Talk:2016 Scottish Parliament election

Unsigned comment by Crazyseiko
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

Page Move
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 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)

Addition of UKIP's own AMS polling column
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)
 * I am sympathetic to this view. I agree when it comes to the regional voting intention (second ballot paper) that UKIP and The Greens are now at least equals...it seems this is down to UKIP's modest but noticable rise and the Green's decline in the polls. That said I certainly don't think either the Greens or UKIP should have a column in the national voting intention tables. Indeed, the Lib Dems are struggling to justify their existence as a national Scottish Party, that said on national polls at least they do still poll well ahead of the Greens and UKIP. So yes for the regional vote, lets include UKIP. For well over a year in terms of parliamentary and council byelection results and indeed polling results UKIP have shown themselves to be on par with the Greens. Incumbancy is not the only factor and this action would be consistent with other pages on Wikipedia. Owl In The House (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2014 (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)

Moving Regional vote to top of polling section
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)


 * Not necessarily. It is possible to win an overall majority based on constituencies alone (if one party wins 65 or more of the 73 available). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Move "Opinion Polling" for this election to its own page?
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)
 * Agree. The section has, what, 3? 4? years of polling in it now? About time it was split off. LaSeandre (talk) 14:18, 22 August 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)


 * Agree. Elections with less polling than this (e.g. Turkish general election, November 2015) have been given their own polling page. On a fresh page the distinction between constituency and regional polling would be clearer too. I think there is also some sense in placing the list polling first as mentioned in a previous section, though I appreciate this would go against previous practice for SP, NAW and GLA elections. I would be against leaving any information on polling on the main article - just a link to the polling page will do. Frinton100 (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Polling is important information. Perhaps reduce to one year of polling only and move to 2016 only polling form the new year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.251.222 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
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)


