Talk:South Ayrshire

Politics of the United Kingdom C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:South Ayrshire logo.PNG

Image:South Ayrshire logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:South Ayrshire logo.PNG

Image:South Ayrshire logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

This article fails on the referencing, all of the primary source must be removed, and the text masquerading as a reference must also be removed. this means 85% of the references must be removed. This is not acceptable referencing. See Wikipedia:PRIMARY. -- Sport and politics (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A large chunks of this article such as the list dumps have no independent reliable and verified third party sources. This information unless it can be sourced will need to be removed. This notability of this list dumping must also be justified. otherwise it will also be removed.

The information with only primary sources will also be removed unless it can have a third party reliable source, and its notability can be established, then that information will also be removed. Sport and politics (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images and notability of individuals

The copyright of the used images from the council is questionable and needs further justification and explanation, claiming fair use, and free distribution is not enough it needs further explanation. Sport and politics (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The individual councilors are also not notable simply because they are councilors, and just because they are group leaders of political parties on the council, or leader of the council, or an officer of the council, need to be individually notable for inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of article

This is an article on the council and notable information, and history of the council. This is not a directory or information repository, that is fr the council website itself. This article needs to focus on the history of the council and notable information of the council. At the moment, there s very little apart from information dumps from the council website. This is not what Wikipeida is about. Wikipeidia is for independent and reliable information which is notable. The majority of this article is failing on this. Sport and politics (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to referencing, copyright and relevence concerns

I'm going to respond to Sport and politics complaints about this article in one section of the talk page given the excessive nature of her complaints.

