Talk:2021 Scottish Parliament election

This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom C‑class High‑importance This article 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 C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums This article 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

The date for the next Scottish Parliament election was put back to May 2021 because of a potential clash with a UK general election in May 2020. With the UK election now happening in June 2017 (and the following one not scheduled until May 2022), will the next Scottish election revert to the normal four year cycle? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Various organisations carry out opinion polling to gauge voting intention in the country ahead of the election.' is a perfectly adequate summary of the opinion poll article. I see no reason why so much attention needs to be drawn to the SNP lead in one particular poll. --RevivesDarks (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ruth Davidson MSP .png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Next Northern Ireland Assembly election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been attempting to change the photo of Willie Rennie to a more recent one but haven't managed to find a way for it to clearly fit. I have made two crops of a photo of him here - File:Willie Rennie 2016 (cropped).png and here - File:Willie Rennie 2016 (cropped2).png

The current photo for Willie Rennie is relatively old being from 2011. This photo is from 2016. Can someone either find a way for either of these crops to cleanly fit in the infobox, or crop the original image (File:Willie Rennie 2016.png) themselves and use it in the infobox over the current photo please? Helper201 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helper201 - I've used the {{CSS image crop}} template to make the image the same size as the others. Hope this solved your problem, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey PinkPanda272, that's great. Thank you for your help. Helper201 (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In preparation for the election next year, I though it would be a good idea to add the list results to each constituency article. It is useful to have this data at a constituency level, and articles for constituencies in Germany and New Zealand (which both use the Additional Members System too) have the results of both votes on an equal footing, for an example see Auckland Central (New Zealand electorate)#Election results.

The current template used in New Zealand articles is {{MMP election box}}. There is nothing particularly wrong with this template and you can see it being used for a Scottish constituency at Eastwood (Scottish Parliament constituency)#Election results. However the language used on the template isn't great for British readers, as some words like "electorate" have a different meaning here, while others such as "informal votes" aren't really used at all. The design is also different to the current {{Election box}} template, and to be honest the shading and other elements (IMO) make the table a bit confusing and harder to read.

With this in mind, I decided to make a new template that was better suited to Scottish Parliament (and indeed Welsh and London Assembly) articles. After all, New Zealand is the other side of the globe, and what works there might not necessarily work here. The template uses essentially the same format as {{election box}}, just with additional columns for the list vote. You can find the template at {{AMS election box begin}}, and instructions are located on the documentation page. Here is an example of the 2016 result in Aberdeen Central:

2016 Scottish Parliament election: Aberdeen Central^[1][2][3]

Party		Candidate	Constituency			Regional
			Votes	%	±%	Votes	%	±%
	SNP	Kevin Stewart	11,648	43.6	3.6	10,269	45.0
	Labour	Lewis Macdonald	7,299	27.3	10.2	5,381	23.6
	Conservative	Tom Mason	6,022	22.6	10.2	6,466	28.3
	Liberal Democrats	Kevin McLeod	1,735	7.5	2.8	1,401	6.1
	Scottish Green					2,282	10.0
	UKIP					478	2.1
	Scottish Christian					208	0.9
	Solidarity					88	0.4
	RISE					75	0.3
	Scottish Libertarian					65	0.3
	Communist					60	0.3
	National Front					60	0.3
Majority			4,349	16.3	13.8
Valid Votes			26,704			26,833
Invalid Votes			137			58
Turnout			26,841	46.9	3.1	26,891	47.0
	SNP hold		Swing		6.9

I intend to gradually update the 2016 results in each constituency article with this template over the next six months (and I have already done so within NE Scotland region), with a view to having this as the default template used in 2021. If anyone wishes to help out with this, then that would be great.

