Welcome. If you would like to ask Scottish Wikipedians something, here is the place to do it.
Category:Scotland-related stubs
Please don't populate this category for the time being; it was created out of process, and is wrongly named. I thought I'd resolved this with the creator, and fixed it, but this has been undone recently. The correct name for the stub category would be Category:Scotland stubs (the one appearing, also incorrectly, on categories for deletion, as mentioned here).
There's also the issue of category "viability"; stub categories are only supposed to be created when there are at least 60, and ideally more, candidate stubs to be sorted into it. (Another reason for the stub-type proposal mechanism, WP:WSS/P.) Though there's probably a reasonable number of unfound Scottish stubs, plus it's certainly useful as a "root" category for the existing stub-cats for Scottish geography, bios, etc. It helps in such cases if there's an associated Wikiproject: which this isn't, but seems a lot like one in scope. It might be worth considering whether a) to "spin off" Wikipedia:Wikiproject Scotland, or b) to explicitly say this is doubling as such. Alai 16:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just seen this. Sorry, I will stop putting articles in until Cfd discussion concluded. You will have no problem finding 60 articles for it: I could fill it with 60 valid articles in 2 hours, if I got my head down and ignored other wee edits that needed doing. I honestly think that there are well over a thousand, perhaps thousands, of applicable artcles, and that excludes the bio and geo articles. User:Lochaber, on my Talk page, pointed me in the direction of the relevant (buried) discussion. It was unanimous, but what I do not understand is why nothing has been done to bulk rename the entire lot of "foo-related stubs" categories? It seems very, very odd to just apply the new policy to Scotland, while ignoring the (perhaps more significant) United States, France, China etc re-names.--Mais oui! 23:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, I think this discussion's become a little fragmented: I feel a little breathless, chasing from one page to another... I don't seriously doubt "viability", it's just a nicety to try to get the count done, or at least roughly estimated, first, to (try to!) stop people from creating horribly undersized "niche" stub categories, which believe me, certainly happens. It wasn't immediately obviously there'd be this many in the parent UK stub category, though I don't doubt there's many more besides those.
The "bulk renaming"'s not been done because of the way categories work. Not only do the category pages themselves need to be "moved" (actually, cut and pasted, then deleted), but every single article needs to be edited, for the recategorisation to take place. So, "bulk" really is the operative word. So it's being done gradually, and opportunistically, especially where it's easy to do so, i.e. on new and small existing categories. So think of it as "early adoption of wave of the future", not as of being given selective, much less especially unfavourable treatment. Alai 23:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish bio stubs
The Category:British people stubs is apparently overloaded. It is also full of Scottish people who can be moved to Category:Scottish people stubs. I have moved a bunch of aristocrats over there, not because I like nobility, but because they have the handy habit of putting the name of their stately home after their own! Please help. --MacRusgail 17:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC
Yeah, makes it a bit easier. The other method of course is to look for all the typically Scottish surnames, but of course that will still miss a lot of people, and plently of other British people have got Scottish surnames, but it will still find an awful lot of them.
I don't know how good an idea this is, but I have been tending to put peers in the relevant Council category: eg Duke of Montrose in Category:Angus, Earl of Orkney in Category:Orkney Islands. I know that you dislike these Council area categories, but they do seem to be well and truly here to stay: none of the political parties seems remotely interested in yet another local govt re-organisation, and especially not the big four, who are the only ones likely to be able to implement it.--Mais oui! 17:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've commented on this elsewhere, I don't like putting people in modern council areas... except where they seem to correspond with historic ones, e.g. Fife, Orkney. This is partly because they keep on changing them, and the boundaries (Argyll is as much "Highland" as Applecross, but East Caithness isn't), people say that they're from traditional counties (still) rather than these. A few years ago, you wouldn't have heard people say that they were from "Central" or "Grampian" for example (both of them are by the wayside now anyway). --MacRusgail 16:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rocket mail - this article has nothing on it in the Outer Hebrides, where they tried to use it, and also I think there's even a Scottish film of this title.
These seem a little redundant, no? A request for a stub is surely exactly the same as a request for an article (just more self-consciously modest, as it were). A request for a category is surely either really either a proposal, or a request for wiki-code assistance, both of which might as well be phrased as such, and don't seem to need a separate sub-section, I'd think. Alai 03:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic, I suppose, but how would I go about requesting a Welsh biography stub? There's lots of people in the UK bio list who have names using obviously Welsh spellings, and no doubt there's plenty more with less "Welsh looking" names. --MacRusgail 14:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Go to WP:WSS/P, and add a section mooting either a specific template and category (say, {{Wales-bio-stub}} and Category:Welsh people stubs), or just the general idea. If there's known or strongly believed to be at least 60-80, should be no problem. Alai 16:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How the devil am I supposed to count them all though? I had enough trouble tracking all the Scottish ones down, and am still finding more. They don't seem to be getting into alphabetical order. It seems to be very overcomplicated. --MacRusgail 21:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to count them all, just have some evidence there's a reasonable number. Given that there's over 2400 people in UK-bio-stub, not even counting existing sub-categories, shouldn't be too hard to argue this via either sampling, or a certain amount of hand-waving. (At least 2 or 3 percent are bound to be Welsh.) Anyway, just something you might want to bear in mind when proposing new stub types: stub sorters don't want the categories getting too large, on the one hand, but equally they don't want them being so small that they languish away unnoticed. Alai 22:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Celtic mythology
Looking through the Celtic mythology page I see lots of howlers, particularly misspellings, by folk not familiar with the Celtic languages. There's a lot of well-meaning disinformation on here, some of it propagated by post-modernist "revivalists".
The Scottish links and articles are particularly poor, and I have called into question some of the articles such as Douglas (mythology).