On referencing, primary sourcing is fine given the objective nature of this article and said references (where they relate to the appoint of individuals into certain offices, election results, schooling etc). South Ayrshire Council is the subject of this article and therefore a valid primary source to be used in this article where these references are used in an objective manner. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter should not be the establishment of notability as everyone would have a page if that was the case which is why primary sourcing for this article is such a big issue. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Ayrshire Council is an accountable administrative body which provides services to tens of thousands of people - it is not a private individual or abstract concept. So in that respect, the subject matter is the establishment of notability as this is an administrative body. Any information published by that administrative body within the context of its operation is therefore perfectly valid to be sourced within this article. If you feel so strongly about the matter then please provide more secondary sources to this article, rather than obliterating half of it. Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is supported by the cited WP:Primary policy which states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." As primary sources are only being used objectively in this article as shown in the example above, their use is perfectly fine. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sourcing is not fine when they are the only source being used, and the article is in some parts verbatim dumping information in to the article from the council site. one of the sources is just text masquerading as a source and must be removed. The sourcing is so woeful, and independent third party sources are desparatley needed. This article relies too heavily on the council and that is not acceptable. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to reference from South Ayrshire Council directly as it is an accountable administrative body and the subject of this article. I again take you to WP:Primary and this passage of the article: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On copyright, everything should fall under open government license so no problems there. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation given of 'everything should fall under open government license' is not good enough. It must be shown without any doubt that it does or it will be removed as a potential copyright violation. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This exposes the fact that you're just looking for problems with this article: if you have a problem with a specific image then tell us which image it is so that we can verify its free use or replace it. South Ayrshire Council's copyright is Open Government License (see here), meaning any images from the Council website (including the logo and coat of arms) should be free use. Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In simple terms violations of copyright must be removed, this is not looking for problems, the article is fundamentally broken enough already, there is no need to look for problems> there are enough Prima Facia issues already. The council's own guidance states "ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003" that hurdle must be overcome. Simply going this page says it does is not enough, the council have not released the images in the public domain for unlimited use. Sport and politics (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information in question is used fairly, lawfully, adequately, accurately and in line with Open Government Licence meaning that it does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 is not applicable in this instance as the information is not being used for marketing purposes or by a private business and is available through Open Government Licence. Brythones (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the purpose of the article, councillors, education and the council's executive team are all responsible for the operation and running of the council and important related services. These fall in line with other Scottish council area articles. They are notable parts of the council and its operation. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose you are asserting is the purpose of the council and not the purpose of a Wikipeida article. A Wikipeida article must be an article on a notable subject which contains notable information and encyclopedic content. The list dumping of schools is not encyclopedic. The council leaders and officers are not notable. Top name two examples. this is not an encyclopedia article this a promotion article for the council.Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have laid out my position to this: education is a fundamental service provided by the Council. Councillors and the Council's executive team form a significant part of the day-to-day operation of the Council and should be mentioned in this article as accountable public servants in the operation of the Council. I completely disagree with you there: this is a factual article on South Ayrshire Council. Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the services provided and actions the council does are routine and not notable. This information fails to meet the notability standards. The phrase "as accountable public servants in the operation of the Council" is exactly what wikipeidia is not. Wikipedia is not a place for monitoring or checking how well public officials are doing in their job, especially non-notable individuals such as all those mentioned on this page. This fails so spectacularly what Wikipeidia is not is it mind blowing. This is nothing more than a regurgitation of the council website, and some ephemera on the council. The worst case is where lists and lists and lists are simply copied identically from the council website. Such as the list of the "executive Team" the pictures are identical and the order they appear in the lists on the council website and this article are identical. This is truly atrocious dumping of information, with not reasons for doing so. Wikipeida is not a place for information dumps for teh sake of it. See WP:indiscriminate Sport and politics (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said this is a factual article about key parts of the operation of South Ayrshire, of which the executive team and councillors form a key part of. I will look into the wording of passages of this article potentially being taken directly from the South Ayrshire Council website. Brythones (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on the writing standards of the article, which is very subjective, I would say it's perfectly fine. I am concerned by Sport and politics constant editing over regular contributors to this article, which may well breach Wikipedia's policies around Edit warring and also her record for edit-warring and removing lots of content in multiple other articles concerns me. More than anything Wikipedia is about concensus among editors and Wikipedia policy (which this article doesn't breach) can be treated more as guidelines. (See WP:PG). Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the writing style a simple look at the Manual of Style shows just how far from being encyclopedic this article is , it reads liek an advert going in to lists and way too much detail such as on the play stratagy and on other cruft of a similar nature. this is not a place for minute by minute reporting of the activities of the council. it must be of factual and neutral information and not promotional style writing. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the content and not the contributor, this is not the place if you wish to make contributor comments user talk pages are for that and will not be engaged with by myself on this page. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As in my response above, I have set out why I disagree with this. This is a neutral and factual article. Pointing out the fact that you may be edit warring is not a personal attack. Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article promoting how the council runs this is not encyclopedic. The council its self being used for 24 of the 29 sources as a primary and only source is unacceptable. Sport and politics (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained before it is perfectly acceptable to reference the South Ayrshire Council website on this article. This is an objective article about the running of South Ayrshire Council and is in no way a tourist brochure. Brythones (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All-in-all I think that Sport and politics complaints are unreasonable and I am prepared: to disregard them if other contributors to this article agree. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the article which violate policy of Wikipeida simply cannot be disregarded, in particular copyright violations. This article could if not improved be a candidate for deletion, as failing to assert notability. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could kindly point out those copyright violations so that they can be resolved rather than fought over? Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those photos of the officers of the council, and the copying of large chunks of the council website straight on to this article. Sport and politics (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained in my response the photographs comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and and the Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, although if you would like a more thorough review on individual images you can apply for that yourself. I will also look into any potential plagiarism on this article from the South Ayrshire Council website. Brythones (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my previous comments the education section of the article seems fine. There was some plagiarism from the South Ayrshire Council website in the Provost and Chief Executive sections of the article which I had to fix. Brythones (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of places