I'd be grateful to hear people's opinions on this, so if you have any questions then feel free to ask them below. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for doing this. It looks good as far as I can see. Not sure I'd be very good at creating these but might give it a go if I have the time. Quick questions - why are the Liberal Democrats above the Scottish Greens on this when the Scottish Greens received more regional votes and a higher regional % than the Liberal Democrats? Also, where are the constituency votes and % for the Scottish Greens? Helper201 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helper201 - thanks for the reply, glad you like the idea. The results are sorted by constituency result, but you can sort it by regional results by pressing the arrow at the top of the regional votes column. The Greens only stood in a handful of constituencies in 2016, and Aberdeen Central wasn't one of them. Thanks again, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the current fixed term parliament legislation in Scotland refers to elections to this body as general elections: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/4/enacted I think we should change the name of the article to 2021 Scottish Parliament general election Ciaran.london (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the WP:CRITERIA is that an improvement under? I'd say it's much less recognisable, natural, concise and consistent, and gains nothing in precision. What reliable sources use this turn of phrase? What ambiguity could this be this removing? Ralbegen (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NCELECT, the name format should be either "2021 Scottish Parliament election" or "2021 Scottish general election" (or, alternatively, regional, parliamentary, legislative, etc). It should never be something like "2021 Scottish Parliament general election", that's unnatural almost from the start. Impru20^talk 20:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of the various options that WP:NCELECT allows, 2021 Scottish Parliament election is the clearest and has the most RS coverage. 2021 Scottish general election would also work, but could be confused with other articles such as 2019 United Kingdom general election in Scotland. All UK devolved legislature election articles use the first format, and I don't see a compelling reason to change it. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 23:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep moving this article. I dread to think how many redirects we've created. doktorb _words^deeds 00:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no!!! Elections to this body are referred to general elections as set out (in legislation & law) as noted in the Scotland Act 1999 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/part/I/crossheading/general-elections - we need to follow this. Ciaran.london (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely in this scenario it is only referring to a "general election" to clarify that all seats are to be contested, as opposed to a by-election? The same section of the law mentions "parliamentary general election" and "European parliamentary general election". Back to the point, WP:COMMONNAME states that: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). A quick Google for "2021 Scottish Parliament election" (exact words) returns over 14,000 results, while "2021 Scottish general election" only returns 600 or so. Results for the first option include STV News, The SNP, Holyrood Magazine and The Herald. This doesn't include any variations, such as putting 2021 at the end or pluralising "election". Most results for the second option are blogs and constituency party websites, although there is a recruitment tweet mentioning it from the Scottish Parliament themselves. With this in mind, it seems to me like the best option is what's currently there. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such a joke, honestly. We should be referring the elections to the legal names. Politicsnerd123 (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nicola Sturgeon election infobox 3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this is set on the page as 2026, but I believe it should be 2025, as the Scotland Act still states the elections are to be held in the fourth calendar year after an election. This was only changed for the 2021 election.

Can someone verify this and if so I'd recommend changing? Steviesrk (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steviersk: The term length was changed to every five years by the Scottish Elections (Reform) Act 2020, so the next election will be in 2026. Hope this clears things up, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks for verifying! Steviesrk (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure why large chunks of the article have just been deleted without debate here on the talk page Moondragon21 (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moondragon21 I agree, it would be better if we could discuss here instead of edit warring. I don't think constituency/regional candidates should be included on the page, it would make more sense for this information to be moved to each region's respective article. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 18:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although party lists aren't on the region articles. Only elected candidates are listed. Moondragon21

