Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Burgh of Partick

I have a book purporting to list all of the burghs of Scottish history. However, it does not mention Partick, yet Partick is frequently called a burgh and has a burgh hall. Does anyone know the explanation for this. Was it actually ever a burgh? And if it was a burgh, as it seems to have been, what kind of burgh was it. BTW, is there any contradiction between being a burgh and being (in the non-episcopal sense) a city? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing a sign in Partick saying the "Burgh of Partick"- can't remember where though. Astrotrain 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
See the Police burgh article for the many burgh variants (now linked from Partick and Govan). AllyD 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, all that clears it up. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
If it helps, Partick was annexed into Glasgow in 1912[1] after being created in 1852[2] as a Police Burgh[3].--MBRZ48 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Abernethy Move

A user has moved Abernethy to Abernethy, Perth and Kinross, and edited the old Abernethy page as a dab page, so that his moved can only be reversed by an admin. Am I the only one who opposes this? Is a biscuit brand really more significant than one of the most important religious and literary centres in medieval Scotland? Now everyone who GOs it will have to know its in the arbitrary and newly created region of Perth and Kinross. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, it's the Cork debacle all over again. (Goes to see if the same users are involved...) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see the disam page again. Most of the references are to other uses of "Abernethy" as a placename, there are others around the world as well as varying geographical and contextual use in Scotland. Due to the overwhelming number of Perthshire references, the others are hard to find via the "Search" box. I would have loved to have used the label "Abernethy, Perthshire" but despite this being in my experience the accepted usage there are others who routinely and swiftly "modernise" Scottish placename references even when it makes a contextual nonsense.--MBRZ48 03:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at Forth too. Maybe I'm biased but the programming language doesn't come to mind first, and it should be a disambig redirect.--MacRusgail 13:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Systemic bias (Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anoraks can edit) strikes again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Moves that are likely to be contentious should be done via WP:RM. Both examples above (to move Abernethy back; retarget Forth) should be listed on WP:RM. For guidelines on when to disambiguate and what the primary topic is see WP:DAB. As for that dabpage, see WP:MOSDAB for layout guidelines!

My 2p - the village of Abernethy is clearly the primary topic. Forth should be a disambiguation page as there is no clear primary topic (that it currently is the programming language is a sign of systematic bias, which is understandable). Thanks/wangi 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know whether I'll get a slapped wrist for this, but I've moved Seton (surname) to Seton as a disambig, and what was at Seton to Seton stitch, I think that was the right thing to do? Brendandh 15:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
For the cut'n'paste move, yes :) (see WP:MV and WP:CPMV). Seton should probably be a dabpage, with Seton (surname) as one of it's entries. /wangi 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Requested move of Forth to Forth programming language and Forth (disambiguation) to Forth now open at Talk:Forth. I'll do the Abernethy one later. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The [{Forth]] requested move is done, so I have opened a requested move for Abernethy, Perth and Kinross to move to Abernethy. Have your say at Talk:Abernethy, Perth and Kinross. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Transport in Scotland

If i were to start a WikiProject as i think there desperately need to be one on Edinburgh and Glasgow (seperate ones or one as a whole?), how would i maintain it as i am not any good in that area? Should i set one up and would i have to be the main person if i did? Simply south 23:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably in way over my head and it may be too big but if anyone is interested (and could probably do a better job than i could) I have proposed a WikiProject on the proposals page of the WikiProject Council for one to cover Transport around Glasgow and Edinburgh. Simply south 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone greatly different to how i expected so now Transport in Scotland. Simply south 12:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The page Could use an experienced Editor's help. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sutherville

Sutherville looks like a hoax to me. If anybody knows different, please remove the {{prod}} tag. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted it, if it were a real place that article didn't have enough context... and it isn't a real place, so... /wangi 12:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed re-draft of Scotland: Geography sub-section

I have created a proposed revision for the Geography sub-section of the Scotland page at User:Ben MacDui/Scotland/Geography redraft. Constructive comments are welcome on the associated Talk page. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Holy Isle, Firth of Clyde

Just a request for someone to look in at the Holy Isle, Firth of Clyde article. User talk:JFBurton removed a chunk of information about the Gaelic name of the island, I replaced it, and he removed it again saying "I dont think the gaelic stuff is really nessicary Grinner. Do it again and I'll issue you with a ban". Just a heads up about this really. Cheers Grinner 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That passage seems eminently reasonable to me. It looks as if JFBurton may be making some kind of WP:POINT against User:Billlion. --Blisco 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Military of Scotland

I'd like to draw attention to the edits by an anonymous user starting with this edit, on the Military of Scotland article. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Calendar