 * Agree. Also worth noting that the Greens have been consistently polling ahead of the Lib Dems in the regional list vote, which will largely determine how many seats both parties will win. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree, also this is not how we establish or change consensus. You need to allert everyone who was involved in the discussion that established the current consensus for the layout of an infobox for elections held within the United Kingdom. You also allow sufficient time for them to respond 1-2weeks, the discussion needs to be had out in full and then consensus sought. You can not seek to change consensus by 2 people making a decission and rushing the change through. If you want to pursue this, please can you do so properly. Furthermore, the info box is a summary box, it is not a list of every party that gained as little as 1 or 2 seatsat the last election. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the consensus on the UKGE talk page was for the UK election only, not for devolved elections. Also, that consensus did not end with agreement to use the four-party infobox (the one that you have added to this page) for the 2020 GE, the consensus is to use the "Israeli-style" infobox. If we wanted to keep the article consistent with the UK election, this is the sort of infobox we should use. Every election is different and these sort of decisions on wikipedia should be taken on a case by case basis. For example, we use a four-party infobox for the 2015 GE but only a three-party for 2010 and 2005. Frinton100 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that there doesn't seem to be any clear basis to be removing the Scottish Greens from the Infobox for this article. The Scottish Green Party have been included in the Inbox for this article for some time already. The Scottish Parliament uses a mixed member proportional electoral system to elect MSPs. There has been a Green MSP elected to every session of Scottish Parliament so far. The Scottish Greens set out a list of candidates months ago and have been consistently polling at a level where they can return candidates from a number of regions. The Greens are listed as fifth in the Infobox, although the polling in Scotland over the past year or so has been putting them fourth position for the Holyrood elections. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The comments that have been made so far demonstrate that no one has actually bothered to read the discussion and the consensus and instead people have jumped to their own conclusions and said it applies to UK General Election articles only; No this assumption does not hold as articles such as this were discussed and commented on. The consensus was established for all election articles in the UK because Wikipedia articles need to remain consistent. May I politely suggest that before certain individuals go putting warnings on peoples talk pages, when indeed they are the ones edit warring against the established consensus, that they bother to thoroughly check exactly what that consensus is. Furthermore, the contributions that have been added to this age can not be seen as a new consensus established because no one has bothered to actually look at who contributed to establishing the existing consensus and contact them. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy and it is hard to see how any of the editors who have reverted the change to include the Greens have acted in good faith if they can't follow wikipedia rules for changing consensus, you know who you are. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of re-spouting the same arguments, perhaps you could deal specifically with some of the points raised, ie:
 * 1. If "consistency" is so important, how come three successive UK General Elections (2010, 2015, 2020) have three different infoboxes (three-party, four-party, "Israeli-style").
 * 2. If two seats is not "nationally significant", how come the SGP were given equal representation to the SNP, Labour, Cons and LDs on the Smith Commission set up to consider hugely important issues of national significance to Scotland (and indeed the whole UK)?
 * 3. Why, if the consensus for future UK Parliament elections is to use the "Israeli-style" infobox, and you believe this consensus should carry over to other future elections within the UK, why are you using the four-party infobox for the future SP election?
 * 4. Where is the wikipedia policy that states consensus on one article carries over onto another? You previously linked to the talk page of the 2015 UK General Election. If the discussion had taken place on the UK Politics Wikiproject, and the decision had been reached to include X number of parties, or parties with Y number of seats, or Z proportion of the seats, then you would have a case. To the best of my knowledge, such a discussion has not been held, and if it has, no firm conclusion has ever been reached, given that every election needs to be considered case-by-case. Hence different sized infoboxes for the various devolved elections next year, the last GE, the next GE, etc.
 * Frinton100 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly, please can you actually go and do your reading as you seem to have a complet misunderstanding of things and it really isn't difficult to grasp.
 * 1) The consensus does not make reference to arbitrary numbers as you are suggesting, it makes reference to grounds for inclusion, therefore the consensus does not change for each UK general election article as you seem to suggest as it is not based on how many parties there should be in the infobox, it is based upon who's result is nationally significant. You have either blatantly misreptresented this or I suspect it is more likely that you haven't bothered to read it and do your full research. Therefore do not understand what you are arguing against. May I also point out that you seem to have no idea why the layout of the Next United Kingdom general election is completely different, the rerason being is that the election is so far away in to the future and the article is in it's infancy, it has been very normal not to include a proper election info box so early on in a parliament, this was done with the previous 2 articles (not quite in the same way). However, now that all parties have established leaders in place, maybe it is time for the standard infobox to revert to normal format for Next United Kingdom general election. So your argument about lack of consistency is indeed nonsense as it is based upon a misunderstanding of the consensus and indeed the consistency between articles. You make the point that there are 3 seperate elections and 3 different layouts of election box, the fact that you present the argument in this way shows that you misunderstand and have not got your head round what the consensus is. The reason 2010 and 2015 are different is not because the criteria for the grounds of inclusion has changed, it is because the political reality has changed. Again, I have explained why 2020 is currently different and why that is not a permanent thing (as was the case with the previous articles). Please can you stop misrepresenting the arguments and if you do not understand please go and do some more reading. May I also point out again, that devolved election articles were discussed but you continue to ignore this.