Any reason why he’s not on the list of retirements? SNP have announced candidates for all regions and constituencies and he doesn’t appear on any of them, nor has he signalled a run as an independent. --Jkaharper (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's because he never explicitly said that he was retiring / standing down. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did the last three on the list (the 3 Conservatives), yet they're still listed. If there's no objections, I'll add Mackay later. --Jkaharper (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wait until 31 March, this is the deadline for nomination papers to be submitted: https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/SPElection2021 Angryskies (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Alex Salmond's Alba Party be added to the infobox? Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes for forthcoming elections are always problematic! My favoured option is not to list any parties, an approach that's been taken with some articles. If we are to list parties, the usual approach is to include those parties who have seats in the previous Parliament, which is what is currently done here. Were an MSP to defect, then the Alba Party would earn its spot, as Reform UK have. If there was evidence from polling and reliable source coverage that the party was a big part of the story, that would be a good reason to include them too. I don't think we should just add them right now though. Bondegezou (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't include them just yet. I suppose we could add them to the table of parties further down the article even if they don't warrant a mention in the infobox. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine test for the infobox! Alba is brand new, and we can't be seen to add a new party just on the back of its leadership or one specific prominent candidate. I'd be cautious. (Though can I use this opportunity to say that, unlike my reputation sometimes, I won't be AfDing Alba because they're clearly notable, and I'm not that much of a deletionist.) doktorb _words^deeds 16:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they've got an MP now, which I think strengthens the case, but happy to wait a bit longer. Bondegezou (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add the party to the infobox after the election (if they win any seats). Right now the the Infobox reflects the state of the parties before the dissolution of the Parliament before the election, which I personally think is fine to leave as is until after the election. Angryskies (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is meant to be a summary of the article. The article is about the election. If a particular party is a big part of the story of the election, then the infobox, as a summary of the article, should reflect that. The infobox cannot just be a reflection of the state of the parties before the dissolution of the Parliament: it would be fine to have a box in the article showing that, but the infobox has a prominent position and a specific role as defined by MOS:INFOBOX. Bondegezou (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have prescidence for this in the articles for previous elections? My only concern is the infobox could become overflowed with every party standing. Is there a rule or policy guide like using political poll numbers? Perhaps it is better to wait until all the nominations for standing for election close next week and then take it from there? Angryskies (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As others have alluded to above, which parties go into infoboxes for forthcoming elections is often fraught. I'm not certain there's any uncontroversial position to take here. A common rule of thumb are to include just those parties with seats at dissolution or won in the last election, but that is not always followed. For elections to a single position, UK articles often use a cut-off of at least 5% in a prior election. However, there is also an acceptance that infoboxes should reflect the campaign and so a new party might warrant coverage, and that rules of thumb cannot override WP:NPOV concerns. Two recent examples of discussions are at Talk:2021_London_mayoral_election#Infobox_inclusion_(again) and a small discussion at Talk:Next_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election#Removing_minor_parties. Bondegezou (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be sensible to wait until there's more RS coverage of the election so that coverage of the Alba Party can be assessed relative to coverage of other parties in quantity and kind (if it's covered a lot, but in a "the Alba Party is doomed" frame, that wouldn't justify inclusion in the infobox). My suspicion is that it will be clearer next week, after dust has settled more and news commentary is informed by polling etc. In the event that there's consensus to add them, though, I think the legislative infobox would be preferable because the leader infobox with seven parties and maps beneath looks awful. Ralbegen (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on both points with Ralbegen. In the mean time, contrary to Helper201, I've re-added Alba to the table of parties within the article. That table can be more inclusive than the infobox and I think we're already at a point where Alba should be listed there. (Alba now has more Westminster MPs than Scottish Labour, the Scottish Greens or Reform UK put together!) Bondegezou (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should set a clear and agreed upon criteria for what parties should and should not be listed. At the moment we are going on the subjective views of editors without any defined criteria, which is highly problematic (WP:OPINION). I advocate that we should only include parties that have at least one seat in the Scottish Parliament and/or those that are specifically mentioned in opinion polls, otherwise as mentioned by other editors like Angryskies the list could quickly become exhaustive and overwhelming. What's to stop us including, for example: the Orkney Manifesto Group, Independence for Scotland Party, Scotia Future, Scottish Libertarian Party etc and many more registered political parties in Scotland? Alba currently has no seats in the Scottish Parliament, which is what is relevant to this page. This discussion must be seen in the context of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish elections. This election is not about Westminster politics or elections. While the party can claim significance in a UK wide / House of Parliament context as it has two MPs, it doesn't have particular significance in the specific context of the Scottish Parliament. The only thing that makes the party significant besides its defected MPs is having a former First Minister of Scotland as its leader and even that was over 6 years ago and Alex Salmond isn't even an elected politician at any level currently. The party stands as a clear outlier in the list among all the rest. Helper201 (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as well as not having any representation in the Scottish Parliament, unlike the SNP, Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Greens and the Scottish Lib Dems, the Alba Party is not going to be in any of the election debates. See these sources:

• When is the first Scottish Parliament election TV debate and where to watch
• BBC Scotland's Holyrood election coverage to include leaders' debates

Helper201 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​Pinging editors for replies on what I have written above. Helper201 (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Helper201, and for all of your work on election articles lately. I am a little bit wary of trying to think up specific criteria because they can go against Wikipedia policy. As per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, we can't make up a rule that is contrary to basic principles. It's the basic principles of WP:NPOV and WP:RS that matter. So, having a seat in the outgoing Parliament would be a simple rule, but we cannot have such a rule overriding WP:NPOV. And, following WP:NPOV, what I see is a huge amount of reliable source coverage of Alba that we, therefore, must reflect in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I understand your points. The trouble is we need some sort of agreement otherwise this is going to be constantly edit warred over and what will meet justification for one editor may not for another. For example, aside from the Alba Party we also have back and forth of people adding All for Unity. Without some sort of consensus this list is either going to get overloaded, constantly edit warred over and/or some parties will get unfair added exposure by being included in this section where others will argue X party also has a right to be included. We could always just remove the section entirely as it is a bit superfluous, which would help in regards to being neutral on the matter. Aside from this section the Alba Party is also mentioned in the "Campaign" section, which no one, including myself, is suggesting we remove it from there. So, it will continue to be included on the page and has added notoriety regardless of it is removed from this list. A lot of the news coverage about the party I think is just because they have a former First Minister as their leader and the defections from the prominent SNP that have gone over to them. They are yet to win any elected representation at any election on their own merit (i.e., not through defections). As mentioned previously this is significant in a UK wide context in terms of MPs, it just doesn't have specific relevance to the Scottish Parliament, where the party has no elected representatives and has not contest a Scottish Parliament election before (or any election for that matter). We must look at this page within the context of only the Scottish Parliament, as that is what the page is specifically about. Helper201 (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that we should do what we are doing: establish a consensus through Talk page discussion. We can then enforce that consensus, referring people back to this discussion.

I'm not particularly persuaded by the idea that the Scottish Parliament context is so separate that we should ignore the MP and councillor defections to Alba (and ex-MP and ex-MSP defections). Alba have already garnered substantially more such representation than All for Unity, Orkney Manifesto Group, Independence for Scotland Party, Scotia Future and the Scottish Libertarian Party put together, should one need an argument against supporters of those parties demanding to be included here. More importantly, it is very, very clear that Alba has attracted far more reliable source coverage than those other parties.