Any interest in doing something with this, say along the lines of Irish calendar? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Three or four US editors are attempting to push a heavy US-POV on the naming of Cytisus scoparius, a UK topic about a Scottish native plant, trying to enforce US name usage. Please help out at Talk:Cytisus scoparius - thanks, MPF 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of those "three or four US editors", I believe that MPF has badly misinterpreted our actions and motives in editing this article. Several of us (with the support of at least one Scotsman, I might note) have objected to MPF's (1) use of a Wikipedia article to attempt to discourage a common name that is VERY widely used in English speaking countries (not just the USA) for a widely cultivated and naturalized plant, and (2) unsupported assertion that the name "Scotch broom" for this plant is offensive. The name "Scotch broom" as a common name in the USA goes back to at least 1818, long before any controversy over whether "Scotch" is, in and of itself, an offensive term to be avoided at all costs. Note also that as now revised the article is not attempting to enforce "Scotch broom" as a common name for this plant, but rather is stating, neutrally, simply that this name is used in certain countries outside the UK. MrDarwin 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. At this point I am just sick and tired of being told how stupid American common names for plants are--especially being told this by someone who spends no time finding out how the plant got the name, and was wrong a couple of times, making incorrect assumptions about the meaning of the common name. No editor was trying to push "a heavy US-POV on the naming of Cytisus scoparius or "trying to enfource US name usage." What we are almost always trying to do in the case of MPF's edits is trying to remove his denigrating comments about American choices of common names. I'd bet anything he doesn't insult Brittish common names. KP Botany 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

An Comunn Gàidhealach and Comunn na Gàidhlig

I've added An Comunn Gàidhealach and Comunn na Gàidhlig to the list of stubs needing expansion. Also, ACG's website seems to be down. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

'Shopping' Section on Kirkcaldy page

An anonymous user has added a relatively large section on shopping to the Kirkcaldy article. I tweaked the format of the headings, but from first impressions the section is POV, can someone have a look for me please.--Liam Mason 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed most of the POV stuff I found (throughout the article), fixed a lot of typos etc. The text could still use a hefty rewrite; do we really need to know the dates all the shops in Kirkcaldy opened? dull as... --duncan 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That was my opinion too :) I think we may get some POV pushing from this anonymous user. --Liam Mason 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on all the edits that are happening. Generally they are all about the modern history of shops in Kirkcaldy, and opinions on areas of the town. Fairly badly written, with frequent typos and grammatical mistakes, and overly concerned with where things are located relative to each other, e.g. "Kirkcaldy also has another small shopping centre on Hill Street known as The Postings which can be accessed best by the gap between Bank of Scotland Halifax and New Look which brings you straight up to the doors or round by Hunter Street." I'm starting to go in with a bit of a heavier hand and removing a lot of trivial nonsense, but would appreciate some other users taking a look over some of the edits by 80.193.58.202 --duncan 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Scots language discussion

Those of you with an interest in Scots and the Scots language wikipedia may wish to take a look at the village pump here. Take a deep breath now. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Australians trying to annex Perth

Should all Perth related categories be assumed to relate to the Australian Perth? Seems to presume ours doesn't exist. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Perth--Docg 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've spent some time dabbing Perth. I'm thinking that a dab page is wrong, and that Perth, Western Australia should be there. Most uses of Perth seem to refer to the antipodean city. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The original Perth is in Scotland. So maybe that page should just be Perth and the other Perth, Western Australia. David Lauder 12:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've argued previously that both Perths are equally notable for different reasons and thus that the current solution is the best. I realise that Perth, WA has more links in Wikipedia than Perth, Scotland but I still maintain that that is because Perth, WA is the only settlement of any size in Western Australia. As a result any WA-related article (of which there are quite a few) tends to mention it whereas articles on Scotland don't reference Perth, Scotland to nearly the same extent: there are other towns in Scotland. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Perth, Scotland, is the original Perth, an ancient city and capitol of a county named after it. It should always take precedence. David Lauder 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, good luck with getting consensus on that. It took a lot of persuasion on my part to even get people to agree to give them equal treatment. Going by the last discussion on the disambiguation page, I'm pretty certain that if it comes to another vote the majority of Wikipedians around the world will vote for Perth, WA as the most important now, whatever you or I might think. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sadly true, although you can always get even by adding to Scottish place names in other countries. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gairloch Highland Gathering - candidate for deletion?

I have prodded Gairloch Highland Gathering. What do other editors think? --Mais oui! 11:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[4] Seems verifiable? But I just don't like 'notability' deletions.--Docg 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In my view it is perhaps an honest attempt, but an 'advertisement masquerading as an article' nonetheless and {db:spam}. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lavellan - vandalism

Can people keep an eye on the "lavellan" article please? It seems to be undergoing regular vandalism. --MacRusgail 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested photographs

I have just come across this cat.