The lists of schools and the lists of early years centers these are not notable information and fail the inclusion criteria. they fail WP:indiscriminate and do's and don't's for lists. There is also no sources for this, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that is it un-encyclopedic information. Sport and politics (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your feedback on board in this matter and have removed the list of educational and out of school care establishments. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so why do you keep adding them back then? This is not your article alone, please stop acting like it is. This is not notable, please do not add back yet againSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When have they been added back? Please, I strongly advise you to actually read what has been said before attempting to cause an argument with other users. If you actually read it carefully, you will see I had agreed to remove the list of educational and out of school care establishments as opposed to the text content. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good of you to agree! But its not your article alone, you dont decide what is in it. Get consensus before adding any more, it is excessive and not relevant at allSimply-the-truth (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is adding more, we're just keeping to WP:BRD policy and reverting to the original article before consensus is reached on this talk page. Please set out what you want to change on this talk page so that it can be discussed in a civil manner rather than treating the page as your personal property. Brythones (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

Should the cleanup tag on this article be removed? If not, what criteria should be met to remove it? Brythones (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see other areas

to see how a GA is done, because this one is a mess. Why so much detail about education, what Schools are being worked, what after Schools there are etc. Really not relevant to the article and not neededSimply-the-truth (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, other UAs in Scotland have sections on education, though I agree it is a bit excessive here. Brythones (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source issues

Original closed discussion, to allow for a fresh start

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion is archived Please do not modify it.

I agree with @Goodreg3: this article is chock full of trivialities. There is zero need for photographs of council officers, there is 100% no justification for the use of the councils own positive spin in this article. Phrasing such as "smooth and efficient", "programmes and delivery of improvement and staff", and "ensure effective administration", are examples of the council writing this article through copy and pasting their website. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a dumping ground article praising the council, or written by the council. I find this article to have been put together in a very lazy manner. It verbatim parrots the council, this is not the council website, this is an encyclopedia article. This article needs such a deep clean, but it seems impossible when one user keeps on insisting on the current version and does not read the feedback or look at other articles. This article in its current format will never meet the criteria for a B class article let alone a good article. It is basically just the council website dumped here, and defended. Sport and politics (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To go further I see that a serious reading of WP:PRIMARY be undertaken. This article has over 20 instances of the council website being used as the only source for information is sections. This is not correct there must be a use of secondary sources, at the moment there are just four secondary sources. This article cannot continue in its current state. It is currently nothing more than a replication of the council website. Sport and politics (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you find it a problem please fix the article by adding more sources. You've made a complete mes of it with extreme over-use of primary tags: as you placed them you should resolve them as soon as possible. Brythones (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is remove the offending information. Without discussion though it will simply be re-added. Going fix the issue is fruitless when the improvements are usually reverted. Sport and politics (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've already been over this - for a council Wikipedia page I would say it is very well sourced. Brythones (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear there is no idea how to use sources properly here. Primary sources are generally only good sparingly. This pages is nigh on only primary sources. Parroting the council verbatim, and then using the council as the source is unencyclopedic. I suggest again a good reading of WP:PRIMARY. Secondary sources are what should be being used. Simply going, its good for a council article is meaningless when it is terrible for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this before: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them...A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." It is being used perfectly fine in this context. Brythones (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy needs reading in full. The claims being made are out of line with wikipeidia policy. The policy states specifically the following

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources

The policy further goes on to state

Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

This article clearly based on primary sources, in violation of the very first line of the policy, and an explicit do not of the policy.