If we look at other election articles for precedent, these often have tables of participating parties. These tables don't generally cover every party, but they do generally err on the side of being inclusive and are often more inclusive than the article's infobox. That alone makes me think that when it comes to the two more marginal cases here -- Alba and Reform UK -- we should include them. It seems to me there is deep blue water between Alba and the likes of All for Unity or the Orkney Manifesto Group, so we don't really run into any problems including the former and omitting the latter.

However, we're in a fast-moving situation. If RS coverage of Alba stays high, maybe there are more defections, and we see the first polling for them and it's good, then the case clearly becomes stronger for inclusion. If Alba falls apart, RS coverage disappears, maybe people leave the party, then we're in a different situation. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the useful heuristic is Does reliable source coverage of the Alba Party resemble coverage of other parties in scale and kind?, which I think is straightforwardly an application of the principle of due weight. Hard-and-fast rules I think are less useful here (though I understand why there often seems to be a consensus for them on American election pages). I think that right now there's probably the clearest case for a five-party infobox (the parties represented at the debates) and a more inclusive party box in the body of the article including parties which have had less, but still substantial, coverage like Reform UK and the Alba Party. Ralbegen (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this - the case for including Reform UK in the infobox was pretty weak before, but I don't think there's much case for including it while excluding Alba (or even Alliance for Unity). Five main parties in the infobox, add Alba and Reform in the table below. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ralbegen as well, and would support a 5-party infobox until such a time that the Alba Party is receiving comparable media coverage or opinion poll results. From a cursory look on Google News, "Reform UK Scotland" is yielding far less coverage than Alba, so I don't see a reason why Reform UK should be included in the infobox if Alba aren't. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 15:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Ralbegen. Who's in the debates is conveniently a simple criterion and one that does the work of WP:DUE for us, because the people organising the debates are basically following the same rules we want to. So, I remain sceptical of any single criterion, but I see a strong argument for a 5-party infobox of parties in the debate/parties that won seats last time, plus a longer table of parties in the article that adds Reform UK and Alba Party. For now, subject to change if reliable source coverage shifts! Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Alba Party should be mentioned in the Parties section of the article, as they are contesting the election and more likely than not to gain seats. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The list of parties in the article, after some edit-warring, now includes the debate parties + Reform UK, but not Alba Party. Alba was listed there for a while. The discussion above seems to me to show consensus to include Alba. Discussion about the infobox feels fresher, so I am happy to see that go on for longer before concluding what the consensus is. I suggest adding Alba to the list of parties. Does that seem reasonable all? Bondegezou (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, adding Alba to the table seems like the most sensible way forward. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 20:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless something changes with the balance of coverage the list of parties should be debate 5 + Reform + Alba. Ralbegen (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of tonight, the nomination lists are closed. The parties standing in the election are defined by the nomination lists, not by anything else and as of this time, they all have equal standing. I am not so bothered by the infobox, but the table under 'Parties' must have each and every party listed, ready for expansion to include the results after the poll. Anything less than this is not WP:NPOV - and if we are not to have all parties listed, then I suggest that the table is deleted entirely.78.33.185.122 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Angryskies: here's the discussion I referred to in my edit comment. Bondegezou (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see an argument in favour of listing every party standing. The table isn't too big. That said, I would discourage editors from edit-warring rather than engaging in discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added All for Unity again. You can't have fringe parties like Animal Welfare Party but not All for Unity. Ofcom says any party contesting at least 4 seats in all 8 regions is a 'major party' that is entitled to press coverage. Suggest that is a fair benchmark to use? goldenbender2 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed parties that are yet to have a consensus. I have also added an MPs column as I think this should be included if we are to list the Alba Party, as it seems to be one of the main reason’s editors are advocating its inclusion. Feel free to move the row around if you think it would look better formatted in another place. However, I strongly support its inclusion in some manor if we are to include the Alba Party. Adding the mass list of other parties doesn't not yet have a consensus and I would strongly oppose it as it looks overwhelming, is superfluous and still raises the same issues about what other parties could be included and where to draw the line. Helper201 (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing parties does not get consensus with me. If a party is registered with the Electoral Commission and standing a candidate or more in this election, then it should be included. Nominations have closed, so the list is finite. Anything less than all the parties, I defy you to drop any parties on criteria which do not confound [[WP:NPOV]. If you really think that some parties should not be included, I would rather the table taken out altogether.78.33.185.122 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that. I would still suggest drawing the line at 4 candidates in all 8 regions, as per the Ofcom British broadcasting rules. So that'd be the Holyrood 5, plus Reform, Alba, All for Unity, Scottish Family Party, UKIP, Freedom Alliance. goldenbender2 (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would disagree with this criteria on its own as 11 parties is still too many in my opinion, especially when we have a link provided to all the political parties in Scotland anyway in the section. Perhaps this could be used in conjunction with some other criteria (e.g., specific inclusion in opinion polls, inclusion in debates, elected representation etc).