--Mais oui! 10:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories for discussion

Please would people have a look here and post their thoughts, I think there should be more of a Caledonian influence on this one . Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 18#Category:Straths and glens Cheers Brendandh 12:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. In my view 'Valleys of Scotland' is a rather odd idea. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There was that song Andy Stewart used to sing: "For these are my mountains and this is my valley", or something like that. There are no end of weirdly named categories, Category:Scottish pre-union military personnel killed in action is especially euphonious. Picking on this one seems unfair. If nothing else it will make it easier for the category gnomes to find the right one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even in the song, it's "glen":

For these are my mountains, and this is my glen
The braes of my childhood will know me again

"Valleys of Scotland" definitely sounds odd. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Same kind of bias creeping in under articles about lochs. --MacRusgail 17:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are instances of "Valley" in Scotland, e.g. Valleyfield etc, but it is not the common word. However, one of the more famous Scottish rock songs is Into the Valley by The Skids.--MacRusgail 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fauna article

I've posted an article on the Fauna of Scotland. I'd like to think it is a decent amateur effort, but I am not a zoologist and would appreciate input from Wikipedians with a knowledge of the subject. I also note the existence of Wildlife of Scotland. I think its fair to say it's a start class article and does not even mention flora. (Fauna = animals only of course, 'wildlife' = flora and fauna). Should this be ignored, should a merge or a deletion be suggested, or... ? I note the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland. Any advice or pointers gratefully received. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


David I of Scotland

24.150.239.91 (talk • contribs) has comprehensively revamped David I of Scotland. Don't cheer just yet. Apart from some tidying, all 140kb of the addition was added in a single edit. Now it's possible that the article was written offline, and pasted in here, but there are some strange features. Reading the text, it seems likely to be an academic paper of some sort; so far so good. It's certainly an improvement on what was there before, and perhaps I'm assuming bad faith. However, there are a couple of glitches that suggest to me that it was OCR'd: "Malcolm Ш" appears in place of "Malcolm III". Having upper-case sha in place of III is not a very likely typing error. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation, but if it was your paper, written in the last couple of years, wouldn't you have an electronic version? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd share some of those concerns... Notice also the section numbering used. One thing is certain, it's not a source published on the 'net or any book in Google Books search list. Thanks/wangi 23:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whence it came, the article needs some serious copyediting. It includes phrases like, "During the reign of king David I, Scotland was not made – it was re-made." (As an aside, the word "king" seems to be always lower case in the heavy-prose sections. Odd.) – Kieran T (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Most recent source is Oram, 2005. It's about 20,000 words long, maybe journal-article or short dissertation length. Hmm. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The mystery is resolved - see Talk:David I of Scotland, where it's "...a pared down version of a Master's Thesis on king David, written by Jordan Diacur (ie. me) for Prof. Elizabeth Ewan, at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, and completed in February, 2006". Shimgray | talk | 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read through this tome it's obvious that it requires a little wikification. On the whole though, with a few tweaks here and there, proper referencing, and some piccies, this I think has a sound basis for good article status, poss. featured article. Brendandh 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Does somebody want to welcome the user and perhaps probe a bit? Just to make sure we're not away to cleanup up some copyvio text. Thanks/wangi 09:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Already welcomed a while back. I left a note. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anne of Great Britain

Anne of Great Britain has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrp (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 January 2007

The treasure of Loch Arkaig

Anyone got a picture of Loch Arkaig I/we could have for this? We could use an article on the Loch itself too, ot at least a redirect to an article on the area for now. I am also finding borderline sources that speak of Spanish coins found more recently in the vicinity - but I can't find any more that in reliable sources. Any help? BtW, our coverage of the various non-royal Jacobite figures sucks.--Docg 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some on Geograph which are {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, which I believe is an acceptable license. Try here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've sort of finished this now. But any comments/improvements would be welcome. It has been nominated for a DYK. I'd particularly like to beef up the sources if anyone has any specialist books on the Jacobites, they might scan the indexes and add in some corroboration. --Docg 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Geograph is indeed quite acceptable. There are various minor licencing protocols I was given some instruction in recently if you need a hand. Talking of royalty I note that Queen Victoria has a fine article dedicated to her inestimable role - which barely mentions Scotland but has an entire section on Ireland. Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put an image for that source in (thanks). I just hope I've got the commons licence right. I've also stared a complementing article on Archibald Cameron of Locheil (but this still needs work - I've more sources to work in). I'm rather appalled that there is nothing on the 'gentle Locheil' either. Where are our Jacobites!!!? I mean we've got every noble nonentity in the English peerage you care to name.--Docg 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A major problem is that it can get a bit confusing for the casual contributor to figure out who was who, esp. with those multifarious Camerons. Would it be worth a competent historian of the period cobbling together a short list of significant figures in the '45 and then we can work out which ones we can crib from the DNB, etc? Shimgray | talk | 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup. But I'm not the man. I'm working off a couple of basic books and a google. But I would love to see Donald Cameron of Lochiel go blue. And I'd be over the moon if it ended up as a dab.--Docg 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll give it an hour of work and see what I can do. If he's not in the DNB I'll be shocked ;-). Shimgray | talk | 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Donald Cameron of Lochiel - basic but done. Just a general one-page overview; feel free to expand it. Shimgray | talk | 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
As for disambigging, have some stubs ;-) - Donald Cameron, 24th Lochiel, Donald Cameron, 25th Lochiel Shimgray | talk | 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Succession boxes here we come ;) --Docg 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I amended the licensing. It was probably OK from a legal point of view before, but this way gives clearer access to the original site etc.. I am by no means an expert in this black art but I think it will do. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks looks good. I've added John Murray of Broughton to my Jacobite series. Any help welcome. I'm rather enjoying this!--Docg 21:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunfermline

Could someone take a look at the Dunfermline page? Dunfermline has 4 High Schools, and the article currently has sections on the historic Dunfermline High School, and the not-historic but quite big Queen Anne High School (5th largest school in Scotland). QAHS also has it's own page. Various anonymous IP addresses keep removing the QAHS section from the page, due to it's perceived lack of importance. To give you an idea of what I mean, their edit summaries are:

  • QAHS section not relevant, DHS has a notable history so it deserves space. QAHS was a substandard school set up for people who failed the "qualy" exam.[5]
  • Deleted Queen Anne Section- irrelevant, vanity, not history[6]
  • Removed unencyclopaedic information[7]
  • Removed other 3 schools(unimportant vanity inaccurate)[8] (This last one removed small sections on the other 2 schools as well)

However I believe they are displaying POV against QAHS, as the content seems fine to me. As far as I'm concerned, if Dunfermline HS has a section, there shouldn't be a problem with the other High Schools also having sections, provided it's notable, verifiable etc. Any opinions on what should be the correct course of action here? --duncan 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have spent a few minutes cleaning up the formatting of that section. DHS should probably have its own article and there's enough in the Dunfermline article to start a stub. Then the section in the Dunfermline article needs to be shorter, in summary style. I'll keep an eye on the article. Ta/wangi 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Harris

The poor old thing seems to receive more than its fair share of vandalism and could probably do with another watcher or two. A recent edit here by a new user adds an external link which is probably spam, but I am not sure. Could an experienced spam-watcher take a look please? Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clan Fraser

Hello everyone, as some of you may have noticed, I've basically written the Clan Fraser article all by me lonesome (that's actually true; I would avoid claiming it if I could), and I would love some input as to how I (or others!) could improve the article. I wonder if I should go about this by requesting a Peer Review? I'm completely knew at actually attempting to gain status (sush as GA or FA) for articles, and I'd love whatever input I can get from y'all knowledgeable and generous fellow Scots. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone in Anstruther?

Anstruther Fish Bar needs a better picture?--Docg 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Imminent deletion of Category:People associated with Aberdeen

I am very concerned indeed about this on-going CFD. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the nominator, nor by any of their supporters, as to why this Aberdeen cat has been targeted, out of the set of related "people associated with" Scottish cats. They have also completely ignored the wide range of sub-categories. This is a disgraceful example of the arbitrary pig-headedness that can be CFD, and I urge everyone with an interest in Scottish biography, or in Aberdeen-related content, to take a close look at the category, and its sister categories, and contribute to the CFD discussion. Thanks. --Mais oui! 07:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hamilton

Can anyone help me out here? I have a Canadian cousin intent on wrecking. Brendandh 10:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Crikey, you have an interesting little tussle going on there ;-D
Why is it that some people just refuse to believe that Scots invented the whole world, and everything in it?
My diplomacy skills rate about -5 out of 10, so I will leave that one to calmer heads, but the situation as is looks ridiculous, with a perfectly well-cited intro being supressed. --Mais oui! 11:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The guideline is not relevant to this page. The article which is currently suffering dispute is Scottish and hence relevant to other users with knowledge of or interest in Scottish matters. "Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion" - which is hardly the same as alerting users of a dispute affecting an article which is connected to their area or region of knowledge. siarach 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board: Canvassing and vote stacking?

See current discussion on WP:AN. Tyrenius 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute regarding treaties relevant to the formation of the United Kingdom

There is currently a dispute going on at the Template talk:UKFormation which regard the inclusion of treaties specific to England within the template which aims to display the treaties leading to the formation of the United Kingdom i.e. the Union of Parliaments and Union of Crowns before that. Comment upon the dispute is needed so that a consensus may be reached. siarach 04:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to take merge request to Talk - 3RR breached

We have a live wire at Burgh constituency. He has failed to take a unilateral merge (actually in effect a deletion) to Talk, and has just breached WP:3RR. I am not going to waste my time reporting it, but can some other editors please look at the article, and comment on the Talk page as to whether a merge is suitable.