 * 2) The Smith Commission have not used electoral results for grounds for inclusion. They have taken a widely inclusive approach as they want to get as wider range of opinion as they can involved in the debate of future powers for Scotland, for that reason it sounds reasonable that they would include all parties with representation, no matter how small. However, what we are talking about is not a debate about Scotland's future, it is a discussion about a box that Summarises Result and these info boxes need to be consitent in their grounds for inclusion. This does not mean we put arbitrary numbers in place and it does not mean we take the blanket approach of including all parties. This would be neither a reasonable summary or consistent with wikipedia policy; which does state articles do need to demonstrate consistency. Furthermore, the election box is only supposed to be a summary box, it is explicitly not there to give a full breakdown of the result as that would be a violation on wiki policy on duplication as lower down in the article, indeed in all election articles, we include a full table of the results. If you are arguing that all parties with reptresentation should always be included then that is a violation on wikipedia's policy on duplication. If that is what you are arguing we shgould get rid of the info box all together (this was a suggestion made that had a level of support in the debate about the format for election boxes).
 * 3) Please see point 1 for most of the answer to this. The consensus for the normal info box remains in place, However we do not usually include any info box so early on in the parliament (generally because party leaders and platforms are changing a lot in the first year). To be honest I do not know why specifically the Isralei info box has been used for this, it looks like one person has put it in place after the discussion (no one has agreed or disagreed with this as a temporary solution). However, there is clearly no consensus for this going forward and that we would revert back to the info box we have a consensus for with the same grounds of inclusion (not an include everyone approach (which of course violates wiki policy on duplication within the same article). Now that all party leaders have been selected, I think there is an argument for the proper info box to be included in the Next UK General EWlection article, however that is not a discussion for this page.
 * 4) I hardly see the point in answering this point why you continue to frame it in this way " number of parties, or parties with Y number of seats, or Z proportion of the seats" - it demonstrates you haven't bothered to read the debate and that you simply do not understand. The consensus allows for the number included within the infobox to fluctuate and not be arbitrary and rigid, it sets ground rules for inclusion (which are consistent with Wiki policy. Furthermore, this was a very lengthy and extensive debate with a large number of regular contributors and respected Wiki editors. It is very difficult to hold the same discussion in various different places and move a discussion between multiple editors from one place to another, so your point about where the discussion took place seems totally irreslevant when you consider the number of editors included, the detail and bredth of the discussion and the conclusions that were reached. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please point to a discussion where it was agreed that this should be applied to all other elections (in the UK or worldwide). I have looked through the archives and can not see any such agreement. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed you in the direction of the consensus. In that lengthy debate devolved articles were discussed (may I suggest you read the whole thing or you just are not going to understand things properly). We have a clear consensus for how election article info boxes should be for elections in the UK but if you want one specifically for Scottish Parliamentary elections you need to involve all those from the previous debate in this debate and you also need to address each point made. I have made a number of points above and referred to Wiki policy but you have not addressed them. Also I do not appreciate being reported for edit warring when I am trying to act in good faith by engaing on talk pages, referring to wiki policy and actually stating why I have reverted edits, covertly reporting me the way you have is against wiki policy as you are meant to give several warnings. I am trying to act in good faith here but you are not engaging properly and do not give proper reasoning when you revert an edit - to me, that is edit warring. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't. You have handwaved in the general direction of UK general election articles. If this consensus was so overwhelming and far-reaching, presumably you could easily find a direct link to the archived discussion? If not, why not? You have been reported for edit warring because you were warring, I warned you and yet you have continued to do it! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also echo Bondegezou's exortation on the NI Election talk page to WP:AGF. Some of the language on here is not helpful.
 * I completely understand that you are arguing for consistency of criteria rather than numbers. But my argument is, that this is simply not possible to do 100%. Every election needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. And of course, what is correct before an election may change after an election. The Smith Commission was set up to include every party represented in the SP - that was why the Greens were included, so on that basis they did use election results - if the Greens hadn't won seats they would probably not have been included. The aim was not to make it "widely-inclusive" as if it were, it is likely that parties outside the SP and possibly other bodies such as the CBI or Trade Unions would have been invited. The sole basis for representation on the commission was whether the party was represented in parliament. Since one of the bases of your argument was originally that two seats was not "nationally significant", then I think their inclusion in the commission does demonstrate a degree of national significance.
 * It still remains that consensus from the UKGE does not carry over to a completely different election. There is a majority in this discussion in favour of retaining the SGP in the infobox. Perhaps that will change given time, if so, fair enough (WP:CCC). I would also point out the Greens have been included for some time, and several editors have been involved with the article in that time and not seen a need to remove them. Frinton100 (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is frustrating how much time we spend arguing over infoboxes compared to the time spent on improving article content! I'd happily see infoboxes used much less to avoid all these debates. What I would say is that (a) I agree with Frinton100 that this has to be considered on a case-by-case basis; (b) everyone should stop edit-warring and be nice to each other; (c) I'm all for erring on the side of inclusion; (d) for elections that have happened, I'm in favour of including everyone that won seats as a simple rule to apply; but (e) for forthcoming elections, it's trickier but we can start with the infobox for the previous election, but I think we also should reflect reliable source reporting.
 * I say all the above without even looking at this article's infobox or who is included and without reading the debate above in any detail! Just trying to suggest some general principles as a guide. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Graphical Summary of Polling
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)