'Too many' is entirely subjective and subject to political gaming. 'specific inclusion in opinion polls' and 'inclusion in debates' are actually sub-contracting WP:NPOV to outside agencies. 'Elected representation' is actually gaming away from WP:NPOV towards the POV of established parties. The more these ideas come up, the more I believe that WP:NPOV requires all parties to be included on the basis of recorded nominations.78.33.185.122 (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the 2016 parties section, all contesting parties appear to be included. I would suggest following this precedent. Also, I disagree with the inclusion of MPs as this isn't directly relevant information to a SP election (if readers want to find out more about parties like how many MPs/councillors they have they can follow the link to its page). spirit of the squirrel (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly. It's either all or nothing. Deeply unfair otherwise. goldenbender2 (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree with not including MPs in this context. The reason why I added it is so readers get an understanding of why the Alba Party is included. If one is not an editor (as most Wikipedia users aren't) then it is difficult to see why the Alaba Party is included in the list when it stands out as a clear outlier among all the rest as being the only Party without representation in the Scottish Parliament. It was for this reason why I am not in favour of including the party in the list. However, there seem to be people who are in favour of including it partly because it has MPs. That's why this was included, to show why the party has prominence over those other parties without elected representation in the Scottish Parliament because it is differentiated by having MPs. It is for this reason I strongly support either including an MPs column or removing the Alaba Party, for without it the party just stands as a clear outlier and it is not clear to readers why it should be included above others without representation in the Scottish Parliament. Helper201 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the criterion for inclusion is that a party is standing in the election, there is no further need to explain why Alba or any other party is there. Criteria other than standing in the election invite the criticism that the selection is not WP:NPOV 78.33.185.122 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted compromise by removing the MPs column and including the Alba Party. The only difference is I've added a sub-heading for those parties without elected representation in the Scottish Parliament prior to the election but they are included. Please let me know what you think. Helper201 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is turning into something of a Pig's Ear. First of all, (talk), you delete the non-represented parties in Revision as of 16:40, 2 April 2021. Now you have produced another table containing [only some, I think, of] the non-represented parties, where both tables state what the representation is. So effectively, you are conceding that [some?] non-represented parties should be included. As the tables contain exactly the same colums, I see no reason for 2 separate tables, particularly as you can read the info relating to your criterion for separating the tables from the tables themselves. Ultimately, after the election, the table[s] will be updated to show the actual results and at this point, the fact that certain parties got ended up with no representation will be notable information. And we cannot rule out that 1 or more currently represented parties ends up unrepresented after the election.

So the short of it is that you have taken out information and then you have restored it it a value judged way as a 'compromise', when really, all that is needed is to concede that your revision of of 16:40, 2 April 2021 did not have consensus and therefore to revert it. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

78.33.185.122 If you disagreed with Helper201's compromise, you should have reverted their edit instead of adding editorial comments to the article. We had a rough consensus a few days ago for Holyrood 5 + Reform + Alba, so I will restore that in the meantime. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was prepared to accept their compromise with the caveat on the partial information. That produced something I just about accept. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I am happy to have a longer list of parties, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore due weight and give all the parties with no seats the same amount of coverage because they have no seats - we need to look at things like media coverage, number of candidates and opinion polls to discern a threshold for inclusion. What that is I don't know, but I am sure with the input of others we will get to a consensus. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what due weight is about. I just read it. due weight applies to viewpoints on the subject material, ie if there were dispute as to whether for example Party X were standing or not. In that case, we would have to weight minority and majority views from sources. Plainly, this is a dispute of a different nature as to whether or not Party X [and indeed Parties Y and Z] should be included. Essentially, with our incomplete list, there is [likely to be] no dispute over whether any given Party is actually standing. It is simply a case of whether they should be included. The 'should' question is not resolved by sources. As the list of Parties which are standing is finite and someone has already done the work, it makes sense to include them all, because any other choice [including your suggestions] is on artificial and subjective criteria.

There are 2 resolutions to this. Either include them all, or clarify that the list is incomplete. Repeatedly removing all indication that the list is incomplete is tantamount to edit warring.