--Mais oui! 09:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no case to answer. Duplicate article => unconditional merge. End of discussion. Chris cheese whine 09:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... if you were so confident of the crystal clarity of your case, why do you point blank refuse to even discuss it on the Talk page? Despite repeated requests. --Mais oui! 10:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Because there is nothing to discuss. Chris cheese whine 10:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ho, ho!! Good luck with that attitude... --Mais oui! 10:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

John D. Mackay

Could someone please, please, please have a look at John D. Mackay and its history and the relevant Talk page. This has gone on for far, far, far too long, and it must stop now. I beg, literally beg, some other sensible editors to Watch that page and contribute to the Talk discussion. (Does this article even satisfy WP:NOTABILITY???) --Mais oui! 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Civil War

Please may I drawr wikipedian attention to the article Scottish Civil War The title of this article is misleading ... these wars are not commonly called the Scottish Civil War? The only book to have the title "Scottish Civil War" refers to the Wars of Scottish Independence [10]. This is a wiki neologism ... blatanly formed by anglicizing the terminology, taking from English Civil War. There are loads of Scottish civil wars ... no reason for this one to get that title. The page should be moved to a established historical term. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was pleased to see your comment here because I had all but given up on this. There is some odd tendency to call the Civil War in Britain the English Civil War, whereas it spread to Scotland and Ireland accordingly. It seems to me that whatever the title is it should not be Scottish Civil War because there has never been an acknowledged Scottish Civil War as such (although I grant you the Scots seem throughout history to be at war with one another and everyone else also!). David Lauder 12:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SCOWNB WP:SCO etc. - Spring cleaning

Started at Mais oui! and Ben MacDui Talk pages. Please make any further comments here, not there. Ta.

G'day. I trust the tandem is holding up. I am finally beginning to get my head around the various WP:SCOWNB WP:SCO P:SCO etc pages and I notice lots of duplication e.g. lists of GAs, FAs members on WP:SCOWNB & WP:SCO. Is there a reason for this, or have things just grown and nobody got round to tidying them up? I am resisting the urge to do some re-organising, but is there any useful history or discussion anywhere to be aware of? Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm.... yeah.... sorry about that!!
I have a bad (sometimes good) habit of starting things, but then losing interest! It was me that initiated the noticeboard, the portal, and the WikiProject. WP:SCOWNB took a while to find its feet, but once it had, I personally stopped acting as its informal "manager". This meant that I stopped archiving and cleaning it up. Of course I should have asked for helpers, but I have the attention span of a flea, so just forgot about it. It needs a serious cleanout/tidy/archiving!
The WikiProject is in its infancy, but it is really the more powerful tool for driving up the quality of key articles and sets of articles. But it too needs a "Manager" or a small management team.
Finally, the Portal. It is a great tool for visitors to help them navigate. Cactusman and me did a lot in the beginning, but it too needs some keen folk to drive it forward, hopefully up to Featured portal status.
I am quite a good entrepreneur, but like many of that ilk I find actually growing/managing an enterprise once it is established a bit tedious!
A good idea might be to put round a circular, letting everyone on those two lists of participants know that their country needs them. I am sure we would get several volunteers, it is just making people aware of the wonderful possibilities of these tools and others.
Please note that Regional noticeboards and WikiProjects actually have different remits, but because the nb started long before the wp, it actually has several duplicate features (it was acting a bit like a wp). Those features should just be removed - eg lists of FAs, GAs etc. It should simply be a pin up board for temporary notes and informal chats at the Talk page. The wp is the forum for serious coordination.
If you are interested in this, then please benchmark our nb, wp and portal against other good ones.
Finally, my lovelife is going wonderfully thank you v much indeed. I think and hope that this may be "the one" :) That also means I have less time for this malarky, but I will still be very much "around". Wikipedia is great, but just watch out for the trolls! --Mais oui! 07:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am undertaken some unsupervised pruning. Unless there are others who wish to offer to collaborate I am not going to enlarge on the logic, but will respond to questions/complaints. At some point I hope to merge the WP:SCOWNB participants with the WP:SCO active members and significantly reduce the 'To Do' box at the former. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In transferring names from WP:SCOWNB to WP:SCO I have also been placing the following message on the Talk pages of Users who were not already on both pages. However, this is a rather time-consuming exercise and I hope that those concerned will not mind if I place it here as a general notice. Hopefully such members are already watching this page.

WP:SCOWNB Participants merger with WP:SCO: As I hope you may have seen I am attempting to tidy up WP:SCOWNB by removing old notices and the duplication that has emerged since the creation of WP:SCO. One of the latter issues is that there are lists of active Wikipedians on both locations which overlap to a significant degree. As WP:SCOWNB is ideally a place for announcements I am in process of merging the lists at WP:SCO and intend to remove the one at WP:SCOWNB when this is complete. However there are a fair number of Users not on both lists. If you do not wish to have you current WP:SCOWNB entry re-appear at WP:SCO please either let me know or edit the latter as appropriate. Thanks for your patience, and continuing support of matters relating to WikiProject Scotland. Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Scottish New Zealand and Scottish Australian