--MacRusgail 17:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Checking Douglas (mythology), I've noticed the tag, but no information as to why it was placed there. If there is a reason for it, I would highly suggest placing it in the talk page, and here as well if you wish, for good measure. Canaen 00:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
categorising Scots as native to their trad. county, region, or council area
let s categorise Scots as native to the local area in which they grew up or spent considerable time residing, which for many was one of the trad. counties. the question of what to do with people who grew up during the region system of local gov t (btween 1973 and 1997) i would answer is to simply ignore this in our catting and cat these individuals under either or both trad. county or council area cats (perhaps just under the latter cat). i recently discovered that perhaps for the sake of simplification Scots who died before 1974 have been catted under council areas and started creating cats for natives of trad. counties till asked to post a message here first. thoughts? -Mayumashu 16:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The trad counties are much better for various reasons, e.g. people identify with them, and are more familiar with them. No one goes about (that I know of) saying that they come from "Grampian", "Central" etc, or if they live in Kinross, they come from Fife. Of course, the three or four small counties might be a problem - Nairnshire, Clackmannanshire, Kinrossshire and Kincardineshire. --MacRusgail 18:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regions for one thing have gone the way of all flesh, and unitary authorities are rather too recent to be of much use in regard to people's origins. I'd suggest that lieutenancy areas are a reasonable solution, having the faint whiff of tradition about them, but having some current standing, and being less baroque than the actual traditional counties per se. It's also how the location stub categories are being proposed to be dealt with, as I mentioned on the front page, and some congruence would obviously be handy. Alai 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the areas encompassed by the two - trad counties and lieutenancy areas - largely overlap, don t they. for me it comes down to which of the two people identify more with, and if this is approximately the same, then i like the idea of User:Alai to use the tidier names of the lieutenancy areas. if however it is felt Scots describe themselves as being of/from trad. counties and not lieutenancy areas, i d support use of trad. counties despite their longer names. (i m not from Scotland btw, i just like catting bio pages by where the person is from) -Mayumashu 14:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do Scots describe themselves? If you want N different opinions on that, ask N Scots... and brace yourself for an oversubscription. :) I'd guess that the LAs are the best guess for that purpose. They're actually pretty close to the TCs, the main differences being, the "tidying up" of most of the enclaves and exclaves, and the separation of Glasgow as its own LA. (Ask a Glaswegian where she's from and she will not be likely to say "Lanarkshire".) I'd guess that fewer people would give answers congruent with the UAs or regions, but then again, it all depends on the context of the question... Alai 06:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I request that we take this topic to Categories for deletion, where we can have an open debate, with the input of other experienced Wikipedians. I am very uncomfortable with Wikipedia using local authority designations that were abolished thirty years ago, and which no political party seems likely to ever want (let alone be in a position to implement) to re-constitute. Lieutenancy areas seem an even more bizarre and obscure way of dividing Scotland, being purely ceremonial in nature: Wikipedia is not a publication that tends to favour ceremonial niceties over day-to-day realities.
Please note that many, many people are categorised to political units that just did not exist when they were born, or lived: Da Vinci was never an Italian citizen, yet you will find him under Cat:Italian people. Same with Beethoven, Shakespeare, Newton, and thousands more. So I see no problem whatsoever with putting "Perthshire" for Robert Cunninghame-Graham's place of birth, BUT Category:Natives of Perth and Kinross at the article's foot.
Unless any one has any strong objections, I will submit all the Category:Scottish people by traditional county categories to Cfd this evening. Please do not create any new stubs along lieutenancy lines until that debate is resolved.
On a Point of Information: "No one goes about (that I know of) saying that they come from "Grampian", "Central" etc, or if they live in Kinross, they come from Fife." No-one is proposing using the now-defunct Regions (Grampian, Central etc); and the old Kinross-shire (deceased 1975 note) is not part of modern Fife, but of modern Perth and Kinross. --Mais oui! 09:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Central still existed. The "new" regions are even less familiar to me! I'm sure I'm not alone. Many of these new bureaucratic regions (that's what they are!) are not places people identify with, except if they use old names. --MacRusgail 16:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mais Oui, lets use current authority areas, at leasst then we can be precise about things. I think using either TC or Lieut. areas would be confusing as they overlap, but are not the same thing. This also clears up a related point: I have recently started sorting Category:Towns in Scotland by current authority areas (some have already been done), and shall watch the CfD debate to see if this should continue. Supergolden 17:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Precise? That's my "precise" point. Caithnessians are not "Highlanders", and Argyll folk are, but the former's in Highland region, the latter in another, and let's go nowhere near what they did to "Aberdeenshire" again! These regions are confusing to most people. When you say "Highlander" for example, how are people to know whether you mean the real thing, or someone in a government construct? --MacRusgail 18:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
let s start the lieutenancy areas 'native of' category scheme (as it stands the better chance of support than the trad. counties scheme given the later were recently deleted), and let s do it now - i ll do the work. i suggest we keep the council areas cats scheme in place, just depopulate the cats of people who grew up in Scotland prior to 1996 (99.9%). in the next 20/30 years the council area cats will fill up as people slowly come to identify with them. yes, two separate schemes -Mayumashu 05:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aberdonians, Dundonians
How come Edinburgh gets the rarely used "Edinburgher" category, but Aberdeen and Dundee get "people from X"? Even in Edinburgh, there's debate about the adjective for folk from the city, whereas the other two are settled.
