Talk:2023 Scottish National Party leadership election

By whom in "Aftermath"

This and this sources both said that this election exposed deep divisions within the party，can we change the sentence to "some media, like BBC and The Guardian, saw this election to have exposed deep divisions within the party"？Or furtherly add the journalists' names？As a newcomer, I think I should consult first. Fuelweaver (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Cherry? Flynn?

Don't you have to be an MSP to run for First Minister? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/45 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't have to be an MSP to run for leader of the SNP, and this article is about the SNP leadership election. If a non-MSP were elected (which I suspect is unlikely), then the SNP would presumably put forward someone else who is an MSP for the post of First Minister. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Expected? Publicly expressed interest?

Instead of trying to split the potential candidate list into different categories, maybe it would be more useful to concentrate on prose. That is, we can add to the campaign section if so-and-so says they're interested, or if thingumajig is reported to be planning to stand. Prose allows for much more subtlety than just these crude categories and provides a historical record. Bondegezou (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence

Sure, after the event, it might make sense for it to say The 2023 Scottish National Party leadership election is due to take place to choose the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) after Nicola Sturgeon announced her resignation on 15 February 2023, effective upon the selection of her successor. But for now, it jars a bit. It sounds like there's a leadership election every year, and that this one was preordained to be in 2023. I think it would be more encyclopaedic, for now - until it's in the past tense, to say A Scottish National Party leadership election is due to take place in 2023 to choose the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), following Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that she intends to resign, so I propose changing it to that. Opinions? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

We use that form of words in leadership elections for all the UK parties, more or less. Might be a question for the WikiProject rather than here, but I don't think that there's an issue with the current phrasing. Ralbegen (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Table or List?

Hi all, I wanted to get opinions on whether it would be better to have a table of MSP/MPs endorsements, or to have a list like the Conservative Party leadership election. The SNP of course doesn't use MSP/MPs for its nomination or voting process, so the endorsements are less important than they are in other party leadership elections.

Personally, I'm in favour of a table-style format as it makes it neatly confined to the space and does not turn half the page into a list of MSP/MP names (and this could lead to suggestions to split the page, which in my opinion is unnecessary). The sourcing is also easier, with one source part at the bottom to linking to pages which have already aggregated the endorsements. As a final point, it allows people to quickly compare which candidates are getting the most endorsements.

Thanks, Quinby (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

CC @Ralbegen @THeShavidow1 @Bondegezou @Unreal7 @Monkey1987king it would be great to hear your thoughts, thanks Quinby (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The table you added in this revision is not a good way of presenting the information. MOS:NO-TABLES tells us not to use table formats for simple lists, which is what this is. Cells on each row have nothing to do with each other beyond being the nth endorser in the alphabet, which makes a table inappropriate: these are list data. Including an aggregated source in the table in a row at the bottom while including sourced material from outwith that source is also not best practice. Adding new endorsements to the proposed table format would also be more work than in a numbered list. There are only a third as many SNP parliamentarians as there are for the Conservative Party, so the section will be unlikely to take up too much visual space in the article. I would be happy to see a move to endorsements boxes, however, which are an established and sustainable approach to including this kind of list in an article. Ralbegen (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I could definitely agree to the endorsement boxes, that seems like a great option (and I forgot they existed) Quinby (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Quinby! Ralbegen (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ralbegen @Bondegezou Hi both, I just wanted to re-float the idea of the use of endorsement boxes. With now several categories and titles, including withdrawn endorsements and inconsistent formatting (e.g., numbers and bullet points), I'm finding the section of the page quite hard to understand. Endorsement boxes are made for this purpose and would clean the page up a lot in my opinion. Thoughts? Quinby (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I prefer it as plain lists and understand Bond's MOS case that boxes should not be added without sufficient cause, though as I said earlier I don't mind endorsement boxes as much as two-dimensional tables as there's not a category mismatch. I don't think we should include withdrawn endorsements and I think your solution of including that particular example in prose elegant and appropriate. I think endorsements boxes would require exactly the same decisions as the plain lists: whether to number parliamentarians (a numbered list is an easy way of staying up to date, though a single number at the top could work too; and it would be silly to number non-parliamentarians) and what to include or exclude. One downside of endorsements boxes is that they split all the material across columns, whereas in plain lists we can have columns for each section. Endorsements lists that have a column with a new category on the bottom line don't look great and are unclear for readers. Ralbegen (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see what the problem is with the section in its current form. It seems clear to me, and it’s easy to edit. I don’t see how endorsement boxes would help. Bondegezou (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, a list is fine. Remember to make sure that endorsements must meet the standards of WP:ENDORSE. Bondegezou (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there any that you think fall short at the moment? Ralbegen (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ralbegen I deleted a couple earlier this afternoon.