I have noticed that theres a lack of Scottish New Zealand and Scottish Australian pages could something be done to create the pages and also update the Scots-Canadian pages too. Also to involve the Scottish communities in all three countries? Blacksands 17:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created category:Scottish immigrants to Australia as well, for people born here. --MacRusgail 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fettes College

Please note that this article is basically being turned into a eulogy on this school. When I provided sourced material about controversy at the school, it has been removed, as has the comment that private schools are not traditionally referred to as "public schools" in Scotland. As it stands, it seems to be written by pupils/staff and needs a neutral hand. Whoever's been at it has also buggert up the tag at the top of the discussion page. --MacRusgail 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the youtube video story Lurker oi! 17:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
MacRusgail, "public schools" in Scotland are state schools, there is no ambiguity about this; employing the idiosyncratic English usage of the term is simply ignorant, besides the fact the most English-speakers are American and share the Scottish usage (i.e. there is no possibility of a usage argument). It's true that students at some of these schools often refer to their school as "public", but that merely reflects the fact that the Englishness and anglophila of many of these schools encourages such misinformation of actual Scottish usage. Ignorant usage of the term should be reverted on sight. As to the eugolizing, it might be better to wait for a bit, and then clean it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)
The drugs scandals, shooting incident and false claims by a staff member of suffering from terminal cancer should bring some balance to the article. These incidents were all well-reported in the media Lurker oi! 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've found a page dedicated to recent scandals at the schools, which is simply terrible. Since the relevant information is now in the Fettes College article, I've nominated it for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lurker (talk • contribs) 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
I totally agree Calgacus, but Fettes, being what it is, usually doesn't follow the Scottish line in anything. Including education (Highers and Standard Grades have been boycotted by the school). The reception of schools like this is hardly universally positive - Eton has a large amount of notoreity, much more so than Fettes, due to being much more famous.--MacRusgail 17:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I am probably not qualified to pass judgement here, as a former pupil of the place. (see:Talk:Hamilton for other things that I'm not qualified to talk about!) However, Fettes always refers to itself as a Public School and so does the Headmasters' conference. I do not want to go down the road of the talk page on the Public school article, but with apologies to Calgacus, I have never heard of any modern secondary school in Scotland being called a Public school. Generally state schools or independent schools can call themselves what they like, e.g. Dundee grammar, Knox academy, Fettes college or Broughton high. However I also do agree that there has been a certain amount of prettification rather than wikification here in this article. I would suggest that it is either a senior pupil toadying or a master trying to encourage international parents. So be it, WP is not here for advertising anything supposedly apart from verifiable truth. I say put all the stuff back, watch the page, but please let the place call itself what it wants to. Brendandh 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have heard them called that loads of times, although I've never really been exposed to an Anglicising environment, and what of that I have been exposed to came too late and after living in America. Anyways, look up at the incriptions on many of the older public school buildings or ex-School buildings, as they often state that they are public school, as in "Govan Parish Public School" I once saw written on a building in Glasgow, on the north side of the Clyde (can't remember which school/library that was). Lemme add that although I honestly don't know what the "ordinary person" (whoever that is) in rural Buchan or Cowal calls a state school, I do know that a few institutions or bodies of people who brainlessly ape the English don't override official definitions. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The primary school I went to was, and still is, called B______ Public School. It was, and still is, a public school, unlike Fettes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on Jocelin

Just to give a head up on the article Jocelin. It will appear on the main page on Saturday, so that I'd ask that some of you put the links which will appear on the mainpage ( see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2007) on your watchlist. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lord Warden of the Marches

Another case of an Anglocentric perspectives here. This office was mirrored in Scotland. Anybody have the time or inclination to sort it out? Brendandh 21:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start, but I don't know enough about the position to do more than say it was a position in both countries and to add a link to a scottish holder of the title. Lurker oi! 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Place

Further to this notice posted on the template's talk page on 20th February, this reversion and this unanimous TFD interested contributors are invited to Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regan123 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already made it plain that I do not support the dropping of the historic county field, but my objections have been ignored. If this is supposed to replace the existing templates it absolutely needs to provide the same information as the previous ones or a lot of editors are going to be very annoyed. Owain (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change. It has. consensus has been assessed three times in response to your complaints, and in each case, the new consensus was not to your liking.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)::: Aren't there already templates for Scottish places? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of what is going on here is hazy but I believe someone has designed a new infobox in the hope it may become a standardised UK one and that there is a 'roll-out' replacement of the Scottish template going on. I suggested it might be helpful to have this clarified here but the only response so far is the above. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC

There is now some kind 'template proposed for deletion' tag at Template talk:Infobox Scotland place.Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Claymores edit war