Absolutely, that doesn't make sense to me either. The "Natives of Aberdeen/Dundee" category has a needlessly clunky name and I can only imagine that it was created by someone unfamiliar with the cities. Leithp(talk) 08:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guilty of poorly naming the two cats and have just put them up for a rename nomiation at the cfd (categories for deletion) page - please go to that page to vote to get the names changed -Mayumashu 05:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There was a debate about the use of a reasonably obscure word for people from Madrid. It's probably well used in Spanish, but not English... however are people in the USA that familiar with terms like Novocastrian (Geordie) or Glaswegian (Weegie!)? It's not that I'm against the use of these names, I think that we have to be consistent. Edinburger/burgher is not in common use (Personally I've always liked "Edimbourgeois", as it sums up a certain aspect of the city!), but Aberdonian (Dons) and Dundonian are in Scotland. --MacRusgail 13:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC) p.s. Seeing as Leithp is here, is Leither a suitable cat or not? Some notable people have identified themselves as such.[reply]
Leither is certainly the commonly used term for people from Leith (although you'll hear some other terms used at Tynecastle). I'm not sure that it would be a very well populated category though, apart from The Proclaimers of course...... Leithp(talk) 13:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's not that long ago that Leith was a town in its own right, so there could well be historical figures who would be Leithers rather than Edinburghers. This isn't something I know that well as, despite the username, I don't have any connection to the place. Leithp(talk) 13:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irvine Welsh too? I think there's a few others. But you can argue where Leith ends and Edinburgh begins, and some think they're one and the same. Same conurbation anyway. --MacRusgail 14:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And others listed on the page, but to be honest I think that, given the size of the Edinburgher cat, there isn't any point breaking it down into sub-cats. Leithp(talk) 14:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We ought to watch this new category (and the British supercat) like hawks. It has the potential to be used as a political football, far more so than most of the other "hyphenated-people" categories. Criteria for inclusion should be rigourously enforced: the article itself must state Irish birth, or some strong connection to Ireland during the person's life (eg an Irish parent). Having an Irish grannie (or even further back) is just not good enough, unless the person themself has made a particular point of identifying as a person of Irish origin, or it has been a notable feature of their life. With other similar cats people have been included who have only weak links with "country of origin" (eg Reese Witherspoon under Category:Scottish-Americans), and I suppose this is OK if a consensus has been reached to accept it by the relevant editors, but I do not think we should give such leeway with these Irish- cats. For example, even if the article is a stub, and by definition incomplete, we should not add these Irish- cats until and unless an editor includes the relevant connection with Ireland in the article itself, by consensus. (I am going to re-produce this comment at Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.)--Mais oui! 08:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please do not! I just have a very strong feeling that your two new cats are going to be very contentious. If you want to rename any more categories you must take them to Cfd first.--Mais oui! 11:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COPY ENDS
New stub category
Scotland has another new stub template and category! For buildings and other human-made structures in Scotland, there is now {{Scotland-struct-stub}}. feeding into Category:Scottish buildings and structures stubs. If you can find a better icon for it, feel free to change it - none of the pictures of places like Edinburgh Castle or Stirling Castle looked good that small, nor those of the Forth Bridge, so at the moment it's got Glasgow's "Armadillo", but that's not that good tiny either... Grutness...wha? 09:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in the picture of the Wallace Monument (Stirling's). Hope it is to your liking. The sky behind is a bit dark, but at least the building is reasonably clear IMO. --MacRusgail 13:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting man, but not one I'm a fan of. I don't think I could be a bishop with the lack of belief he had... and then turn round and use a religious position to promote his thoughts on the world. It would have been more "moral" perhaps for him to leave the church and then do what he did. For me, I tend to think he was hypocritical in that regard (and I'm not Christian, let alone Episcopalian). --MacRusgail 17:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Electric Brae
Didn't know where to put this in requested articles, as it is a book (by Andrew Greig - literature) and also the nickname of at least two places with "gravity defying" slopes (geography - folklore). The locations vary depending on who you speak to. They tend to be in the North Lanarkshire-Ayrshire area, on the northern part of the Southern Uplands. But which they are, I don't know.
It is, however well enough known to deserve an article
--MacRusgail 18:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything more about it than a quick google reveals, but the best known one (only as far as I knew) is certainly in Ayrshire. Oddly enough, the germans have beaten us to it - they already have an article at Electric Brae. Spricht hier jemand Deutsch? Maccoinnich 20:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If a suitable section or sub-section does not exist yet at Requested articles then just create it. I have put in two new subsections and the book and mountain electric braes, but perhaps we also need a new Folklore/Myth subsection of Culture for Electric Brae (folklore)--Mais oui! 22:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be going over the top... Electric Brae should be for the hill (not mountain!) and folklore. And if the book is strongly tied to that, for it too; otherwise Electric Brae (book). wangi 22:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Don't know of any others, so someone can find if there are any. Suggest Electric Brae (novel) for the book....dave souza 12:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gillespie, Kidd & Coia, Catholics and Glasgow
The page on the architectural firm Gillespie, Kidd & Coia was started, and subsequently mostly edited, by me. An anon user removed the sentence "As a result, the number of Catholics in Glasgow collapsed: from a 69,000 in 1951 to 13,000 in 1971. This was against a rising number of Catholics in the country as a whole, reaching a peak of 15% of the population in the early 1960s", claiming "False figures. Clearly more Catholics in Glasgow in 1971 than 13000". Now, I reverted it, because I took those figures directly from the book referenced in the article. However, after thinking about it, it does seem a little low. Does anyone have any way of checking if those figures are credible? Maccoinnich 16:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've no way of checking, but they seem implausible to me. In fact, I'm sure they are wrong. They should not be in the article, but if they must me should be caveated with 'according to .....' with the source clearly cited. --Docask? 16:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Third Statistical Account for Glasgow (1966 or so) will have 1961 census data, which should allow sanity-checking of those numbers; I have the Edinburgh volume here, but not the Glasgow one. (46k in Edinburgh, FWIW) Shimgray | talk | 00:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right - it was my fault. I found the original source, and it seems I left out the fairly important caveat of those numbers being in eight city centre parishes. Fixed now. Thanks. Maccoinnich 17:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
History of Scotland Template
I've made a History of Scotland Template to provide an easy link from/to significant Scotland pages. It'll probably need some amendment as there is a lot of red (I mostly copied it from the History of France template), but as more pages are added this will fill up. AllanHainey 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Allan, but I'd have to take issue with the pre-Roman bit. Romans were not as big an influence on modern-day Scotland as in modern-day England and Wales, and I would certainly say that the Norse invasions are more important, and had longer lasting effects. Also, the period between 400-1000 in Scottish history probably deserves at least one section - the Norse could be one "fixer". --MacRusgail 17:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was basically amending the French template so there are bits which probably aren't appropriate & links that should be there but aren't. I put in pre-Roman as it's a good dividing line between diferent periods, but as it's all red at the moment feel free to amend it, I don't know a great deal about early Scottish history so I probably can't do much for it. AllanHainey 15:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Creating New Entries/Extensive Modifications