No mention of 16 and 17 year old voters?
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)

moving Opinion Polling to a new page
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)


 * Yes, does seem to make sense. However, I would suggest retaining the graphical summary (cf United Kingdom general election, 2015) on this page.  DrArsenal (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I do it in the style of 2007 and 2011 pages for the time being. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Women's Equality Party
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)

Infobox
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.

Regional lists
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)
 * The regional lists are top-up seats, so they are awarded taking into account constituency seat wins. Having won lots of constituency seats, the SNP got few top-up seats. Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why the format change?
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)


 * I think it was because the Greens overtook the Lib Dems in the polls, which was borne out by the actual result (just). All five parties will form official groups in the parliament because they each have the minimum number of seats needed (five). The last comparable election result (i.e. one in which >4 parties obtained enough MSPs to form an official group), 2003, includes all six parties that won enough seats. In the other four elections held (1999, 2007 and 2011), only four parties did this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This makes sense. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Map
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)
 * Do you mean the two maps below the infobox? The regional maps boundary looks okay to me. If you're referring to the Tory-held constituency on the Ayrshire coast, that's Ayr, which is in the South of Scotland region rather than the West of Scotland region. Cunningham South is the diamond-shaped SNP-held constituency directly north of it. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:35, 6 September 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)

Regional and constituency vote
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)
 * The regional results are contingent upon what happens in the constituency ballot. Parties that form the government typically do so by winning most of the constituency seats. The constituency seats form the majority of the parliament. Some minor parties do play the additional member system to gain representation, but that doesn't make the regional ballot more important. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on which should come first, but in an additional member system, the regional ballot generally has the bigger impact on the final result. Bondegezou (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Map preference: should constituency results be coloured by majority?
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)
 * I think A works better than B. B gets too confusing. Supplemental graded maps of each party's support could be useful (so a map where saturation denotes SNP vote share, another where it denotes Conservative vote share, etc.). Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with above, A is better for the infobox, B could be worked into the article later Barryob   (Contribs)   (Talk)  11:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added tag to http://www.snp.org/node/17079
 * Added tag to http://www.stirlingnews.co.uk/app/news/roundup/articles/2015/07/05/537935-msp-to-stand-down/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151014161504/http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/veteran-tory-msp-jamie-mcgrigor-to-stand-down-at-election-1.895693 to http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/veteran-tory-msp-jamie-mcgrigor-to-stand-down-at-election-1.895693
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612043941/http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/1st_holyrood/rev_rec_regions/regions_revised_recommendations_map_A2.pdf to http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/1st_holyrood/rev_rec_regions/regions_revised_recommendations_map_A2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Layout of constituency seat pages
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:

LAYOUT B:

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)