by the way, can we revert the tables that have now been added for endorsements and go back to a plain list. The tables just pointlessly take up space and make it harder for people to edit. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Brian Cox claim meets the requirements. He says Robertson would be great, but it's not a clear endorsement of Robertson over anyone else. I removed it earlier, but it's been re-added. Bondegezou (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with either the endorsements boxes or plain lists. There are various articles that characterise Cox as endorsing Robertson, which I think satisfies WP:POLEND. I agree the substance of his comments is fairly weak but multiple reliable sources saying he endorsed Robertson is better than we often get. Also happy either way on inclusion for that. Ralbegen (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Would support either plain lists of endorsement boxes so I am happy with how it is currently. THeShavidow1 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no preference, to tell you the truth. Do whatever you like. Unreal7 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Endorsements

Quick question about what we should do with endorsements. On this page we have endorsements from members of rival political parties and for people who are not candidates. Should these be included? These might have separate answers. FUnderwood (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:POLEND tells us how to handle endorsements: we should include clear endorsements by notable people or organisations covered by reliable secondary sources (sometimes allowing primary sources for organisations). It doesn't matter what political parties they are members or supporters of. We should fold endorsements for non-candidates into prose, in my view. Ralbegen (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me FUnderwood (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Source invoked but not defined

Anyone know what the issue is? Reference 90. Crumbsx (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting colour choices for endorsements map!

It seems slightly contentious to use the colours that are being used for the candidates on the 'endorsements' map. It seems as if Humza Yousaf, being the continuity left-wing candidate, has been given Labour red, while Kate Forbes, seen as the more conservative candidate, has been given Tory blue. Could we change to a colour scheme that perhaps has less potential political messaging? ErraticDrumlin (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@ErraticDrumlin: I don't think it matters, colours have lots of potential meanings e.g blue or white can represent Scotland or Scottish nationalism (on the flag), yellow can represent the Scottish National Party and red can represent communism. Sahaib (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I just think in the interest of neutrality some more neutral colours ought to have been chosen. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@ErraticDrumlin I see where you are coming from, but all colours will have some political connotation. The current colouring is fine Quinby (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned the whole map is WP:SYNTH. I’ve not seen any reliable sources use maps like this. Do we need it at all? Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a recreation of the map used by Ballot Box Scotland, which is a source used extensively in this article. --Pokelova (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It ought to be noted, however, that the colours chosen for the map in the source are quite different - purple for Yousaf, blue for Forbes and red for Regan. Also, are we sure that Ballot Box Scotland is a reliable source? It seems very much to be written in blog format with personal comments made by the author - such as the comment on Forbes stating: "The back foot is also where I am, as a gay man who now has to cover a leadership contender who acknowledged she would have voted against treating me as an equal human being" (just to clarify I am not saying I disagree with the author here, but seems a slightly informal style of writing for a reliable source). ErraticDrumlin (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The author's one guy who runs it and has been honest about who he is, and is recognised as providing a valuable resource (which is recognised by most parties) to the point of writing in the papers as a correspondent on polling.

It is generally reliable, and while providing occasional commentary, does not present bias in reporting of facts, and is clear when presenting opinions (which opinions, generally, are on whether a particular council by-election is expected to be close -- the Forbes comment is a very atypical one, and referring explicitly to authorial position as opposed to position of electoral analysis). WorthPoke2 (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I know little of the site so happy to drop the matter if that is so. ErraticDrumlin (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The colours are fine, but the maps aren't following best practice—they would be much better without the zoomed-in boxes, excessive text, multiple ways of displaying information in the same graphic (coloured dots as well as the map), different shades for candidates and supporters... Ralbegen (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Language errors introduced

Can someone fix the errors introduced in these edits: [1]? This article follows British English. Bondegezou (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This should have been undone all in one easy go. The user even turned quotations and reference titles to American English, with the summary "Corrected spelling and grammar issues" as if the audacity of using British English on an explicitly British subject is "incorrect" and an "issue". I ran a quick check for -ize and -or spellings and just found one left. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Updated SNP membership poll?

I'm sure there must have been more than one poll of SNP members on the three candidates during the campaign - can someone confirm and if so update this section? ErraticDrumlin (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)