Forgive me if this is not the right place to ask this, but as a newbie with only some editing experience, I have a query. I would like to create an entry for the Brahan Seer, as I notice that he doesn't have one (although he's mentioned in a few others). I gather, from reading various users pages, that there's some sort of procedure I have to go through before I can create such a page? Also, I was hoping to extensively overhaul the entry for the Battle Of Dunnichen, within my sandbox and ask suitable admins/experienced users to check it out. Is there a procedure for doing this sort of thing too? Lianachan 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Here's a link - just start editing from here Brahan Seer. See this for some tips Wikipedia:Your first article. Don't worry too much about style - other people (such as those here) can give you a hand. The most important thing is good content. I look forward to seeing the article. Maccoinnich 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Just go for it: BE BOLD. If you make some boo-boos (and let's face it, who doesn't?) then I'm sure that other Users will not be backward in coming forward. Don't forget to bung at least one (preferably at least a couple) of appropriate categories at the foot of the article, and personally, I prefer all new articles to carry a stub template until a few other editors have made contributions. So, for a biographical article like the Brahan Seer, I would tend to put this right at the very bottom of your article:
[[Category:Scottish people]] [[Category:Natives of Highland]]
Just dipping a toe in the water, to see if there'd be much/any interest in updating the entries for Scottish places (and landmarks, etc..) with etymological information.
I'd be very much interested. When adding a few Scottish places to the 'pedia I usually tend to look up a bit of their naming information anyway. As you can see I've listed toponomy as one of my interests, which it is, so... yep, sign me up :) Nach0king 18:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any "roadmap" for making a start on this? Nach0king 15:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd wait a few weeks, at least until the new year, to see if there was much interest. Lianachan 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys want to make it a Wikiproject? It is probably the best format for planning, communication and co-ordination. Obviously we would advertise it here at the notice board upon initiation, and give it a link or two, eg. here and at P:S.--Mais oui! 11:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting idea, but Scottish placenames are notoriously hard to crack, and there's often several explanations. Sometimes as many as five in some cases. A lot of disinformation floating about, e.g. that Edinburgh is Edwin's Burgh, even though it appears to be Brythonic in origin, and predating King Edwin.--MacRusgail 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edinburgh, I believe, is Dùn Éideann in Gaelic, which itself is from the Brythonic Din Eidyn ("Eidyn's fort"). By giving true toponymies, where they can be demonstrated, surely we'd be helping dispel the worst that folk etymology can do? Lianachan 07:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In places where the etymology is unclear, what we could do is just dispel common myths, even if we can't offer a definitive answer ourselves. Sounds good? Nach0king 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I invite all Scottish Wikipedians to take a look at this article and then vote for a 'Speedy Delete on the articles entry on the Articles for Deletion. Camillustalk|contribs 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone's interested, we have at least 2 or 3 active participants (as far as I can tell) over at the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, and we could sure use more. There's a decent template up, so Clan pages are quite easy to craft. Canaen 11:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does Scotland have a Father of the Nation? It is an interesting conundrum. I know that Donald Dewar is sometimes described thus, but he just seems far too recent a figure, in a nation that can trace its roots back at least a couple of millenia. Kenneth MacAlpin?--Mais oui! 11:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of "father of the nation" is such a high-profile one that, I'd guess, if you can't name him off the top of your head then there isn't one per se... Shimgray | talk | 12:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Dewar should never be called "Father of the Nation", as An Siarach says. As far as I am concerned he was probably the architect's coffee maker, when it came to the parliament. It's a bit of media hype, and Labour spin after the man's death. --MacRusgail 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Father of the Nation with reference to Donald Dewar always seemed ridiculously over the top to me and a typical example of tabloid hyperbole. Probably the only two Scots who might have any reasonable claim to be described as such are Cináed mac Ailpín as the founding King of Scotland or Robert the Bruce for obvious reasons. Shimgray makes an excellent point i think and id agree that there isnt really a 'Father of the Nation' figure in the Scottish psyche.
Yeah, MacAlpin is a good case... but you couldn't walk into the average Scottish classroom and be told who he was, at least not in my experience! Bruce is more famous, but I'd not have given him that title without prompting.
In England, it's a bit easier - there's a couple you could argue for, William the Conqueror or Alfred the Great (first king of modern England, first king of "all England" respectively)... but even though they're famous enough, they don't have quite the undisputed father-status of someone like Washington or Ataturk. Shimgray | talk | 14:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone with the requisite knowledge please have a look at Talk:Scottish ale. The article underwent a total, and I mean total, rewrite today by a new User, and as far as I can see it is 100% original research and personal opinion. I have requested sources, so we shall see if any are forthcoming. Another editor requested that the opposing viewpoint also be presented, but it hasn't been. Surely someone out there knows their beers? --Mais oui! 22:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What particularly concerns me is that there is no cogent argument being put, simply a general hostility to a "non-British" cat. This is not the first example of this type of nomination at Cfd, although the principal campaign has been conducted against English cats rather than Scottish ones. If you care about the value of Scottish categories (and is there any editor of Scotland-related articles who does not?), I urge you to regularly review Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, but in particular, please see this nomination:
I have completed subcataegorising Towns of Scotland by council area, with a fews exceptions - I havent done Eilean Siar (one town), Shetland (one), Orkney (two towns), or the four city council areas. The only real 'town' in all of these four (that I can see) is South Queensferry. I would contend that places like Broughty Ferry and Portobello are areas of cities, rather than towns in their own right, and maybe shouldnt be in Towns in Scotland? What does anyone think? I plan to continue with Category:Villages in Scotland, if anyone feels like lending a hand... ::Supergolden:: 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What counts as a village in England is often a town in Scotland! Where to draw the line? --MacRusgail 17:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question... I have gone through both cats now, and sorted by whatever the article says. ie, "Foo is a town in Angus" goes in Towns in Angus, "Bar is a village in Angus" goes in Villages in Angus. I am not sure if there is any consistency in this approach, but i think the difference between a town and a village is an intuitive one based on several things, bit like the difference between a hill and a mountain. Not sure if there is a line that can be drawn ::Supergolden:: 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blackford, Scotland
David Williams, who has written a guide to Glasgow and is publishing a Scottish guide (currently incomplete) [1] has sent a narky letter to the Help Desk claiming that Wikipedia is inaccurate because it claims that Blackford is a suburb of Edinburgh.