 * Personally I believe that layout A is more appropriate in highlighting the longevity (or otherwise) of MSP's in certain constituencies. For example layout B would imply at a glance that Ayr has voted Labour and Conservative in equal measure, when in fact it only voted Labour once since its creation in 1999 (voting Tory in 2000, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2016), represented by Labour for 1 year and the Tories for 18 years. I believe that pictures are relevent and helpful in allowing readers to visual candidates, parties and the electoral process more generally. I also believe that areas which were renamed but hardly changed in 2007 should mention pre-2007 MSP's for those areas. Brythones (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * On your second point sticking with the example of Aberdeen Donside, that constituency covers the more than 96% of the old Aberdeen North constituency, which accounts for 90% of the electors there. Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley covers exactly the same boundaries as the old Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency. Brythones (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't believe images should be used – they are not elsewhere as far as I'm aware (e.g. on UK parliament constituency articles). It will also look awkward when we have pictures of some MSPs and not others. Number   5  7  17:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Portraits are consistently used in Welsh Assembly constituency articles (eg. Aberconwy, Cardiff Central, Llanelli). What about the use of pictures of election result counts themselves? Brythones (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think both the Aberconwy and Llanelli examples highlight the issues with not having images for all seat holders. Number   5  7  18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer the second point first then the article should be renamed, and there should not be two articles. In relation to the first point 96% or 99.9999%, a change is a change and different boundaries no matter how marginal are not the same the same seats. Take for example a table made out of the same wood and to the same design and by the same machine, yet one tea split on on and the other does not. The damage is marginal, yet they are no longer the same, and wit would not be expected for the two tables to sell for the same price. How is it then that the argument that a change to parliamentary boundaries leaves a previous and a current seat identical. It doesn't logically follow. The seats have changed and are no longer the same. Also portraits are for articles of the individual member simply having a few here and there does not mean it is a precedent. It is an overuse of photographs, and makes the portrayal of the information harder. Sport and politics (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are (very slightly) different seats, but the historic representation of that area shouldn't be overlooked in the article because of that. Brythones (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The seats are different. Simple as. The articles should reflect this with links to each other, and a brief part on creation and abolition of the seats, as appropriate. Anything more is unnecessary duplication of information. Sport and politics (talk) 17:46, 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)
 * Comment Polling is not a substitute for discussion. This has been presented as a binary choice between two different options, when in fact there are several possible options. For a start, combinations of the various elements of each option could work. And options that haven't been considered at all might be even better. A straight poll shuts down discussion and stops any attempt at mutual improvement. As for my opinions on the differences between the two layouts, I prefer the following:
 * No images in the results tables (an image of the incumbent is useful, but should be shown elsewhere in an article).
 * All electoral results shown, not just the ones where there is a change.
 * If a constituency is renamed and has identical boundaries: Consider the old name and the new name as identical, to be handled in one article. Discuss the change in that article, and either have two separate results tables or one with a clear distinction between the old and new names.
 * If a constituency's boundaries are changed, but the name retainer: Treat it as a single entity with a single article. Discuss the changes in the article, with a single results table.
 * If a constituency is renamed and does not have identical boundaries: Treat the two as separate entities. Regardless of whether the change was subtle or dramatic. Discuss that change in the two articles, with appropriate links. Each article would have a single results table.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Any reasons for the above, to elucidate a discussion?Sport and politics (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The images are unnecessary clutter - its important to know who the victor was but not what they look like. To omit individual elections smacks of incompleteness. Even if the seat is very safe and votes the same way every time for 50 years, those are still votes for the representative. Any tweak to the boundaries, and its a different unit (and would be OR to say that new constituency A, formed from B and a bit of C, is linked to B not C). However if constituency B keeps its name and is tweaked to include a bit of C, it is still constituency B and should be presented in one article.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thinking some more about this, I feel that election/party/name isn't the right information to show for who the member is/was. It be better to start-date/end-date/party/name: It isn't about the elections, but the dates that the person was actually the representative. I know during electoral cycles there is technically no member but that can be glossed over by not treating re-election of the incumbent as a break in representation.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