This is getting very old. This article is in violation of Wikipedia policy and it feels like I am going up against an owner of the article. I would like to be able to constructively update this article, but it feels very difficult to be able to do this when there is a basic lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia policy. Sport and politics (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with your complaints of contributions by Goodreg often involving large blocks of text copied and pasted directly from the council website (which is why I'm fine with most of your last edits standing), but the fact is that South Ayrshire Council is a reliable Primary Source for this article. The article also makes use of 5 secondary sources: I think a better idea than blatantly ruining the article as a whole would be to identify problem areas and work to resolve them. It's hardly constructive for you to constantly bang on about other people "owning" the article when you are the only one trying to deliberately subvert WP:BRD here. So if you could give some of the big offenders I would be more than happy to find reliable secondary sources to improve the article. Brythones (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to work constructively, as long as there is constructive attitudes on both sides. Stating 5 secondary sources, which are used very sparingly when over 90% of the article is primary sources, it doesn't wash. Also trying to foister all the editing on to me shows a lack of constructive editing attitude. It must come from all sides .complaining about the pointing out of serious issues with an article, and when large chunks of trivia and superfluousness was removed, only to have it re-added, without any reason, is not conducive to constructive editing. There is no ruining of this article. The article is all ready in a retched state. This discussion also shows the nonsense of the claim

"you are the only one trying to deliberately subvert WP:BRD here"

Stating such is not assuming good faith. There is a discussion, what part of Bold Revert Discuss is being missed here. All I see is one user trying to prevent changes to this article based on flimsy reasoning which goes against Wikipedia policy, and justified by selective reading of Wikipedia policy. Sport and politics (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SO about those problem areas? Brythones (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears futile to attempt constructive discussion here. Comments such as the above are unhelpful. It would be helpful if there was actual discussion on the issue of unnecessary primary source use and primary source overuse. At the moment all that is occurring is attempting to avoid discussion to prevent change to the article. The simplest thing to do is remove all of the information where the council is ued as the only source and then re-add information which can if at all have a reliable secondary source. Sport and politics (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty counter-intuitive to treat the article as though you own it without contributing to it despite the on-going discussion and the fact it should be reverted to its original state based on consensus until the discussion has concluded according to wikipolicy. I also do not appreciate being called "a very difficult user" and "an angry keyboard warrior" who needs to "WP:COOL". I think that the constant edit-warring and things getting a bit too personal on my talk page has to stop. I was trying to follow wikipolicy here though you continually took it a bit too personally and reverted returning the article to its original state according to the established consensus earlier on this talk page. I'll admit my behaviour has been less than perfect here, and I'm willing to move past this if you are as well. Wikipolicy states that the use of reliable primary sources throughout an article is acceptable, I think that a good compromise to this edit conflict would be to support the larger blocks of text in the article which rely exclusively on primary sources with at least one secondary source. What do you think? Brythones (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article is undergoing a a dispute over the use of primary sources as heavily as it does, to the detriment of reliable independent secondary sources. Sport and politics (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In line with your concerns, would it be possible for you to find some secondary sources to improve the article? Brythones (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something of a problem when we only have two people discussing this in the talk page, only one of whom is actually willing to contribute to the article and try to resolve the issue. As I've said I still believe the use of non-primary tags is far too excessive as this is a descriptive article where primary sources are scarce, but your input would be nice. Brythones (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Area-based city

"South Ayrshire would have become the third city to be an "area based" city, with the other two being the City of London and the City of Westminster." This statement, despite being based on an external source, is clearly nonsense. The City of London in particular has been a city within its present rather small boundaries for many centuries. A better example might be the City of Canterbury, which now covers an area far beyond the historic city of that name, encompassing a number of what were formerly quite separate local authorities. --rossb (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the point may be in an external source, but the author of that source would not appear to be an authority on city status. Virtually all places with city status have a defined boundary, usually being a local authority (e.g Brighton & Hove, Wrexham, Carlisle, Dundee), or a parish / community (Ripon / St Asaph). It's much rarer to find a city which doesn't have a defined boundary, as appears to be an issue for Inverness. Now removed the point from this article. Stortford (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Pronunciation of “Siorrachd Àir a Deas”?

Isn’t [ˈʃirˠəxk aːɾʲ ə tʲes̪], and not [ˈʃirˠəxk ə tʲes̪], the correct Scottish Gaelic pronunciation for “Siorrachd Àir a Deas”? Compare “Siorrachd Àir a Tuath”, pronounced [ˈʃirˠəxk aːɾʲ ə t̪ʰuə]. Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]