Our article is on Blackford, Edinburgh. There is apparently a village in Perthshire located on the road between Perth and Stirling and near the Gleneagles golf course. [2]. It seems that we don't as yet have an article on the village.
I would be grateful if someone could confirm that:
(a) there is a suburb in Edinburgh called Blackford:
(b) there is a village in Perthshire called Blackford.
I would be grateful if someone could get back to me so I could reply to Mr Williams. Capitalistroadster 23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly a Blackford in Edinburgh - it's the area around Blackford Hill. Wouldn't call it a suburb, per se, but it's there. Shimgray | talk | 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blackford on the A9 is where Highland Spring mineral water comes from. It most definately does exist! Lianachan 00:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd simply tell the guy that's he's more than welcome to write an article on Blackford, Perthshire, since after all we're not claiming to be complete... Thanks/wangi 00:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blackford is located in Perthshire, Scotland. It is reasonably affluent, and contains Blackford Hill, one of the supposed "Seven Hills of Edinburgh"...
I'm about to fix it up/wangi 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'NOTE: This discussion was begun on my talk page. I have copied it here to encourage the participation of a wider audience. If you have an opinion on this question, please share it ! Angus McLellan 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have slapped the ugly, intrusive "unsourced" header onto the List of monarchs of Scotland article. It is high time that this key article was kicked up a few academic gears, because I think that a lot of the poor qualitry Scottish royalty articles stem from the mediocre quality of this central article. Sorry for being a pain.--Mais oui! 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any wikipedian, Scottish or not, who would like to join me in the new category "Users who support the Scotland national rugby team" which I have created is very welcome. Cheers, --Historian 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there one for the football team too? --MacRusgail 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a related issue, can I ask what folks think of the recent editing in of twin gaelic/english name usage on infoboxes (eg. Forfar)? The reason given by Grcampbell in the edit summary is "Scotland is a dual language country...". That may technically be the case (with 1.16% of the population speaking gaelic), but this is an english language wiki - it isn't designed to be for gaelic speaking people (that would be what the Gaelic WP is for), or to conform to Scottish Exec guidelines. I don't have a problem with the gaelic name being in the article itself, it is a useful and interesting piece of information, but don't see any need for it to be the header in the infobox (what next, gaelic name redirects to the english article?) especially for the case that I linked to above. It would make sense out in the west where there is widespread use, but Forfar doesn't have dual language signposts or anything like that, indeed only 0.42% (or 55 people out of 13,000) actually speak the language in the town. Isn't the prominent usage going to give a false impression to those from out with Scotland as to the languages use and status? I don't mean to have a go at Gaelic (I am attempting to learn it myself), but I just see an increasing proliferation of its use out of all proportions to its current situation in Scotland. I too would like to see the day that we have true dual language status such as is the case in Wales or Ireland, but to paint that as currently being the case by having gaelic names splashed at the top of infoboxes, implying that it is an official and used name for a place, is a bit of a misdirection. Exceptions would be, as I said out in the western isles, where it obviously is used, and probably Glasgow and Edinburgh since they have an odd bit of usage as well (at Queen Street and Waverly stations for example), but other than that it is just going to potentially misinform non-scottish readers. SFC9394 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I often enter, or correct, Gaelic placenames. This has nothing to do with any "dual language" status of Scotland, whether that exists or not, and nothing to do with pushing a Gaelic POV. Most places in Scotland have names which stem from Gaelic, or (like Fort Augustus) have Gaelic names which predate the English name (and are still in use today). When the Gaelic name for a place is mentioned, I see it as an additional bit of historical information. Also, toponymy is a subject that many people find fascinating. Lianachan 16:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you - I am not saying they should be removed from any mention in the article, but they can be mentioned in a toponymy context without having to be header’ed. My fear is that we have gaelic place names emboldened as equal to english place names in an infobox in a current context (ie. not a historical look, but an implication that this is currently in use) then it is communicating to readers who don't know any different that they could use gaelic place names just as equally as English names and not expect to encounter any problems. SFC9394 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One only has to look at the Scotland article to see that it has been welcome for a long time that Gaelic be used in that infobox. The reasoning behind using it for cities is along the same lines. The rest of the spiel I was going to say has been covered by Lianachan aptly. Also, the names are currently in use. By Gaelic speakers and the Scottish parliament. --Bob 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to continue this one on, we now have an anon IP editing in the Scots version as well - Edinburgh. IMHO it makes the top of the infobox look a bit top heavy and daft. Perhaps a few extra category spaces could be added into the infobox for all the variations and leave the wiki language version at the top. SFC9394 17:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it isn't just cities that it has gone into - Forfar for one. Their usage by gaelic speakers is exactly the point - they aren't used by english speakers - this is the english language wiki. Historical context I have no problem with - current usage on the basis that the scottish parliament uses it, I am afraid I don't buy. SFC9394 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the Forfar entry, I do see where you're coming from with this. Having the Gaelic name there offers no historical insight, or translation of the placename. (Irrelevant, but I think the Gaelic name for Forfar is actually Baile Fharfair anyway). Lianachan 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen both, but it is true that it is more often accompanied by the word Baile, which means town --Bob 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, if people are so vehemently against Gaelic placenames at the top of the box, then in the infobox we could place an optional line for both