Can someone please intervene here? I've got so wound up I blanked the page, which I know was totally the wrong thing to do, but I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown over this shit. BlueCanary 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a look - it appears to be a straight up case of an editor who doesn't know how this place works - nothing to get too wound up about, they just need to be made aware of the rules and regs; and if they then still don't follow them made aware that we are not really happy about folks flouting them. You tagged for NPOV and gave a valid concern on the talk page - irrespective of anything else that should have remained until all parties were happy - instead the editor just removed it. I see from your talk page you are taking some time away ATM. Hopefully you will come back after a bit of a break and get stuck in. I'm afraid my knowledge of the Claymores is pretty limited, but there is another established editor on the article who has also got concerns. The "brand new editors who want an article to read *exactly* as they want" type tend not to stick around for too long. Regards, SFC9394 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox place vote: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place

There is a call to delete the Scottish (Welsh, and London) infoboxes and replace them with a UK Great Britain template currently in use for English places. The vote is taking place at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been clashes over trying to impose this template already? E.g., on Portree, where supporters of the new template are rolling back Mais oui!s explained edits with popups ... BEFORE THE VOTE HAS TAKEN PLACE! The new Anglo-British infobox is inferior in some ways and superior in many ways, but these superior features can be incorporated into the Scottish template. The Portree article is not a good sign. With issues like English versus Scottish and Gaelic versus Scots fuelling them, the new template will surely lead to more content disputes and revert wars over both the template and on individual pages. Am I wrong to be worried? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion just moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Free Church vandalism

Please note the problems at "Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)" --MacRusgail 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for offering this opportunity. However, having observed that the essentially unanimous views expressed by my colleagues and I were completely ignored, I see no purpose in lending this discussion (designed to impose yet further standardisation) a legitimacy I do not believe it deserves. If you and your colleagues wish to seek views on use of the UK Infobox in Scotland I would be happy to take part. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The debate closed with an overwhelming consensus not to include any flags in the UK place infobox. As for me and my colleages, well you are my colleage are you not? And if you had voted, we may have formed a consensus that was otherwise for this infobox (I personally didn't want to loose the flags, so please don't assume or assert that there is a group of editors with a shared standpoint forcing things upon articles). With regards to editting articles in Scotland, well Wikipedia exists in cyberspace, and is not in Scotland or in anyplace physical. If you mean editting articles relating to Scotland, well nobody owns articles, and particularly not so on grounds of nationality; anybody has the right to contribute, so long as it satisfies the various guides of Wikipedia. Jhamez84 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jhamez84. I note you refer to my experiment with the Inverness UK infobox to which I added a saltire. The issue at hand seems to me to be an interesting one. The infobox is clearly used about Scotland, which, as I think you know, is what I mean. I should be happy to include you as a colleague as well, although what I mean (of course) is that I think that those of us who are actively engaged in working on Scottish topics ought to have some kind of say over how our work should be organised. Clearly we all need to find a way to work together and for those of us working in smaller countries/regions or areas of knowledge it is an inevitable fact of life that those who inhabit the larger space will seek from time to time to impose their will. That is the nature of the democratic process. However, it is my view that in an ideal world, globalisation/standardisation and the imposition of such outside standards should be kept to a minimum rather than assumed as the ideal. A sort of wiki -double devolution if you like. Thus for me, it is not really helpful to brandish UK=England consensus on such matters. The Union (peace be upon it) is a lop-sided one. If there is any difference of opinion between the larger partner and the smaller, the larger will inevitably win on a show of hands. This is a potentially dispiriting situation - after all from a Scottish perspective the initial infobox discussion 'closed with an overwhelming consensus not to' delete the Scotland infobox. That did not seem to matter. To put it another way, I no more seek to OWN the use of an infobox in Scotland than I imagine users working from an English or UK perspective would wish to do so. (And to be quite specific a user's nationality is of course irrelevant). Perhaps I am wasting everyone's time, but if you are unwilling to allow individual users the freedom to use an infobox as they see fit without invoking a (to me) quite unnecessary appeal to a 'consensus', perhaps a debate about what those active in Scotand want, as opposed to don't want, is in order.

Here are some suggestions.

  1. The map should normally be that of 'Scotland'
  2. I may be wrong, but the parish field seems to be to be largely irrelevant in modern Scotland and shouldn't normally be used.
  3. The Ambulance field is essentially irrelevant in Scotland as everyone is served by the Scottish Ambulance Service. Ideally this field would be removed.
  4. Distance to Edinburgh rather than distance to London would be the default. The latter could of course be included too (although I wonder if our colleagues working in England would mind having the distance to Edinburgh included in Kent infoboxes).
  5. An optional Saltire could be included at the bottom.
  6. I don't know enough about the template syntax, but ideally a 'historic county' field would be available. 'Highland' for example is not generally as useful as 'Caithness'.

