This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scottish Parliament article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Scottish 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Scotland. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Citation 109 does not lead to the intended destination. 2A02:C7E:5423:6600:D42C:A4F6:B837:6123 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
@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)
<dl>
), is particularly problematic. From MOS:INDENTGAP:
The result is that assistive technology, such as screen readers, will announce a description list that does not exist, which is confusing for any visitor unused to Wikipedia's broken markup. This is not ideal for accessibility, semantics, or reuse, but is currently commonly used, despite the problems it causes for users of screen readers.
unexpectedly hide relevant information underneath the link's label. They are also extremely small links that the majority of readers won't even pick up on anyway, and are inconsistent with the numbers for the larger parties, so readers wouldn't be losing out. For instance, readers would expect to find out who the sole Alba MSP is by looking at 6th Scottish Parliament#List of MSPs, not this infobox. I'm happy to clarify further if desired. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)