Now, I have no desire to edit war and I am trying to avoid putting them all back, because someone will just take them out again. So my compromise is to leave an incomplete list and to clarify that it is incomplete. I can live with that. BTW, sensible move to re-merge the tables. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have Alba, standing 24 candidates, but not All for Unity - literally the equivalent of Alba but for the Unionist side - who are standing 56 candidates? Unlike what Pinkpanda272 has said, I don't think there is consensus. This is getting daft now. goldenbender2 (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, there is no consensus, certainly not for what Pinkpanda272 has said.78.33.185.122 (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shambles now. What the fresh hell is "incomplete list of other parties"??? My proposal is - main five parties in the infobox, list all parties with the recognised minimum number of candidates (32) in the article text. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a shambles. I am more concerned about the table than the infobox BTW. But where does "the recognised minimum number of candidates (32)" come from? Recognised by whom? It is just another artificial criterion which seeks to exclude parties who are standing from recognition and I cannot help thinking that people are trying to game the coverage for party political benefit in the election. After the election, the table will be the poorer for future study if it omits smaller parties. All parties which are standing 1 or more candidates should be included. Someone has already done the work. OK, I can just about accept "parties recognised by the Electoral Commission" as being the criterion, but even then, if some are standing individually with a party label, but not recognised, they should at least be recognised as Independents and the count of them should be given.78.33.185.122 (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this idea that inclusion or exclusion from a Wikipedia article has any kind of political significance is fanciful. If you're a political party relying on Wikipedia, you're not doing very well. doktorb _words^deeds 08:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not for the benefit of political parties. You misrepresent me to suggest thatn this is my concern. It is for the benefit of ordinary interested people who want to read about the choices in the election.78.33.185.122 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a shambles. We had a list of all parties standing. It wasn't too big. I'm fine with going back to that. I'd simplify it in places, like cut down the lists under Ideology, just to make it more compact. If we are to have a subset of parties listed, that should be based on the volume of reliable source coverage, as per basic Wikipedia policies, which means SNP, Con, Lab, LD, Green and Alba. Bondegezou (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Bondegezou's 08:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC) 78.33.185.122 (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my recent edits I have tried to go back to the format used in the previous election – delineating by which parties are contesting both ballots, and which are only on the regional lists. Obviously this still leaves the point of who to include in the tables below. I would agree with an inclusionary approach for that. My major problems were with a) having Reform in the infobox (no clear basis for this) and b) the "incomplete list". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my last edit and response to 78.33.185.122. I wasn't saying the list of other parties standing that I added was a complete list or that it couldn't be added to. I just added parties that I knew were standing and that have a Wikipedia page. I was not conceding I was wrong about anything, I was trying to compromise and find agreement by meeting other editors part way with what they thought should be included. FYI, I think what we have now is pretty good. Helper201 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was you took out a load of parties and without a doubt contributed to a shambles. Compromise is problematic here - I have in fact been rebuked for attempting to compromise with your edit rather than reverting it. What is important is firstly the facts and secondly, where the facts are selectively reported, transparency as to the selective reporting and the criteria for reporting. What we do not have is anything remotely approaching a consensus on criteria for inclusion other than a partial consensus for 'all parties standing'. 'There are too many included' without criteria for inclusion/exclusion does not cut it as a reason to exclude. The actual nomination lists are definitive. What I think you should have done is to use the citation needed tag for any parties about which you had any doubt.78.33.185.122 (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you view my compromise edit I didn't remove a single party. I simply moved some to a second table, removed the MPs column that other editors didn't agree with and actually added parties. No parties were removed. Helper201 (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed 2907 bytes and 9 Parties in your edit of 16:40, 2 April 2021‎, which was one of a series of edits ending at 17:14, 2 April 2021. Now, if you are telling us that you did not mean to, then please put them back. I'm taking this as an error made in good faith. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These parties are now linked the text above the table and/or are now included in the table itself, such as All For Unity. No one else has advocated for including these other very minor parties and I do not support it. See what others think. Some don't even have a Wikipedia page meaning they probably don't meet notability guidelines. Therefore if we were to add them to the table their ideologies would probably be unreferenced and be WP:OR. I think their inclusion in the text above the table is sufficient and would be overloading if we were to include them all in the table, but I'm willing to hear other editors’ views. Helper201 (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, did you take them out or did you not? I am coming to the view that you did so, and knowingly. You certainly did not leave them in at 17:14, 2 April 2021, others put them back. As the info is now in the article, I can't think of a good reason not to include them in tabular form. There is no need to include anything about ideology if no one can source it. Basically, I begin to think you are gatekeeping on what can be included. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason there is only constituency opinion polling trend graphs on here and the opinion polls page? Is it just because no one has provided one for the regional vote? Providing one but not the other could end up misrepresenting the situation to people visiting the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrinePGTL (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrinePGTL There is a button at the bottom of the graph to toggle between constituency and regional results. Hope this solves your problem, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love the toggling. Can the default be the regional result? In an additional member system, it's the regional result that is (usually) the one that matters in terms of the overall result. Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake, thank you PinkPanda272. Agree with Bondegezou that the regional vote should probably be the default here. TrinePGTL (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted 20:31, 5 April 2021‎ Monkey1987king which removed the note common to other Party Leaders that Hamilton is not an MSP, pending evidence that he is an MSP ... Possibly a long wait. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of recent edits have re-added Reform UK to the infobox. I don't understand why. True, they have one MSP going into the election (due to a defection), but they have no electoral history, are recording minimal support in opinion polls and have not been included in the TV leader debates. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current infobox is very large, violating the Manual of Style: see MOS:INFOBOX. On an iPad, it takes up well over half the screen. Can we think about reducing it in size somehow? The map at the bottom, could that be smaller or laid out differently? Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing the map until closer to the election, it takes up far too much room as you say, and also looks daft because it says "Scottish General election 2003" in the top right corner. We could also reduce the size of the portraits. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Scottish Greens Leadership 2020.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Parties seems incomplete. It states: "Four parties – Abolish the Scottish Parliament Party, Alba Party, All for Unity, and Reform UK – are contesting all eight electoral regions. Five other parties – Independent Green Voice (5 regions), Renew (5), the Social Democratic Party (2), Women's Equality (2) and Animal Welfare (1) – are contesting some of the regions, but not any constituencies." But there are several others that are contesting at least one region, such as: Communist Party of Britain, Freedom Alliance, Restore Scotland, Scottish Family Party, Scottish Libertarian Party, Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, UKIP. Would someone like to draw up a comprehensive list? If not the wording needs to be changed.^[1]BobBadg (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All those additional parties are listed: they're in the previous subsection, "Contesting constituency and regional ballot", because they are also contesting constituencies. But this way of introducing the parties has caused confusion before, so happy to see some tweaks to the text to explain it better. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were in the table and then some wikibusy person split the table and took most of them out, around 02 and 03 April, rather than do the sensible thing and add columns to the table to show which parties were standing in which ballots. If you want to revert to the single table, I am in favour. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to do this (diff), but it is not possible without leaving out two of the parties who are contesting all eight regions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This now seems to be much clearer and comprehensive - so thanks to whoever did this.BobBadg (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we establish a results article for the 2021 Scottish Parliament election similar to the Results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election article so we can one place to view the breakdown of results both locally and regionally thoughtout Scotland. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest you start a blank section, ready for results, so we can get any debate about format resolved before results come in. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to but I don’t know how to set up the necessary templates. Also I think we will need to spilt it into two sections, one for all the constituency results and one for all the regional totals as well. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I've made a start to an article at Draft:Results of the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. It is currently split into two sections (for regional and constituency results) and I will add a section for nationwide results too. I'd be grateful for any feedback you might have on this format. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 15:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the draft, yep that looks really good, I do think we need a template for purely the regional results as they are like a constituency in themselves. Otherwise it should go live and thank you very much (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I've replaced the bar chart with a table showing the constituency and regional seats for each party. Is this acceptable, or would you rather one table for regional vote + regional seats, and another for constituency votes + constituency seats? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use this section to add a quick update about the Holyrood constituency articles. PP72, Manandro and I have edited each article to include the ballot paper for the upcoming election. It is the AMS table format used elsewhere, indicating the results at constituency and regional level in one clear format. I'm happy to put my name to this work and thank PP72 and others for their efforts in getting these results tables ready for action. doktorb _words^deeds 18:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks perfect thank you so much, please continue the draft in that format and upload it into a proper article (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

