Talk:Scottish Parliament Building

message: I'm intrigued that no one has pointed out what a terrible building it is to work in - layout impossible to follow and many rooms too small or too odd for furniture, people, kit.  The chamber shape means that you are looking at the back of everyone's heads.
Clearly designed by someone who was used to sculpture rather than design for purpose.  Sebmelmoth (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utility 

message: Seeing as the building is now finished, the construction photo seems a little dated.  There are some wonderful photos at the Parliament website, which as far as I can see from their conditions, there would no problem with us using.  What does anyone else think? Maccoinnich 01:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
:I have replaced the first photo with a sunny picture from this morning. You won't get it much sunnier than that. I see no problem having the construction photo further down in the text, where it is already located.--Klaus with K 15:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: The Brief emphasised the importance of design and quality over quality and programme - not sure what that's supposed to mean.  --duncan 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraser Inquiry 

message: Does anyone know why the Debating Chamber is arranged roughly in a semi-circle (in three sections) as opposed to the facing benches (government and opposition) as in the Palace of Westminster and in other Westminster system parliaments, such as Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand? ThirdEdition 03:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debating Chamber 

message: I note that there are currently no links provided in any of the captions to images, eg. at "The distinctive windows of the MSP building inspired by Henry Raeburn's famous painting - the Skating Minister" it would seem logical to internally wikilink to the Henry Raeburn article and The Skating Minister article (and perhaps even the Member of the Scottish Parliament article).
Is this an ommission, or is it WP:MOS policy that we prefer not to link within captions? Is this something to do with the FA candidature? 
I do not consider caption linking to be "duplicate" linking, as the images may be far removed from any links in the main text. But others may hold a different view.
I am willing to run through all the captions wikilinking appropriate items, but I just wondered if we had intentionally not done it for some reason. --Mais oui! 09:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I wrote the captions I wasn't sure about duplication of links, so I just left linking to the text. I don't see a problem with duplicate caption links, at all. Globaltraveller 17:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in image captions? 

message: GTraveller - I've made a start expanding some of the architectural concept and will finish that and the "Criticism" (architectural and public) section tomorrow. I've added new headings and changed the hierarchy a bit to give some distinction to the building description and the other issued. I'd urge you to think again about moving the Fraser inquiry section to a separate article and summarising it in this - it's very detailed and a little brevity may help balance the article a bit better. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I always sort images and layout last so sorry if it's now looking a bit ropey. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am 110% adamant. The Fraser Inquiry stays (1B, remember?). It is far too an important to start hacking to death, substantially, and the bits on this article are the tip of the iceberg of any future Fraser Inquiry article. I will when I get time, determine if some of it can de dispensed with. If you want more room, rationalise the "Further problems" section, and incorporate that into the preceeding text (although the panoramic image of the chamber must stay) and delete the pretty irrelevant paragraph on the Parliament Building's opening hours, in the Parliamentary Complex section. Globaltraveller 09:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah good I was wondering about that paragraph - I'll keep something in about the public accessibility though. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I have to admit I was very wary about the critic opinions being incorporated into the article, as I said elsewhere, but the way you've incorporated them into this article is great - and some of the extensions to the sustainability features are good. I do hope, though, there is not a great deal more, as the article is a bit on the big side - and we don't want to have to cut down on other things - because everything here is relevant, and part of the whole story of the building. A floor plan will be the icing on the cake. Globaltraveller 10:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Architecture

