Talk:Scottish Parliament

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

Greens in goverment.
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)

Infobox
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). —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


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


 * A proper screen reader will do more than read what is visible on the screen, but give semantic cues like: "List of five items: Conservatives, link Scottish Conservatives, 31. Labour, link Scottish Labour, 22. [...]". In particular, the use of colon syntax, which creates description-list items, 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."
 * As regards linking singular MSPs: I see them as extra links that honestly serve little purpose. Setting screen readers aside, they mean that readers need to actually hover or click on a link to find out who the MSP is, which contravenes the guideline given by MOS:NOHOVER. This is what I meant when I said that the links are unintuitive as per MOS:EGG: they 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, not this infobox. I'm happy to clarify further if desired. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk  · 01:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If the problem with the list format is simply the use of colons, asterisks can be used instead, as they are both widely used in the infobox of parliament articles. As for the links to the sole MSPs, MOS:EGG and MOS:NOHOVER don’t apply here. These links don’t “unexpectedly hide relevant information underneath the link's label”. Users wouldn’t think the 1 links to the article for the number 1 “unless they clicked on the link or hovered their mouse cursor over it”. “If a physical copy of the article were printed”, the only reference that would be lost is the one you’re proposing to remove anyway. User can click on them for further information, but they don’t “require interaction to provide information” any more than any other link on the page. Brainiac242 (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)