the name of the town in Gaelic and the translation. Which, in this case would be town of shelving slope. --Bob 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or just mention it, if it's relevant or in use, in the main text of the entry - similar to the entries for Fort William or Fort Augustus (each done a different way)? Lianachan 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why have infoboxes at all then? Also, I see no-one has yet suggested removing Alba from the Scotland infobox --Bob 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not depend on how much the Gaelic name was in common useage, or how immediately relevant the Gaelic name is? Infoboxes aren't supposed to have every bit of information in them, but be a quick list of facts/stats/info. Lianachan 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 'vehemently' against the use of names at the top of the box - I just don't think it is a good idea in the majority of cases. For example, it makes perfect sense with Portree or Stornoway, but no sense for small towns on the east coast of scotland where gaelic is no longer in general use. I would always encourage any historical additions that are about the gaelic name in the body of the article, as that adds a bit of depth and distinction to articles which so many other places struggle to get. Whether the names (including any scots versions) get a place as an optional line in the infobox is a judgement call - I have less of an issue with that as compared to the bold version - it is all down to whether it is a useful enough piece of info, since the infoboxes are just a gather box for the most useful facts to aid the reader. They aid both in allowing quick facts to be brought to the front (if someone wants to find out who the msp's are for Glasgow they can do so nice and quickly) and it also visually standardises basic facts (such as population) to aid fact finding irrespective of location or individual editors stylistic choices. SFC9394 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further point with regards to Alba, that is be a special case, since it is a country box, not a place box. Also, if you want to look at it in a speaking sense, as you say, gaelic is an official language of Scotland, so it gets its place there, but zoom in to a town level and gaelic is not an official language of town foo so doesn’t get a mention, but is an official language of town bar, so does get a mention. Relevancy is all I am really after. SFC9394 20:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did towns start taking "official languages"? If you want to take the opinion that a government's position on language status doesn't matter, then go over to the Kiev article, and put the Russian name of that Russophone city before its Ukrainian one, see how long it takes before the edit is reverted. :) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again - what has Russia got to do with anything? I couldn't care less about Kiev, and it, or any revert wars taking place there, have nothing to do with this subject. If I go into my local council offices and ask them for foobar literature in gaelic they will say "no chance", if I go and do the same thing on Skye they will say "no problem". To be in ignorance of where gaelic is spoken just to suit your view is, once again, highly questionable. SFC9394 20:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stranraer? Why don't you tell them to change the name of the town, because it's not in English anyway. The English translation is more fun anyway - "Fat Nose". --MacRusgail 21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have a clue what your point is - if you are trying to insinuate that I have a problem with gaelic origin place names then you haven't read anything I have posted here (and are 100% wrong, I like the origin of the name, as well as the rhins, which I believe also has gaelic roots). SFC9394 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have no problem with you missing the point. It happens. However much or little you care about Kiev, it isn't unimportant. It's one of thousands of examples which make a nonsense of the importance you are assigning to "foobar literature in gaelic". I'm not "in ignorance" (such friendly phrases!) of where Gaelic is spoken, it just isn't more relevant than the other historical or political factors that, for instance, lead to train stations in Glasgow and Edinburgh putting Gaelic names on their signs, and lead to the Ukrainian name for Kiev being placed before Russian (the language of the city) on the wikipedia article. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what you are talking about is very grey and blurry. The gaelic histororical context of a place should be included, but you are trying to bring in a lot of mystical things which can so easily become attached to a lot of romantic thoughts. You are arguing that the gaelic place name has as much right to be there as the anglicised version of it, on the basis that the 'official' version of events isn't always what really happened - but WP is not here to change what is officially accepted, merely to represent it. Truth is gaelic versions of place names are not used on a day to day basis throughout most of Scotland - all WP should be doing is representing that truth, not trying to represent some alternate version of things based on how things could or should be. SFC9394 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And truth be told, the gaelic train station signs are there for the tourists - you don't get a gaelic welcome at anniesland, but you do at queen street - it has little to do with deep historical appreciation and much more to do with creating an image, an impression for those from out with Scotland - I wish it wasn't the case, but that is the reason you don't get a Fàilte at anniesland, but do at the transport hub (the same at Glasgow airport if my memory serves). SFC9394 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that when anyone opens with a title "POV pushing", my immediate reaction, based on my experience, is that they themselves are pushing the opposite point of view. It's not POV pushing to put the nation's second "official" language (and historical language BTW), it's informative. My opinion is that Gaelic names should be in the opening of the text, and at the top of the table, as they are in Irish articles, irrespective of the % of the population of the particular place who speak it. For all those simple souls who'll allegedly have their poor little heads confused by the status of Gaelic, there is always a link to the language next to the place name, where they will find all the info they'd need. I'm sorry I find that argument impossible to take seriously, but it's the argument I see all the time in revert wars over putting in/deleting Russian names at the same place in Ukrainian towns, or Polish names on Lithuanian towns, etc. There isn't an issue here, don't see why one or two people are trying to make it one. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect Calgacus,
I did not start this title - I merely added here since it was already running and makes more sense than starting yet another chapter on this very lengthy page.