message: Site plan of the Scottish Parliament
	1 Public Entrance 2 Plaza 3 Pond 4 Press Tower 5 Debating Chamber 6 Tower one 7 Tower two 8 Tower three 9 Tower four 10 Tower five, Cannongate Bldg. 11 Main Staircase 12 MSP's Entrance 13 Lobby 14 Garden 15 Queensbery House 16 MSP building 17 Turf roof 18 Carpark and vehiclular entrance 19 Landscaped park
:Any comments? subtractions, additions etc.? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  comment - from what I can see it looks very encyclopedic, illustrative, and informative. subtraction - I'd suggest subtracting ~ 23MB. this file is way too large for the info it contains, and it has viewing problems for me as a result. addition - you should probably add more source info. the image file says "|Source=Own Work" and my guess is it is derived from someone elses' drawing, surveying or satellite photo, and ultimately EMBT's plans so I'm unsure about the copyright status and whether you can claim cc-by-sa-2.5 on your version.  DVD+ R/W 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my process for creating the plan was to download about 6 separate images of the plan from google including a google earth aerial photo, EMBT drawings, other parties diagrams and overlay them all in AutoCAD I then traced over the median resulting lines (there's some quite big descrepancies between all the images) and then coloured it up in photoshop - I'm fairly confident it's sufficiently my own work to claim cc-by-sa-2.5. I've reduced the file size now to 890Kb --Mcginnly | Natter 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could convert it to SVG that would likely be even better. Nice picture BTW. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice work. Where abouts can it go? Deleting the Politics of Scotland infobox, might free up some room? Globaltraveller 14:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we introduce it in the "Parliamentary complex" section - this is where we get to the nitty gritty of the design so it makes sense to have a handy plan to reference the text to. I think losing the infobox would be a good idea - or at least replacing it with a 100% wide one at the bottom of the article. I'm hopefully going to finish up tonight and then give you a support vote at the FAC - can we find a better, more arresting image for the lead paragraph? perhaps:-
		right|300px|this one is a bit more abstract - but cuts to the chase--Mcginnly | Natter 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm no authority on copyright either - but I generally try and avoid fair use images in FA candidates - people seem to be a bit snippy about it. I think maybe the debating chamber chairs could be a good opening image. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Site Plan

message: All free use --Mcginnly | Natter 10:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Images

message: I'm done now Global, it could do with a fresh pair of eyes for spelling, image placement etc. but I'm really happy we've got all the facets of this complicated building covered now. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome - it was a fantastic article to begin with - before I stuck my oar in. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a final copyedit

message: The following quote is repeated, in the intro and in the Debating chamber section:
*"a tour de force of arts and crafts and quality without parallel in the last 100 years of British architecture"
I am not sure that repetition like that is a very good idea, but I left it in for others to consider it.
I have proofread the article, and it seems very good to me. We had been a bit inconsistent with the capitalising of "Parliament", "Building", "Canongate building" (lower-case "b") etc etc. Could someone in-the-know please make sure that we are capitalising the names of individual buildings and rooms correctly and consistently. This is one problem with multi-author wikis - inconsistent style. I hope I have caught most of them. --Mais oui! 09:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the proof read. I swapped the quote in the body of the article for an alternative - "It is an arts and crafts building, designed with high-tech flair. You really have to go back to the Houses of Parliament in London to get interior design of such a high creative level - in fact, it is more creative" --Mcginnly | Natter 01:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a pleasure. Good alt quote. --Mais oui! 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated quote, proofread 

message: I feel there should be consistency in the dates of the timeline: Either we give give each date only as a month or we try and find exact dates for as many events as we can. For example we can see from  that the first parliamentary date took place on 17 June 1999. Actually, I would prefer to have just the month because dating an event of the form "when something became known" can be slightly iffy as different people got to know the thing on different days as the news spread.
While on the subject of dates, we quote the Scotsman timeline as saying that the original estimate of the cost became known in September 1997. That is actually the date of the election. The Fraser Inquiry timeline  says that in July 1997 a white-paper was published indicating the original cost estimate. I think I am correct in saying that that would be the time when the original cost estimate became known. Stefán 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Please comment/contribute at:
*Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#It.27s_election_time_folks.21.21
While you are there, please feel free to sign up as a member of the WikiProject, or just give it a "Watch". Ta. --Mais oui! 09:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election time - WikiProject Scotland discussion 

message: I don't know much about architecture, so I'm all the more impressed with the high quality of this article, both in terms of the content and in terms of the presentation.  All who worked on it share in the success, deservedly.    Chan e gogadh nan ceann a ni an t-iomradh. — OtherDave 02:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'S math sin 

message: does anyone else think the one on the right is a terrible picture of the buildings. Its hard to see, and hard to tell what building is which...
I'd prefer to see the one below as the main image, as its a bit brighter and easier to see.
Thoughts?
Kennedygr 10:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the one on the right is much better, and certainly much better and clearer than the one on the left, which looks terribly blurred and out of focus, as if someone let the colour run when it was drying out. The main image is there to give an overview of the complex, the specifics of the different component parts are shown more clearly in subsequent photographs. And for that reasons, the current image is far clearer. Globaltraveller 12:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image 

message: I might be wrong, but shouldn't the succession box at the bottom show the last home of the Parliament as being the General Assembly Hall of the Church of Scotland where they were based before this building was finished?- J Logan t: 11:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are totally right. The succession box has been amended to show this. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box 

message: I am suggesting merging Canongate Wall into the artwork section. Most of the information is here already, and unless the Canongate Wall article can be substantially expanded, I don't see the need for a separate article. Would appreciate other editors views. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: I have read somewhere that there is some sense in which Holyrood has precise boundaries, where some special laws apply, and that the Scottish Parliament Building is actually just outside those boundaries. Can anyone confirm this, and provide more detail? Laurel Bush Laurel Bush (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise Holyrood boundaries? 