What do others think? Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I really can't speak for other editors. I've just had a hand in a few of the straw polls (I've tried to include as many editors as possible unlike others - though I appear to have taken the flak for the not being inclusive) and made some maps. But I think you raise these issues directly at the UK place infobox talk page. Jhamez84 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I don't agree with your position on this issue I certainly think you have done what you can to communicate it and I apologise if you feel blamed for the transgressions of others. However, I see very little point in raising these issues at UK level unless there is something resembling a 'Scottish view' as most of them seem to have been decided some time ago. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Town twinning

For well over a year now we have had small-scale edit wars (or in the case of Vancouver a significant skirmish) over the issue of which flags and links to use on Scotland's towns and cities, in the "Twin towns/Sister cities" sections of places around the world. Yesterday I was attacked as a "troll" for restoring the standard Flag of Scotland.svg, and linking to Scotland, on several articles. We need a discussion about this. I personally am sick to the back teeth of a very small number of POVers, usually using IP addresses, slinking round removing the "Scotland" from places in Scotland.

This issue has affected a large number of articles, but here are yesterday's examples:

The main edit warrior (and his IPs) actually knocked it on the head a few months ago, and it seems that we now only have this one maverick (a relatively new User) at present. I used to just ignore this nonsense, but the type of people who do this kind of thing seem to go out of their way to be as obnoxious as possible, and I refuse to be subjected to slander and threats. --Mais oui! 09:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is (or at least should be) a simple problem to solve. For Town Twinning, I would personally insist on using the flag of the constituent country, simply because towns can also be twinned within the United Kingdom (Paisley and Stockport for example). This would be a common sense approach rather than a POV approach, surely. Jhamez84 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You would have thought so, but some people seem to go ballistic whenever they see the mere mention of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales and simply erase all reference to them upon sight. We discussed this at WikiProject UK geography last year, and it was nearly unanimous that the constituent country must be given. --Mais oui! 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a convention should be drawn up as to when to use the consitueny county and when to use the UK? This would settle a whole host of problems... I think using the constituent country for twinning, place of birth and as the country where a settlement lies is the most useful approach (and taken by most other encyclopedias). However, I do think other things such as nationality of a person, reference to capital city (unless disambiguated), and city status should be centralised to UK/British. Other things, when refering to say London in the context of the Olympics, a world war, or an international political summit should also be British rather than English, I believe. Jhamez84 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with that- the context of the situation should be taken into account. Sources within the UK would use the constituent country, as would the majority of international sources. Thunderwing 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear:

Edit war kicks off again.--Mais oui! 09:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

An edit is not an edit war. I strongly suggest you do not make it one, as you have been banned rather a few times for such activities and they are certainly not conducive to constructive editing. The information was (1) inconsistent with the style adopted in the other settlements and (2) used an inappropriate flag.
To address Jhamez84's point above - Stockport and Paisley being twinned is mentioned on neither article, nor can I find any appropriate reference to it elsewhere. Moreover, I'm sure if this intra-national twinning occurs in the UK (which I am by no means certain of), it will occur elsewhere too - yet subnational flags are not used for the other cities anywhere on Wikipedia. I think a blanket rejection of a symbol in this manner is not helpful or appropriate to suggest as a universal guideline. If the town makes its constituent country identity enormously important in twinning terms, then perhaps the constituent country's flag may find a place. --Breadandcheese 09:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

South Ayrshire/Ayr images

I have received this message at my Talk page. I will respond to the best of my ability, but images and photos is not my forté here at Wikipedia. However, I know that a lot of others have much experience. Can you help this User, as it is a very kind offer which we should not pass up!

"Greetings, Mais Oui!, having noticed you around a lot on Scottish articles I would like to ask your opinion on the following;

I have taken a few decent quality photographs of the Heads of Ayr and the Carrick Hills recently and was wondering if you think they may be able to benefit related artices. I would of course be willing to make them free license etc, but would appreciate your opinion on if you think such images might be relevant. I noticed the Ayr article is rather poor photographically, and feel an image from the seafront looking back towards the seaward fringe of the town might be good.

I'd be very grateful for any response." Yours, The Geography Elite 17:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ta. --Mais oui! 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop them a note. If its unduly complex I'll come back here for help. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Anglo" (sic) to designate the United Kingdom

Please see:

--Mais oui! 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is established by long, historical usage. However, it also sums up the political situation in these islands. --MacRusgail 14:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one can think it is a bad or good use of language - but it is the use of language to denote the UK in many contexts.--Docg 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I wish I'd noticed that discussion earlier. I could have climbed on my soap-box to point out that the USA != America, either... :-/ – Kieran T (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you didn't spot it, as that would have constituted a tangent, and discussions should stay on topic, right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurker (talk • contribs)
You don't think it is on topic? I think it's a useful example of how this kind of language develops. Tangents aren't necessarily bad, they can inform, so long as one is taking a broad view. – Kieran T (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions please!

Our revamped, and much improved Portal:Scotland is looking for suggestions for future content. The obvious candidates, our Featured articles, are already in the pipeline, but we need lots more suggestions! See:

Ta. --Mais oui! 04:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where can I get the list for past content? --MacRusgail 10:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC) ps I notice that the notice board seems to be very badly signposted!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_8&oldid=1181021187"