Talk:Tarbert

Scotland: Scottish Islands Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Scottish Islands (assessed as Mid-importance).

Content from Talk:Tarbert (placename)

Why is this in Category:Peninsulas of Scotland but not Category:Portages ?--JBellis 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. Fixed now. CarolGray 10:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

I've fixed the etymology as requested. Both the Norse and the Gaelic "derivation" were... not reliable. Cheers Akerbeltz (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feared so. Does the bit about the "first syllable "tar" has generally remained the same although occasionally spelt as "tair" but the second syllable "bert" has variously been spelled as "bart", "bert" "bat", "bad" and so on" hold water? - if so it might be useful in the context of discusing where "Tarbat", "Tarbet" etc. link to. Ben Mac Dui 07:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explanation of the Gaelic spelling change from tar to tair. As for the English spellings, it's very hard to tell whether tar spellings reflect the Old Irish base prefix (unlikely though...) or are simply a spelling approximation as neither Scots nor English ever had /ɾʲ/ (probably though). It could be either... the epenthetic vowel has occasionally been recorded in English spellings in Scotland and Ireland but not commonly enough to allow us to draw conclusions as to the origin and age of the English spelling due to the fact it *doesn't* have one. So I think what's there at the moment is the only thing we can say with certainty. We could at best I guess add the explanantion that the English spellings are most likely approximations of the Gaelic/Irish, resulting in the variation. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? The source may be dubious from an etymological perspective, but the fact that such spellings exist is not controversial, so I think its adequate. Ben Mac Dui 16:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine =) Akerbeltz (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as long as it doesn't feature any of those dreadful IPA symbols that only a dozen people in the world understand properly - please! About as "international" as Esperanto. :) --MacRusgail (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, spoke too soon. It does. Jesus - I'd reckon most English speakers would be able to pronounce it more easily from the Gaelic version!!! --MacRusgail (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion about the IPA before MacRusgail - so sorry but go away, I'm not starting it again. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going away. It's unintelligible to 99% of users. Do you understand that? You are a linguist, but it is about as "international" as Esperanto. All the people in the world that can understand it would be able to fit into a phone box with room to spare. It would be far more use to have English phonetics here that this gibberish.

By the way, I think it goes without saying that if someone is a professional linguist, they're not going to use wikipedia as a benchmark. It's hardly got a respectable reputation even with references and IPA. Next time you get IPA, please make it a Deuchars.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm you're accusing me of taking myself as the benchmark but aren't you doing the same yourself? If you have an official poll that shows global understanding of the IPA I'd love to see it - just because you can't read it and few people in your vicinity, that can hardly be scaled up to a global view. Look into any *english* dictionary by any decent publisher and you'll find IPA phonetics or in case of many US dictionaries a reliable system, systems made up on the spot have no place in an ecyclopedia. May I suggest a compromise though? How about making a sound recording and placing it next to those "dreadful" symbols? Akerbeltz (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, the sound recoding idea is interesting, but this is not the place for a discussion about Wikipedia policy on phonetics. Ben Mac Dui 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

;) I wasn't the one who brought it up again Akerbeltz (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing against the IPA - I suppose - just as long as something more user friendly is used beside it. (I don't have a scooby how to edit it for a start, let alone if it's wrong) A rendition in quasi-English phonetics may be inaccurate (esp for stuff like pre-aspiration) but it at least gives an idea.

"just because you can't read it and few people in your vicinity, that can hardly be scaled up to a global view."

My vicinity in this case being Planet Earth. ;^) Few people elsewhere know it either. I'd prefer the sound recording idea myself, anyone know how to upload one?--MacRusgail (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yes, I've uploaded sound files before, I'll try and do one for Tairbeart before then end of the week, bear with me I'm a tad busy tomorrow. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nice one. Will be useful.--MacRusgail (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Righty, I've added the sound file, also for Gigha, Skye and Falkirk. Have a shufty and tell me what you think, it might be a good idea to add them (gradually) to all the place name pages with a Gaelic name on them. It's easier to find a good spot for it though on the pages with an infobox... any good ideas where to put it on pages which don't have one? Akerbeltz (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above copied to WP:ISLET for a more central discussion.... Ben Mac Dui 07:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbet/bat etc

My vote would be that the disambiguation/list page includes these too. Thoughts? --MacRusgail (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to to Talk:Tarbert :-) Ben Mac Dui 08:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Talk

This page doesn't conform to the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages. Does anyone mind if I create a page Tarbert (disambiguation), and change Tarbert into an ordinary article, removing it from Category:Disambiguation? CarolGray 20:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought it over, I decided the best course was to create a new page Tarbert (placename) and move the information about the derivation of the name over there. CarolGray 15:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

We appear to have two disambiguation pages for Tarbert (as well as Tarbet). The reason appears above. WPSI has been quite happy to have placename derivations on dab pages. I suggest combining Tarbert and Tarbert (placename). Either could be the main page with the other redirecting to it. Finavon (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think this will work if it's to conform to MOSDAB. WPSI may do (have done) this but visiting Professors of Dabs have usually been unkind about it. An article (i.e. Tarbert (placename) in its current guise) can do as it pleases within reasonable limits, but Tarbert as a dab should only have blue or red linked items with no description.

What could work (per CarolGray's suggestion above) is:

The content of the current "Tarbert (placename)" moved to "Tarbert"

The content of the current "Tarbert" moved to "Tarbert (disambiguation)"

"Tarbert (placename)" becomes a redirect to "Tarbert"

I don't think the discussion begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Islands#Tarbert was ever concluded and it might be useful to try and tackle that at the same time. Ben Mac Dui 15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read this, all things considered I'd go for

West Loch Tarbert & East Loch Tarbert for Harris and West Loch Tarbert, Argyll & East Loch Tarbert, Argyll

with all four indentified on whatever is agreed to be the Tarbert dab page. Ben Mac Dui 15:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All four now so identified with articles in place. Ben Mac Dui 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging the two, to the address "Tarbert (placename)". I would suggest that Tarbert in Argyll is the main article.

If they are merged then the merged page has to be an article, not a dab page, per the above - which is possible.

What is the primacy of the Argyll one over the Harris one? Ben Mac Dui 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Tarbat" should probably direct to there too. I can think of a few tarberts. As far east as the isle of May.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "Tarbat" that isn't Portmahomack? Ben Mac Dui 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbert, Outer Hebrides

A merge tag was place on the "Tarbert" section of the Harris article, suggesting a merge with Tarbert, Outer Hebrides, which for reasons explained at Talk:Harris I have removed. If there are any further views the discussion may as well be continued here. Ben Mac Dui 15:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion was somewhat moribund I boldly made the changes generally per the above:

The description of the name is now "Tarbert" rather than "Tarbert (placename)"

The dab page is "Tarbert (disambiguation)", "Tarbert"

"Tarbert (placename)" is a redirect to "Tarbert (disambiguation)"

I moved the article and talk pages by editing them rather than using a complex set of moves that might have needed intermediate locations. Ben Mac Dui 19:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]