Talk:Scottish Parliament

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleScottish Parliament is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 26, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
February 13, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 1, 2011, July 1, 2015, July 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019.
Current status: Former featured article

Link issue.[edit]

Citation 109 does not lead to the intended destination. 2A02:C7E:5423:6600:D42C:A4F6:B837:6123 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greens in goverment.[edit]

The goverment should be Greens and SNP as two ministers are greens. I tried to change it to that but it didn’t work is anyone able to put them both under goverment? GothicGolem29 (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

@Brainiac242: In the interest of avoiding unneeded edit-warring, I thought I should explain myself here:

The model I adopted to reformat the infobox (particularly regarding the list of parties) is that which is currently in use at Parliament of the United Kingdom, House of Commons of the United Kingdom and House of Lords. It might be different from the usual stylistic format currently used at other articles about legislatures, but that isn't a reason why we couldn't simply switch to another similar format but which is better for accessibility. I would much rather change to a better format here (and gradually spread it to other articles) than stick to a flawed one. The current use of colons creates a description list, which is not called for here (see MOS:INDENTGAP).

I concede that linking "1" to the relevant MSP is not entirely unintuitive by MOS:EGG standards. But I argue that it is (1) unnecessary, as both Johnstone and Regan are already mentioned elsewhere in the same infobox; and (2) internally inconsistent, as the other parties' numbers are not linked, not even to lists of MSPs for each party. This technique is fairly disruptive for screen-reader users for comparatively little benefit to readers in general: we don't have to provide links anywhere they could be added, and the "political groups" section of the infobox is not the place where readers should discover this information, which is only visible when hovering over a single character anyway (MOS:NOHOVER). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenpuff: I fail to understand how that list format is better for accessibility. Or how the links to the relevant MSPs are “fairly disruptive for screen-reader users”. I turned on “Speak Screen” and it read your revision in exactly the same way as mine. Brainiac242 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]