I am sure you do see it all the time in Russian articles, but this ain't Russia, and to make such a comparison is in total ignorance of both the facts and the historical context. No too situations can be fully comparable - and to dismiss percentages out of hand simply because it suits you POV is questionable at the very least. SFC9394 20:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a friendly start. I'm POV am I? Now we all just learned something: read over the page User:Molobo for one of legions of examples of someone accusing someone else of the quality they themselves are characterized by. No, I've not said anything about you being POV; I say no such thing, and although you yourself are making it out as if you are "POV", I'm keeping an open mind on the topic. ;) And when did I say you started this title? I didn't say it, I know who started the title. And if you think the comparison is in "total ignorance", as you so nicely put it, maybe you'll discover how right or wrong you are when you start removing Gaelic names from busy Scottish town articles. Such things are prone to sensitivies; and unless you yourself have an agenda, then ... when you see a dragon sleeping, my advice to you is, let it sleep. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First you said:
I'm afraid that when anyone opens with a title "POV pushing", my immediate reaction, based on my experience, is that they themselves are pushing the opposite point of view
Now you say:
No, I've not said anything about you being POV
I have no time for trolls - If you believe that I have a big issue about this then you are 100% wrong - but you can believe what you like, I don't have time to play games (or games of semantics, which is what you are doing now). SFC9394 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can read what I said. Now, if you had paid any care to what I've actually said, you'd have found that the statement "No, I've not said anything about you being POV" is actually true. Inconvenient maybe, since you obviously wish to slander me, the "troll" that I clearly am, but I haven't accused you of being point of view. If you, SFC9394, wish to slander me further, I have a talk page that you are welcome to leave it on; you can leave anything you like, but you shouldn't do it here; we don't want to be clogging up this comminity talk page after all. ;) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By bringing in the first line in the way you did you were implying it - otherwise why bring it in? As I said, semantics, and that is my right to reply, and final word on it. SFC9394 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I imply only what I mean to imply; what you read from it is entirely dependent on your own care and/or level of paranoia. Why did I bring it up? Because it revealed quite clearly the presence of an unhelpful agenda; no other reason. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information. I see that I am being criticised for the title I chose for the header: Gaelic POV pushing?. If you are super-observant then you will notice that there is actually a question mark at the end: it is not a statement. As it happens I disagree with the linked post at UK Wikipedians' notice board, indeed I voted for the use of the Gaelic name rather than Outer Hebrides during the Rename vote at Talk:Outer Hebrides.--Mais oui! 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, people are jumping the gun tonight. Like I said, I know who started the tag, User:Solipsist; don't worry, I know you wouldn't make a title like that. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make 100% more sense to reach consensus on the issues discussed here before you go around the place changing articles? SFC9394 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would he worry about that? Seems pretty uncontroversial for you, though I think the alternative name(s) should be just below the place, rather than in the box. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Tillicoultry page has some external links which I consider to be poor quality and have removed in the past, these have recently reappeared. Does wikipedia have any guidelines on what sort of external pages should be linked to? --Hellinterface 21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers ;) OK, so do you interpret 'accessible', in particular I'm talking about this site which, to my eye is shocking. What do you reckon?
MacRusgail - Should you ever get lost on you way to Sterling Furniture, I hope you get pointed in completely the wrong direction by the local kids, as is traditional. ;-P
Cool building, pity about it's website! --MacRusgail 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish laws
Should Acts with "(Scotland)" in the title, passed by the UK Parliament, be categorised under Category:Scottish laws? And if so, what should that subcategory be titled? Contribute to the discussion at:
Should Category:Scottish laws be used for Acts of Parliament that are passed by the UK Parliament in Westminster. According to legal expert, User:George Burgess, acts with "(Scotland)" in the title can also apply to the rest of the UK and are not necessarily restricted to Scotland, therefore should Category:British laws be used instead?? Astrotrain 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because this discussion has now been conducted on four(!) different pages thus far, I have copied the entire extant debate onto one public forum, ie: here. Please leave any additional comments on this topic here.--Mais oui! 10:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are removing UK parliaments Acts that relate to Wales out of the Category British laws, whereas I think they ought to be in British laws as they are made by the UK parliament, and Welsh laws (a category I recently created). I would like to agree the way to categorise laws like this. Kurando | ^_^ 11:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your query: articles should not be included in both a subcategory and a supercategory.--Mais oui! 11:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.--Mais oui! 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still trying to work out the best way to categorise acts like this. After a discussion with User:Mais oui! yesterday we thought that that UK acts that apply only to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should go into the subcategories. I thought to begin with that an act like this could go in both Scottish and British categories, but he tells me articles should not go in a category and its subcategory. What do you think? Kurando | ^_^ 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I wouldn't bother with what Mais_oui! thinks in regards to categories. He has a history of removing all the British categories from various articles, and changing British to English, Scottish etc. If a law is passed by the UK Parliament it is a British law- not a Scottish law. Astrotrain 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One solution would be to create a new category, called something like Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland, and make it a subcat of both Category:British laws and Category:Scottish laws. Although the current system is OK, it would perhaps be better to differentiate between pre-Union Scottish laws, British laws for Scotland, and devolved Scottish laws (at the moment they are all just lumped in together, which will become more and more messy as more articles are started and entered in the cat).
Although I regret the catty nature of Astrotrain's comment left on your Talk page yesterday, he does have a reasonable point in wanting British laws to be correctly labelled as such, even when they are only applicable to Scotland.
All of the above goes for Eng, Wales and NI too.
Finally, I think that an article actually listing all the UK parliament legislation only applicable to Scotland would be an excellent tool, helping to give structure to the new subcat. Same obviously for Eng, Wales and NI.
Oh, another "finally": you really, really ought to try very hard indeed not to enter an article in both a subcat and the parent cat (although occasional exceptions do exist, this isn't one of them). It is just standard good practice, widely observed throughout Wikipedia.--Mais oui! 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.
Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but I genuinely do not understand. You say:
"British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland". That is in line with my understanding, and is crystal clear, and easily categorisable.
"contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales". Navigating through the tortuous phraseology, what I think you are saying is that that law extended what was previously only an E & W law into Scotland? Is that right? Whatever, the fact is that the terms of that Act apply solely to Scotland: it is a Scottish law.
