has come to my attention that there is not a standardised way of naming articles about the elections to the Scottish Parliament. A debate on this has been set up at Talk:Scottish Parliament general election, 2003#Standardisation of elections to the Scottish Parliament naming convention and the conclusion drawn from this will therefore be applied to all articles about these elections (including this article) anyone whishing to contribute to this discussion should do so on the 2003 talk page as a means of having only one debate taking place at the same time, any discussion on this talk page will not be taken into account in the debate. Shatter Resistance ( talk) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Given that the polling figures for the UK Independence Party and the Scottish Green Party are at very similar levels and that UKIP have polled significantly higher than the Greens in the recent Aberdeen Donside by-election, 2013 and the Dunfermline by-election, 2013 it seems strange that the party does not currently have its own column for the AMS regional vote polling data. I suggest that this is changed. Since incumbency is irrelevant to opinion polling (you can't sit on a poll), it seems that the case for a UKIP column is just as valid as that for the Greens. JamesCocksworth ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
People have wide monitors these days. Nothing wrong with letting people have the information, is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.210.190 ( talk) 13:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It would make sense to me, it's the most important consideration when it comes to who actually can form the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.210.190 ( talk) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
The "Opinion Polling" section for this election is getting quite large, I think it will soon be time for this section to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFindlay12 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with this notion too, though I am not a regular contributor to this page. The section feels unwieldy in terms of its size in relation to the size of the article as a whole. Also, older polling results, whilst they give an indication of changing opinions and trends, are of questionable relevance to this article. I would recommend splitting the section off and leaving just the graphical representation of the polling and a bit of background on trends. iMarc89 ( talk) 06:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted to the infobox that has been on the page for some time. There are five parties in the Scottish Parliament. Including four of them without the other one makes no sense. The SGP were considered nationally important enough to be given seats on the Smith Commission, so it would seem odd to conclude they were not nationally important enough to be included in the infobox for next year's election.
The discussion on the UKGE page related solely to the UK election, the consensus on that article does not carry over onto this one. The UK parliament is a completely different situation, as there are nine parties represented, and the last result was strange in that a party that came third in vote share won fewer seats than those that came 10th and 11th. There are no such quirks in the Scottish result and only five parties, so the infobox should be straight-forward issue. In any case, the consensus for the next UKGE is currently in favour of the "Israeli-style" infobox, rather than the sort displayed here. Frinton100 ( talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Try as I might, I can't see how the "Graphical Summary of Polling" matches its '3 poll trend' description. The lines currently end with Greens below LibDems. Yes, there were odd polls in the autumn that had the LDs a point ahead of the Greens, but never two in the same 3-consecutive-poll segment, and always with Greens ahead of LDs in at least one poll in any 3-consecutive-poll segment (and usually by a lot more than one point). DrArsenal ( talk) 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Surely a notable feature of this election (for the UK) is that the voting age will be 16? Sumorsǣte ( talk) 08:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to move the Opinion Polling, thus bring this page into line with the last for election pages. Look at 199, 2003, 2007, 2011 -- Crazyseiko ( talk) 20:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
WEP are fielding Anne Beetham in Glasgow and Lee Chalmers in Lothian, but I don't really know enough about Scottish politics to know where to add it? The London mayoral election has a list of possible candidates and their selection processes, perhaps I'm jumping the gun a bit? There's an article on it if it helps. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 20:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Where does the results come from? BBC has different ones: SNP 60, Tories 25, Labour 20, Greens 6 and LibDems 4 with 14 results stillto come. -- 2A02:908:C38:3300:E504:D061:B21B:1707 ( talk) 07:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.: Now SNP 63, Tories 27, Labour 22, Greens 6 and Libdems 4 with 7 results left.
Could anyone explain why SNP, getting by far more votes than any other party in AMS, came only 4th with just 4 seats? -- 2.28.75.228 ( talk) 10:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Previous election articles have four parties' results in the infobox. This has five. Why the change? Four seems plenty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a boundary problem with your regional map going back to the start. Cunninghame South is in West of Scotland. Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.119.22 ( talk) 12:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
-Sorry, this map is fine. The preceding map used last time for the 2007 Scottish Parliament election is flawed as it shows Cunnigham South in West of Scotland rather than South of Scotland where it should be. I thought the 2011 and 2016 map was also flawed but looks like Bcomm has changed the boundaries and it's fine. The 1999, 2003 and 2007 regional map however has an error. -Same guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.119.1 ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I adjusted this article to place the regional vote above the constituency vote. Those anon edits were mine, I forgot to log in. Another user reverted this. I'd argue that the regional vote should go first because it is more important to determining the composition of the Scottish Parliament. For example, the Greens got very few constituency votes in this particular election, but their regional votes ensured that they would win 6 seats. Anywikiuser ( talk) 14:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Which of the following maps is your preference to be used on this article?
Map A: which has each constituency result as a solid colour in line with how the BBC presents its election results for the Scottish Parliament, and how most other British First Past the Post elections are presented on Wikipedia.
Or
Map B: which shows constituency results where saturation of colour denotes size of majority (in line with how First Past the Post election results are presented elsewhere on wikipedia, such as in Canada).
Brythones ( talk) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Scottish Parliament election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.snp.org/node/17079{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stirlingnews.co.uk/app/news/roundup/articles/2015/07/05/537935-msp-to-stand-down/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
After some clashes with Sport and politics I would like to set the record straight on the layout of constituency seat pages (case of Ayr).
Which of the following options do you believe would make for a more appropriate layout of constituency seat pages?