But don't upload all that until the election is over. Wikipedia should report results when there are results. We should not have articles in mainspace full of empty boxes. Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, can we do the same for the 2021 Welsh Parliament election election as well please. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, I will get on to it once I'm finished with the Scottish one. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 12:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers the templates for the constituencies in Wales will be easier as they are the same as the Westminster seats but they also have regional top ups as well. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Do you think that we've gotten all the results we'll get today? 48 were expected today - and we've only got 44 so far. --EcheveriaJ (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you insert the colours next to each party? That's the bit I don't have a clue how to do. --EcheveriaJ (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t forget to fill in the results article for the Scottish Parliament which is currently listed as a draft article and needs to be upgraded. I have now provided a link to this on the article itself. (90.197.116.233 (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I will do so later today. Regards, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few accounts, including myself, User:FeWorld, and User:Des Vallee have been going back and forth about the use of the word "supermajority" to describe the result achieved by the pro-independence SNP and Scottish Greens. To avoid edit warring, I'd like to discuss it on the talk page instead of through edit summaries. First of all, the term "supermajority" typically refers to having either three fifths or two thirds of seats. The more accurate term for this result is just "majority," not "supermajority." Des Vallee added two sources^[1][2] and said that they state that pro-independence parties got a supermajority, but neither article uses that term (unless I am completely missing something). Moreover, another source seems to indicate that the use of the word "supermajority" in this context is incorrect:

“The term supermajority just means bigger than a simple majority of 50% plus one, and is defined in different ways – perhaps two-thirds or 60% – in different contexts,” said Aileen McHarg, professor of public law and human rights at the University of Durham. “Under the Scotland Act, a supermajority of two-thirds is required to make changes to the electoral system, such as the recent extension of the franchise to overseas nationals living in Scotland, or to hold an early general election.”^[3]