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)
 * On the case of the presentation: I'd consider that an improvement (moving from elections to dates) for all elected positions in the UK, not just MSPs. I don't mind MSPs being out-of-step with the others, during the implementation of that, as it would have to start somewhere. If it works for MSPs, it can then be rolled out. As an example, the MP section of Batley and Spen (UK Parliament constituency) would be improved by having dates, as the unfortunate event of June 2016 is more significant than the by-election that followed and the seat was vacated in June not October.
 * I'd oppose splitting the tables of representatives for every boundary change. On that aspect, MSPs are the wrong place to start as their offices are all recent. A solution needs to work for long-lasting Westminster constituencies that have had boundary adjustments several times. For instance, a boundary change to Halifax constituency should be noted in article but the table showing the MP for Halifax, all that really matters is who that was. The fact the constituency of Halifax was adjusted doesn't mean its a separate position. The pre-adjustment MP is the MP for Halifax, the post-adjustment MP is the MP for Halifax. One table please.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I am not proposing changes to the members of parliament table. I am referring to the results tables. There are articles which present boundary changes in the text of articles, but do not make clear when boundary changes have occurred when the results tables. I am proposing making it clear in the election results sections. I am in agreement regarding not splitting the members table. Sport and politics (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought this section was about the member's tables? That's what "Layout A" and "Layout B" refer to? :)--Nilfanion (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Layout A (minus the picture), it provides clearer information regarding the time span of an MSP and the elections they fought. Barryob   (Contribs)   (Talk)  16:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a lot more discussion going on than just A v B now. Also any reasons behind why every single election under the sun should be displayed cluttering up the page to kingdom come, and moving the section away from who the member is to how many elections have been contested in that seat? The time span is easily shown by the date the successor takes over. Including every election is just clutter, and the section is not to display every election, that is for the election results tables. Sport and politics (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This is what layout A looks like without the portrait.

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)
 * One minor thing I dislike about all of these is that the box showing the party colour is in the wrong place. It is a property of the party, so should be adjacent to the party name (or the member), not the date of the election - something which is independent of the party.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting something more along the lines of this:

Sport and politics (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement on that particular point yes: Its clear that the red/blue refers to party affiliation and not some property of the election. In this case, to someone who doesn't know what those colours mean the blue might be denoting a by-election! I'll spend a bit of time later to develop what I think the above should look like.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So you mean this?:

Or

Brythones (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On the specific aspect of the location of the colours. Yes. However, I do not like any of the tables presented here. I will take some time this evening to develop something more concrete. Please don't plaster this thread with more tables - it doesn't help clarity.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I look forward to seeing the proposal, and agree that there is too much table posting here. The most recent two were not necessary. Sport and politics (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Focus on the members
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:


 * 1) Portrait
 * 2) Name
 * 3) Term of office
 * 4) Party

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:
 * 1) Numerical ranking (eg 42nd President)
 * 2) Length of term
 * 3) Additional positions held (eg party leader, first minister, shadow home secretary)
 * 4) How left office (eg defeated in election, resigned, deselected by party)
 * 5) Elections contested

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:

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.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I like the version above which has been shown. I do not think any of the optional parameters are necessary, they are clutter, and if notable should be in the main text of the relevant article (not necessarily the constituency seat article), but the portrait should be removed. It will look ridiculous as has accurately pointed out. Sport and politics (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would dig in to defend the pictures in this format. The appearance of a person is a highly important aspect of that person. And furthermore, all political lists I have found include pictures where possible.:
 * The problem here is that example (Ayr) is a poor one. It has two members, one with an image, one without. Consider List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and imagine if we had no image for George Canning. Would you remove all the pictures just because one is missing? Of course not.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would yes. Take for example Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Scottish Parliament constituency). That would look absurd with portraits for some and not for others. It would also be enormous with portraits. Sport and politics (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Every person missing a picture is worse than some missing a picture. A list of people should aim to include pictures of the people listed as a default position. I'm aware that generally increase the size of a table, but pictures aren't really a major deal. Their absence is much more harmful. The gaps may be ugly, but they still serve a purpose - people will seek to plug them. If there are no gaps, because there are no pictures, we will never get the missing ones.
 * In the case of the majority not having a picture, then it might not be value-added to add those for the few that do. But that's a case-by-case discussion point.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe that style of table is much better presented and more informative than the other versions which have been proposed. Good job Nilfanion! Brythones (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case of Ayr I firmly believe that the portrait should be included as John Scott has been MSP for that constituency for 18 years. Ian Welsh was MSP for 7 months. Brythones (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand the comments regarding harm, can you expand on those please. 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)
 * The criteria is free-use! I've looked extensively and cannot find any free use images of Ian Welsh online. Brythones (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a change from earlier where the claim was length of service. I also do not understand this reliance on images. All that is being presented is they should be included. No reasons for inclusion are being given. The images will clutter the boxes, especially over time as more members churn through seats. It will also look awful having pictures of some and not others. Sport and politics (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is in the case of Ayr I don't think that the MSP of 18 years should have his pictured removed as there are no free use images of the MSP who represented the constituency for 7 months. Brythones (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should it be there in the first place? Sport and politics (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it is informative and relative to the article. Brythones (talk) 07:47, 6 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)
 * Why include pictures? Because when talking about a person it is a very useful to show who that person is.
 * When it comes to political listings, pictures should be included for all office holders. The criteria for inclusion of a picture is simply "this person held the position". This is standard practice across all sorts of similar articles and is promoted by the featured listing criteria. I know that in practice that may not be possible - as no suitable free image might be available for certain people. In this case it just so happens that John Scott has a photo, but Ian Welsh doesn't. Ian Welsh is perfectly eligible to have a picture included, if someone can find one that's suitable.
 * The harm comes from the fact that if we don't have a picture, and we are open about that, that encourages editors to go and seek them. If we hide that fact, no-one will bother to search. That's why this placeholder is used in this article. That is featured despite the few buildings without images, but if you were to apply your logic "we don't have them all, so we don't have any" it would be a much poorer article, not having a picture of the Royal Crescent or the Roman Baths and definitely would not deserved to be featured. With these articles we could always put a placeholder instead of the blank space, if that makes it look more balanced.
 * Now this is off-topic, but quite frankly, I consider the inclusion of these photographs in the list of members of greater benefit and more relevant to the overall article (about the constituency) than the detailed minutiae of the individual elections. The boxes with election results are much uglier and take up much more space, when all that really matters at the summary level are the headline stats (who won, with how many votes, what was majority etc). So what if the returning officer tells us how many invalid votes there were in a specific election? Its not relevant to the constituency as a whole. I'm not arguing that info should be taken out, but why worry about something that adds a bit of "clutter" that significant of number of people see benefit to (again look at all those other articles), when there is another section which is full of "clutter"? Photos don't seem like the worst element to these articles from that perspective.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is evolving beyond the scope of just this topic. I think this discussion would benefit from wider input and should be moved to a wider page. This way more detailed discussions can occur. Also wider consistency issues can be addressed. Otherwise this is just a discussion on something very important by just four editors. I suggest that the election results point also be raised at the wider fora. Sport and politics (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree there and think most of the substantive points have been resolved. The comment about election results is something for another discussion (if anyone is interested - I merely noted it, I don't really care).
 * There is one unresolved issue: Pictures. With that in mind I'd suggest that the constituency articles are modified in line with the format I suggested above. Picture of members should not be added or removed during that process. That is likely to give good examples for an RFC on the picture issue (do you think this article - with pictures - is better, or worse, than this one - without them?). That RFC should be held at a central location like WP:UKPOLITICS and is the sort of issue a straw poll is likely to be helpful with, as it is close to being a simple binary question.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and think this is well worth as a good point to move forward with. Please implement away. Sport and politics (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with that as well, perhaps we should move the discussion to the United Kingdom general election, 2017 talk page to encourage more involvement? Brythones (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A central discussion should be held at either a wikiproject page, or even a central wikipedia page like the village pump. It should not be held on the page of an individual article. Either way I think this is done :)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ruth Davidson MSP .png

Article title
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Nicola Sturgeon election infobox 3.jpg