Miscellaneous desk
< April 6	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 7

sco.wikipedia.org

What the fuck is this site? --Reference Desker (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we try to keep the Reference Desk PG please? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The Scots language version of Wikipedia. All the language versions are listed at meta:List of Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! How's this for a definition: "Lingueestic Anthropology - The study o whit wey fowk speaks an the wirds they uise an hou their languge developit". (and don't you just love the note at the bottom of the page: "This page wis hindermaist chynged 23:44, 24 Februar 2008"). I'm ga'en bak te ma roots. (on my maternal grandmothers side anyway...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is an appropriate use of the reference desk: to pick on the language and culture of others. --Jayron32 04:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I didn't understand it is another real Wikipedia project, I thought someone is faking Wikipedia. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, I'm not 'picking on it' - I think it needs appreciation for what it is, an assertion of cultural diversity in an English-dominated environment. I suspect there is a tongue-in-cheek element to the Wiki, but humour has always been a major weapon in the armoury of the more clued-up subversives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trunuff. Its just that we need to be careful of how we present ourselves. Real speakers of the Scots language may not appreciate being derided in this manner. Now speakers of the Klingon language (which once had its own Wikipedia, no shit, and had a character in the Wikipedia logoball!), there's a group that clearly needs have its chops busted... --Jayron32 04:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a Wikipedia where every article is basically the same, but rendered in the (Aberdeen) pronunciation of Scotty on Startrek! If one examines the poetry written by King James I of England (King James VI or so of Scotland) his phonetic spellings are much like this Scot 'pedia. Could there also be a PiratePedia with extra r's, like Long John Silverrrr? Edison (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who just wants to make fun of Scottish pronunciation should keep oot of that site. StuRat (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

If they keep oot of that site, how will they become successfu editors and write a weel known encyclopedia? --Reference Desker (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Robin Williams doing a bit on golf and Scotsmen.[1] Caution: Do not play at work. More F's than you can count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the ... !? --Reference Desker (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we have a Yorkshire wikipedia (or any other pronunciation variation for that matter)? The reason the Scots get their own (semi-joke) version is that they persuaded Europe to recognise their pronunciation of English as a separate language, but very few of them actually use the eye-dialect spelling. It's an old argument, and not worth the hassle of engaging. Dbfirs 16:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just pronunciation. Scots preserves far more Old English words in its vocabulary than modern English does. --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but many other dialects of northern English also preserve many of the same words from Old English, Middle English and Norse etc. Dbfirs 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly worth noting here that sco.wiki is in Scots English, not in Scots (which I think properly refers to Scots Gaelic). --Trovatore (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Scots is used for the Scots language, not for Scottish Gaelic. DuncanHill (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess I did get a little confused. The Scots language article talks about it being a distinct Germanic language, although not Gaelic, and says it's not to be confused with Scottish English. But as far as I can tell, sco.wiki is written in dialectal English, not in some other Germanic language. --Trovatore (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scots and Modern English are both derived from Old English, and have many similarities (I have heard it said that King Alfred would find modern Scots much easier to understand than Modern English). If the Scots speaking community had an army and a navy then no-one would say it was a dialect of English. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same is true for Yorkshire. Dbfirs 16:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like their article sco:Moose. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like their definition of sco:Mammal: "Mammals are craiturs that gies milk tae their affspring." --Reference Desker (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia / BSEC membership

Why was Macedonia (dreadfully inaccurate article BTW) completely left out of Black Sea Economic Cooperation BSEC. It is not an observer of any sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That links to a disambiguation page, listing quite a few other articles. Is the disambiguation page the target of your comment? If not, which page are you asking about? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I go to what appears to be the official BSEC site and look at its list of member states THEY don't list Macedonia as a member. Is the official BSEC site also "dreadfully inaccurate?" Or is this a stealth site pretending to be the official BSEC site. I'm on it. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia ain't on the Black Sea. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are Serbia, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, or Greece. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are on water, though (except Armenia). I found some blurb in google about Macedonia having put in for membership... in 1999. Looks like it takes awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Macedonia was invited to join as a result of the Yerevan conference in 2003 but never responded. This from the Greek MFA notes that the invitation was sent "under its UN-recognised name" so maybe that was the problem.[2] --JGGardiner (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OP here different PC, allow me to clarrify, The articles on Macedonian people and republic of Macedonia are dreadfully inaccurate, offensive, racist, and historically incorrect. If the greeks sent the invitation under the wrong name FYROM then well done to the Macedonians on not responding at all!!! Serbia, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Greece are not on the Black sea either and so this propted my question, as if one looks at the map of BSEC states, my Macedonian friends are a blank spot in the middle of an ocean of orange. To further my previous point, the articles previously mentioned are so offensive and wrong, that I am not willing to edit them. e.g. Macedonians identity started to develop in the 19th century?! No Macedonians have been Macedonians sine before Alexander the Great, a Macedonian. Citation not needed as all one needs to do is ask one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton19821 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the only one to think that the Macedonia articles are "wrong". See WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2. While you are free to disagree with how the articles are structured, this is the consensus that has emerged after a very long and painful struggle over how these articles are to be written. Please realize that these articles are some of the most carefully written and watched articles on the site. A lot of thought has gone into them, to insure that no one is happy with the result. That's only fair, right? Buddy431 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we have a page dedicated to laying out how things related to any of the four Macedonias (the region, the country, the Greek province, and the historical kingdom): see WP:MOSMAC. Buddy431 (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]