Members of the Scottish Parliament section
LAYOUT A:
Election | Member | Party | Portrait | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ian Welsh | Scottish Labour Party | ||
2000 by-election | John Scott | Scottish Conservative Party |
| |
2003 | ||||
2007 | ||||
2011 | ||||
2016 |
LAYOUT B:
Election | Member | Party | |
---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ian Welsh | Scottish Labour Party | |
2000 by-election | John Scott | Scottish Conservative Party |
Is it appropriate to use pictures of election counts in the article?
Should MSP's from similar constituencies which were renamed in 2007 be mentioned in the article? (For example Aberdeen North being renamed to Aberdeen Donside but the boundaries were hardly changed at all).
Thanks, Brythones ( talk) 16:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Also is commentary of election results (such as "________ was the third most marginal seat in Scotland") generally acceptable or unacceptable? Are pictures of candidates and election results being declared acceptable or not? Sport and politics ( talk) 18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The second layout is a damn sight easier to read and is inline with all other UK constituency articles. If every single election is included with pictures, then the sections will become unwieldy and unhelpful. The section is for members who have represented the seat. It is not for every election ever contested. That is covered by the election results section. There is little value including the additional information, it is just clutter, and makes the presentation of the information much poorer.
The redrawn constituencies should also only be named in the created from for the current seat. If there is inclusion of previous seats, where in some cases seats are created from up to five different seats, it would be ridiculous to include all of that information, and all of those election results. At the moment it appears as if someone has conducted original research to say well seat A was made from B and C, but for easiness I am only going to include B, not B and C. Make life easier for everyone, the reader and the editor. Only include the current seat by its current name, unless the seat has only had a name change. Sport and politics ( talk) 16:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I have added another proposal from a similar discussion here. This is for completeness.
In answer to that point there should be as little clutter as possible. Additional picture and text commentary around results displays detracts from the information being displayed. if the information is noteworthy or a picture genuinely adds to an article sure include them in the main part of the article. The information displays of election results and members elected should be as clean and easy to understand as possible. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Nilfanion: I wholly agree with your revised position on the election boxes. The way the boxes are presented at the moment show when a member started and ended representing a constituency, with the first election they won and the first election their successor won.. I can though see the reasoning behind the presentation change proposed, but if that were to be moved forward with would take MSPs out of line with AM and MPs. If a name is retained but boundaries changed I agree, the article should remain but a section break in results and clear explanation of the change is needed in the text. Sport and politics ( talk) 11:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This is what layout A looks like without the portrait.
Election | Member | Party | |
---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ian Welsh | Scottish Labour Party | |
2000 by-election | John Scott | Scottish Conservative Party | |
2003 | |||
2007 | |||
2011 | |||
2016 |
It is bottom heavy and does not display the information as crisply as option B. Sport and politics ( talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Party | Member | Election | |
---|---|---|---|
Scottish Labour Party | Ian Welsh | 1999 | |
Scottish Conservative Party | John Scott | 2000 by-election |
Sport and politics ( talk) 17:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
So you mean this?:
Election | Member | Party | |
---|---|---|---|
1999 | Ian Welsh | Scottish Labour Party | |
2000 by-election | John Scott | Scottish Conservative Party | |
2003 | |||
2007 | |||
2011 | |||
2016 |
Or
Party | Member | Election | |
---|---|---|---|
Scottish Labour Party | Ian Welsh | 1999 | |
Scottish Conservative Party | John Scott | 2000 by-election | |
2003 | |||
2007 | |||
2011 | |||
2016 |
Brythones ( talk) 17:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The biggest problem I have with all the tables so far in this thread is that they are focused on the elections. As these tables are used in sections titled "Members of the Scottish Parliament" not "Election results", they should therefore be primarily focused on the members themselves. I've had a look at the practices used on various articles, for the UK and other countries, paying particular attention to featured lists. These things are relatively standard across the broad range of lists of politicians I checked, so I would consider them essential:
The party colour is generally the first column, but is sometimes put with the party name. Either works. When we focus on the people, its obvious that the portrait is important and should be included when available. A blank space isn't ideal, but the absence of a picture for some isn't grounds for removing the valuable images we do have.
There's plenty of other things that could be added, which I'd class as optional, such as:
The first of these isn't really relevant in UK politics. Term length is problematic due to electoral cycles. The last point is the one that has the potential to cause clutter - is it necessary to link the 12 elections won by someone who was MP for 50 years? My opinion is no. The other two points are potentially interesting and I'm neutral on adding them.
All of this leads me to the following proposal:
Portrait | Name | In office | Party | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ian Welsh | 6 May 1999 | 21 December 1999 | Scottish Labour Party | ||
John Scott | 16 March 2000 | Incumbent | Scottish Conservative Party |
I firmly believe this format runs rings around the other formats suggested to date, because it is focused on the members. I don't see the need to link the elections in this table, as there is another section of the article dedicated to that information. I know this is different to other UK articles but if this works for Scottish parliament constituencies, I see no reason why this cannot be rolled out.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand the comments regarding harm, can you expand on those please @ Nilfanion:. Also the claims of who is and is not honoured with a picture based on length of service is original research, and cannot be implemented evenly. Either its pictures of all or pictures of none. It cannot be pick and choose on arbitrary criteria such as length in office. An example where this would fall apart is a newly elected individual in their first term who unseated a long time multi-term incumbent. Its all or nothing. I favour having none, but am open to hearing the points for in more detail. Sport and politics ( talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with that. These are not articles on the members concerned. there is also a potential for overuse of pictures on Wikipiedia and this is an example of it. This feels like there is move for inclusion because its nice to have them. Its all or nothing when it comes to pictures, it will look ridiculous to have images of some and not others. Images of members are for the members dedicated page. Sport and politics ( talk) 10:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we should change the article title to 2016 Scottish Parliament general election as that how the Scotland Act 1998 refers to elections to this body as. See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/part/I/crossheading/general-elections Ciaran.london ( talk) 16:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)