Talk:Bruntsfield Links

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edinburgh High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I hope the original contributor won't be offended, but in the process of "wikifying" this article, I've (temporarily) removed the section about quarrying since it requires sources as evidence, and since it confused sandstone and limestone (presumably the former is correct, but without sources, this confusion detracts from my faith in the facts about quarrying being correct at all.)

Also, to say that the quarry is the reason the land was not built on fails to cover the issues of land ownership, local planning, golf, and Royal Charters – again references would be required which actually demonstrate that somebody refrained from building for one of these reasons. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken. I am, however, puzzled by your mention of "limestone". These were sandstone quarries - I don't recall mentioning limestone. There were several in the area. Some were infilled and built over in the Victorian period; some have left traces on the present-day undulating Links. I can't locate your edit removing the quarrying references (which, by the way, you shouldn't do without good reason - I can easily supply sources if you could specify where you think they are necessary by adding a citation tag). I also find your last paragraph puzzling. The effect of quarrying the ground made much of it unsuitable for building, and infilling, where it did take place, proved extremely costly. It had nothing to do with ownership; planning, if by that you mean local authority permission, was not a concept when a part of the Links was built over (it was feued from the private property of the Warrender family); and I don't see what Royal charters have to do with it. The Links are for all practical purposes treated today as Council property, regardless of any legal technicalities, if they exist, regarding original feuing arrangements. See the Burgh Muir article for more info. Kim Traynor | Talk 01:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I've only just noticed the date of the above comment to which I've made a lengthy reply some eight years later! I hope Kieran T you weren't in a hurry! This comes about because I visited this page for the first time and thought both comments on it were new. None of my information above will make any sense because I'm referring to my own rewrite of the article which obliterated the version to which you were referring. And you know what? I now have the uneasy feeling that I'm talking to myself! Kim Traynor | Talk 01:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other Bruntsfield Links

Can we have a nice idiot-proof explanation of why there is also a 'Bruntsfield Links', miles away, beside Silverknowe? Valetude (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't. I think you've come across the name of the Bruntsfield Links Golfing Society, founded in 1761, which once used the Links but moved to a new golf course in the Barnton area while retaining their historical, hence prestigious club name. I believe their course is called "Bruntsfield". I've now added appropriate info to the page. Kim Traynor | Talk 01:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]