Talk:Lossiemouth

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.

Fisheries and Fishing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing 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.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Pictures

The pictures really need to be arranged better. --F a ng Aili 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Was adjusting picture thumb-nail size as different browsers displayed screen differently. --Billreid, 16:04, 29 March 2006

Article

It's coming on very well & becoming quite comprehensive, as I wish all town articles would. Good work, Bill. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Timeline

There's some obscure functionality in wikipedia allowing you to make timelines - see Help:EasyTimeline syntax. I don't really know one end of it from the other, but thought I'd put my effort to date here, in the hope that either I or someone else will improve upon it & then parhaps replace the gif timeline in the article. Note that I've not made any effort to check the actual dates in the timeline (!) - Bill - you'd probably be able to do this. That part of the code is not too scary. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Removed timeline now that it is in the article. Hat's off to you for adopting it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

References & Notes

Bill, if you have ISBN numbers for any of the books in the referenfces list, so add them, in the form ISBN 184115007X, and they get wikilinked, which is a good thing. And you have some footnotes on the current value of shillings & such. Probably better to say "worth £1234 in 2006 currency", since "in today's currency" will not survive the test of time. --Tagishsimon (talk)

GA status

I intend to go back over both Lossiemouth and Elgin and add references to them in the near future. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Bill! Great work. Thanks :) --Mais oui! 10:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Gaelic

I have removed the so-called Gaelic town name from infobox and article. Lossiemouth is a completely English language construction, the town being established in relatively modern times. Gaelic died out in the Laich of Moray several hundred years before the town has built so it is misleading to suggest that Lossiemouth has an alternative name. --Bill Reid | Talk 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stance. Although Lossiemouth is indeed a completely 'English language construction' as you say, the Gaelic version of the name does exist and is used for communication about Lossiemouth in Gaelic, so therefore is a legitimate version of the town's name in my opinion.

Interestingly, when 'Lossiemouth' was used specifically for the area around the river mouth (as opposed to including Stotfield, Branderburgh etc.) the term 'Inverlossie' (which is an anglicised version of the Gaelic 'Inbhir Losaidh') was used in some publications/communications to describe the collection of communities in the area as distinct from old Lossiemouth. I forget which ones exactly, but if you were to browse through the local collection section of Lossiemouth library I am sure you would find evidence of this. Chris Souter 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, through all my trawls through Lossie and Elgin libraries further afield and on the internet I've never found a reference to 'Inbhir Losaidh'. A near neighbour who is from South Uist says that the name doesn't exist in Gaelic as a proper noun. The earliest reference to the river in print I've found is in the Registry of Moray dating to about 1300 and the name is spelled 'Lossy' but i would be more than happy to reinstate it if I could find or if you could provide a citation for it. Thanks, --Bill Reid | Talk 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, if it's at the mouth of the river Lossie, then it was called Inbhir Losaidh in its Gaelic times. "-mouth" names, in any case, almost only exist as translations of Celtic names, and though I can't speak for this individual example, this appears to say it does (this source is normally very reliable, but doesn't ever cite). The name Inbhir Losaidh is used in Gaelic, as this will show you, but of course not by locals in the area, who as you say have not used Gaelic in a few hundred years (though there were large communities of Gaelic speakers in the area even in the beginning of the last century). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, that was quick! That was my point, though - it didn’t have any Gaelic times. It was a new town built in around the late 1700s early 1800s by Elgin town Council and not on top of a preceding hamlet. So to attribute a Gaelic name in this case would not (in my opinion) be correct. I’m not an anti-Gaelic warrior, far from it, but in this case I am trying to be accurate. I agree that the Gaelic name is used as your link proves but there is no historical use as far as I know and my Gaelic speaking neighbour says that he is pretty certain that it is an English to Gaelic translation. A similar google search on Ceann Phàdraig gets even more hits even though the Scottish Parliament document also concedes that in the case of Peterhead it is probably a modern translation. Rgds --Bill Reid | Talk 08:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place-name Inbhir Losaidh probably did genuinely existed... I'd need to investigate further for definitive proof. Anyways, the place existed before the town; any river confluence would have been called Inbhir + river name, which is all that name says. Lots of the Gaelic names used by officials today are made up in modern times based on a few principles (translating, or transliterating); it's not so unusual that it has to be pointed out every time it occurs. :) Anyways, I'm only on this talk page to give some explanations; I won't be participating in any revert war, so you needn't worry. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I completely agree that Lossiemouth did not come from the Gaelic equivalent and that the subsequent use of Inbhir Losaidh is a modern translation, but I do feel that it is a valid translation and worthy of inclusion. One example of bona-fide use of Inbhir Losaidh is in Gaelic language documentation produced by the Highlands and Islands Enterprise (examples can be found from the Google search link provided by Deacon of Pndapetzim). On a separate and slightly related issue, I drew reference to the use of "Inverlossie" in my original reply as I had seen it used in old publications in Lossiemouth Library as a collective description to describe the (then separate) communities based around the modern Lossiemouth area (Stotfield, Lossiemouth, Branderburgh, Kinneddar etc.). From recollection the use of "Inverlossie" was used by some authorities to ditinguish this collection of communities from just being what was actually Lossiemouth at the time (i.e. the Seatown and adjoining planned town). Obviously this was ultimately replaced by "Burgh of Lossiemouth and Branderburgh" and now simply "Lossiemouth". Due to being based in Coventry at the moment I am unable to have a comb through the local collection at Lossiemouth Library to confirm the source, but will try to do next time I am in that area. Chris Souter 10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Chris, I've had a wee re-think and while my main concern was that the name should be factually correct, the translation seems to be used a fair bit in written texts as opposed to the spoken word so I'll stick it back in. The only use of Inverlossie that I can remember was the fishing boat (can't remember its INS). BTW the article is woefully short of sources for the various staements; if you can think of any that back up the statements then that would be great. Cheers, --Bill Reid | Talk 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lossie Quarry

Does anyone know where the information re Lossie Quarry and fossils came from? I have no reason to doubt the accuracy at all but grew up in its shadow and had no idea about this. Just interested to find out more.

On a side note - at the beginning of the article it is stated that Kinneader has "disappeared" however there are still a few scattered farm dwellings etc that still go by the name. Is it worth amending the article to reflect that?

Mickeymacattack 07:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Mickeymacattack[reply]

I'm afraid that Lossie and Elgin were early projects for me and i didn't go about referencing the info as I should have done, so now I have the enormous task of doing proper citations for the facts. As regards the quarry, I will look it up and post it here when I get a minute or two. Kinneddar ferm toun has gone but the Kinneddar farm house is probably the location and the article does mention that in the Kinneddar section. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lossiemouth East Quarry is an SSSI so you can find the info at the SNH web site but I quote from the citation below:

The site is one of the richest late-Triassic-age reptile sites in Britain and has yielded eighty individuals representing eight different species. Some of the fossils are unique to this site, but they do have attributes in common with reptile faunas found in China, India and South America. The first specimens were collected and recorded in 1844 so historically this is one of the most important sites in Britain for vertebrate palaeontology.

Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the info on the quary (This is my new account) Thebenjster 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

It would seem sensible to redirect Branderburgh and Stotfield to the Lossiemouth article, as the latter already contains more information about Branderburgh and Stotfield than their respective individual pages. --Deskford (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I tried to have them deleted previously but without success. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should be less controversial than deletion. Let's give it the statutory 7 days and if no-one has objected or proposed a better solution by 22 December 2009 we can implement redirects to the appropriate sections. --Deskford (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects now in place. --Deskford (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lossiemouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lossiemouth. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lossiemouth. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]