Overall, the sources provided by Des Vallee do not say that the pro-independence parties got a supermajority. Supermajority has a variety of meanings, and under nearly all of these definitions, it would not be accurate to describe the SNP + Green result as a supermajority. Unless someone can find an RS which describes them as having a supermajority, I don't think there is any good reason to use that term. "Majority" is unambiguously correct and supported by RS. Jacoby531 (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, the use of the word 'supermajority' is usually two-thirds so not what has been achieved in this election or what any of the articles added by User: Des Vallee state despite their edit comment. In any case the offending content has already been removed. I suggest it stays removed. FeWorld (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that is what "supermajority" normally means. I note that Alba threw the word around quite liberally and may have meant something else. We could, where appropriate, note Alba's use of the term with a parenthetical note explaining what they meant by it in that context. Bondegezou (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just said on the Senedd article... we don't have anywhere in the Results showing how party vote shares have changed since the previous election. This is shown in the infobox, but not for all parties and, anyway, information in the infobox should only repeat what is in the article to satisfy WP:MOSINFOBOX. That is, if it's shown in the infobox, it should be shown in the article.

I am loath to complicate the current main Results table, so anyone have ideas how best to address this? Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One option could be to split out the results table into three: one each for constituency and regional results, which can include vote share change; and one overall table which combines the two with a lot less information (maybe only the seats?). Ralbegen (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's done on the french wiki, if you wan't an example.--Aréat (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WP,

I'm currently working on the completion of the results on the French page of these elections, and I noticed on this page that someone found the invalid votes. I searched over the BBC page (since that's the source indicated underneath the diagram) and I couldn't find anything. So where have you found these numbers, and do you have them for each electoral regions? Thanks in advance.

--InternauteLambda (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably need to go to the websites of the local councils (who run the counts) to get that kind of detailed information. e.g. Glasgow City Council gives 895 rejected papers for the regional list count. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the overall results to this election in accordance to the official results that the Electoral Management Board of Scotland has issued to the public. They have provided also an excel spreadsheet with turnout, electorate, invalid votes and other necessary information you all need to know. There are discrepancies with the actual final result produced by the EMBS in comparison with the current results as described on this page and by the BBC, like the constituency votes for the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. So I suggest someone does a double-checking on the final results as produced by the EMBS compared with the results as issued by the regions or constituencies. If there are any errors with their calculations, please describe it here.

You can all find the official results by the EMBS here. Kirill.alx (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could really do with a picture of Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater for the infobox. I have tried to add Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater (cropped).png but the size messed up some of the other parameters. It would be really helpful if someone could re-add this image with the correct sizing or another image where both people are clearly visible. The Greens are currently the only party with elected representation in the infobox where we don't have a picture of their leaders and it unfortunately currently stands out like a sore thumb. Any help on this issue would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added another image variant - Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater 2.png. Again, feel free to resize to what fits best in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new image suited for the dimensions of an election infobox. Basically, when creating an image that contains two leaders in it, you have to use an extremely tight ratio when cropping the two base photos so that the joined-up image has dimensions of a standard portrait shot. CeltBrowne (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to improve these election maps in the info box. Overall, the map is still a great piece of visualization. However, it belongs to somewhere in the main article. The map can be improved IMO:

1. The current map displays regional additional member seats on a separate map. This isn't ideal when both maps are squeezed off-center. For Scotland, it's possible to integrate this information into the main election map. This will streamline the visualization and prevent overcrowding of the info box.

2. Remove extraneous details such as the list of constituency names, parliament layout, outcome of government formation, and the flag of Scotland from the map in the info box. Instead, focus on presenting more essential election results.

3. The current map isn't very precises when zoomed in. Clean and well-defined boundaries can significantly enhance the professional appearance of the map. Better base maps can also help users wishing to remix or use parts of the map.

I'm going to be bold and replace the info box maps, moving them into the main article. Please share with me your thoughts! 沁水湾 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This map is really hard to read. Appreciate points 2 and 3, but constituency boundaries are difficult to identify, the colour gradients are too extreme especially for the SNP which makes it look like different parties. AlloDoon (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Background" section, there seems to be too much not-very-relevant information about other recent elections. It's good that there is a summary of the outcome of the previous Scottish Parliament election (2016), and also stuff about leadership changes, expansion of the electorate, and so on. But do we really need so much information about local government elections, UK general elections, elections to the European Parliament, etc?

In the absence of a consensus to the contrary, I propose to replace all of the above with short summary - perhaps as a series of bullet points - along with wikilinks to other relevant articles.

Please let me know what you think. Mike Marchmont (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any opinions to the contrary, I have now gone ahead with these proposed changes. Mike Marchmont (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]