message: This edit raises a rather interesting question: who actually does own the land and the buildings and structures on it? If not the Scottish Government, then who? Cos somebody must!
I understand that the land (or most of it), used to belong to Scottish & Newcastle, but I assume that the successor company to S&N no longer own it. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who owns the buildings? 

message: I've taken some new images of the debating chamber that you may wish to use. 
Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber 1.jpg
Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber 2.jpg
Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber 3.jpg
-- Colin°Talk 18:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images for debating chamber 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/scottparliament/
*:Triggered by \bdesignbuild-network\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: I've deleted this long bit tacked on to the end of the intro, which seems to be a defence against points made by the intro, primarily because its only source was published 3 years before the building was completed!
:Insiders on the project have refuted claims that the project ran hugely over-budget. The oft-cited figure of £40million is argued to be a "mythical figure" by a consultant, who guessed parliament would resemble a four-storey office block. Initially capped at £195million pounds the project's cost became unlimited in July 2001 following an overwhelmingly supported vote by MSPs to remove the cap, in order that Scotland had a parliament worthy of its aspirations. Additional, unforeseen costs, including security concerns, added complications to design and construction costs. The entire specification of the project also changed, after the client changed from the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Parliament, somewhat changing the project's design. ()
90.198.224.197 (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scottish Parliament Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060504024309/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/nmCentre/events/holyroodOpening/index.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/events/holyroodOpening/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070226194935/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/nmCentre/news/news-07/pa07-018.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-07/pa07-018.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070125115221/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/nmCentre/news/news-99/pa0029.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-99/pa0029.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060228192148/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/nmCentre/news/news-05/pa05-019.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/nmCentre/news/news-05/pa05-019.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scottish Parliament Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060926054148/http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/educationprog/leaflets/guide_partb.htm to http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/educationprog/leaflets/guide_partb.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Scottish Parliament Building. 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140111115429/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Speechesandarticles/2004/TheQueenopensthenewScottishParliamentbuildinginEdi.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Speechesandarticles/2004/TheQueenopensthenewScottishParliamentbuildinginEdi.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Scottish Parliament Building. 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070514222228/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/vli/history/firstscottishparliament/index.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/history/firstscottishparliament/index.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120120181054/http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/1_4_98/pr0029.htm to http://www.scotland.gov.uk/news/1_4_98/pr0029.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070103111235/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-09.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-09.htm#6
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070517014116/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-99/or011010.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-99/or011010.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070517013516/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk:80/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-00/or051302.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-00/or051302.htm#Col1290
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? I see 1 dead link. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA rerun 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scottish Parliament Building. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160828022007/http://www.oviinc.com/projects/the-scottish-parliament/ to http://www.oviinc.com/projects/the-scottish-parliament/
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) 04:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ends with "they refused to leave". 
Does that mean they are still there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.95.20 (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonstrations Section 

message: This article was reviewed as part of this drive:Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009. The following problems were noted, if the article is not updated then a Featured Article Review will be necessary.
* The archaeology section is a list which would be better served in prose.
* There is a controversy section, this info should be relocated elsewhere in the article.
* No section is called "Design" making it hard to find the architecture of the building. Instead that information is blended into a description of the modern workings of the building.
* No section is called "construction" so its hard to find the timeline of events while being built
* The Demonstrations section looks like a news item and should be removed.
Desertarun (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Scottish Parliament was another FA by the same nominator, it was already delisted at FAR (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009 

message: Does anybody know if there were no suggestion about using the old parliament building as parliament again and rather build a bew building for the court? Why didnt it happen? 2A02:AA7:4008:6C00:1:1:6E8F:64AC (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old parliament building 

message: Recent news articles refer to the parliament building as having a parliamentary bar called Margo's. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? 2.30.72.200 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margo's bar?