I really do think that we ought to take the most sensible, and above all useful, approach to this. It is utterly undeniable that every single Westminster statute with "(Scotland)" in the title has a special status in Scottish law: therefore all such articles really must be included in Category:Scottish laws. Whether this is via direct entry, or as a subcat, is open to debate. As I said earlier, subcats are the most obvious solution.
Finally, I consider it singularly unhelpful that you have "archived" a discussion strand on your Talk page that was only started today.--Mais oui! 21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Employment Rights Act 1996 was originally a law that applied throughout the UK, though a few sections only applied in E&W. The 2003 Act amended these sections to apply also in Scotland. No new law was created, just an extension of existing law from E&W to include Scotland. To say "Scottish law", implies that it is a unique law for Scotland- when in fact it is exactly the same law as England and Wales. Astrotrain 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"No new law was created". This may be stating the blindingly ovious, but a new law most certainly was created! No less than statute law. The new law even has a title, a date, a text, an archived debate and parliamentary vote (and a Wikipedia article): Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003.
The Act called the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is a unique law for Scotland: it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on England, Northern Ireland or Wales: it is a Scottish law. I think that you really are being a little obscurantist here. Category:Scottish laws is exactly what it says on the tin.--Mais oui! 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point. However laws passed by the UK parliament should be kept seperate from laws passed by the Scottish Parliament to avoid confusion. Astrotrain 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was agreeing with you on that point: Category:Scottish laws should have (at least) three subcats, with names something like:
I'm not sure that that wording is best, not least because I'm not sure if Statutory Instruments are meant to be getting included too, but you get my drift.--Mais oui! 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is actually more complex than that. Although the purpose of the Act is to make a change that relates to Scotland, the Act itself does not have an "extent" provision (normally found in the last few sections) and therefore applies UK-wide. It does therefore amend English law. While many Acts with "(Scotland)" in the title do indeed extend only to Scotland, this is not always the case - for example some provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Act included a provision relating to the Channel Islands. The moral of this story is that the presence or absence of "(Scotland)" from the short title of an Act is not a foolproof guide. We had much debate when the Scottish Parliament was established about whether its Acts needed to have "(Scotland)" or some other indicator of their Scottishness in the title.--George Burgess 14:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, very interesting comments. In that case, I would say that all acts passed by Westminster should be British laws category as there is no guarantee that they only apply to Scotland. Astrotrain 14:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are already in that category: in a subcategory. --Mais oui! 14:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Scottish laws should surely be used for laws which apply (or used to apply) in Scotland whether or not they have the word "Scotland" in the title of the enabling act and whichever Parliamentary body may have passed them. When it comes down to it, Scottish laws are those which the judiciary of Scotland use. The discussion on Astrotrain's talk page seems to confuse Acts of the various parliaments and the various laws which they promulgate. In particular a British Act like the Sunday working one, may make changes both to English Law and to Scots law. So it is important to differentiate between (English or Scots) laws and the (British) acts which introduce them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of new subcategories per mais oui!'s suggestion as most of the exisiting categories are rather overloaded anyway. If we kept British laws, Scottish laws and English laws, and then had
'UK acts' which contained all acts passed by UK
'Scot acts' passed by Scot parl
Laws passed by UK which apply to Scot would go in UK acts AND Scot laws, but not Scot acts
which would make a somewhat more complex categorisation scheme, but I think less ambiguos as it would not contain double entries. Anyway, i think I will try it out when I think of some suitable category names. Kurando | ^_^ 09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some subcategorisation of British laws, Scottish laws and English laws is needed. I am creating UK acts by year for all UK acts, but ones which apply to Scotland I think should stay in Scottish laws (until suitable subcategories are created). Kurando | ^_^ 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Kurando has now started cat: Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 2003, etc..., which seems quite an elegant solution: so for example that Sunday working hours Act is now in both cat:Scottish laws and this new UK parliament cat. Both of those cats are subcats of cat:British laws.--Mais oui! 11:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I am quiet happy that there are such things as British Acts of Parliament, I am less sure that there are such things as British laws, except in the trivial sense that Scottish and English laws are both British. What did you have in mind as an example of a British law, Kurando ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine British laws eventually should contain no articles, only categories such as English laws, Scottish laws, UK Acts, Scottish Acts etc. Though I suppose there could be something like EU regulations that apply specifically to the UK? Kurando | ^_^ 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scots/Scottish Gaelic Wikipedias
It seems to me that it'd be a good idea to include links to the Scots and Scottish Gaelic wikipedias on the Portal. I don't ever deal with the portal, so I figured I'd put up a request for such a thing here (the Portal's talk page looks like it gets much less traffic, and isn't really the place to discuss it). Thoughts? Canaen 01:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't spot this when you posted it. Yes, excellent idea: just go ahead and put in a wee box if you like. --Mais oui! 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article for the prominent public artist George Wyllie from a red link and immediately got hit with a Speedy Deletion notice. Not best pleased about this when I consider the number of pages for one-time drummers in Finnish metal bands, etc. Anyway, folks, like to review the page and its deletion notice and enhance the case for a page on a mere Scottish artist? AllyD 11:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figure the listing of works asserts notability, googling on the straw locomotive, so I've removed the tag. Shimgray | talk | 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more content helps to assert notability - I put in a bit about the Straw Loco and an external link, I'm sure more can be added. ::Supergolden:: 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a coincidence! I was just walking past his house in the sunshine yesterday. ...dave souza, talk 13:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish Infobox Map Standardisation
I have been adding infoboxes to a few Scottish towns with a new style map, and I am seeking consensus to standardise the existing boxes based around the new map style before I go ahead and add many more. Basically the previous map used (as can be seen with Stirling, for example) appears to me to be difficult to decode, with the dot barley visible unless the map is clicked on for a full view. Given the point of the map is to give a quick and easy pointer to a settlements location, having to open the image to full view is a bit pointless. The other problem would be purely aesthetic, with the blue/green mix appearing a bit queasy.
The new map style I am using is just a reworking of the Image:UK_scotland.png image, as used on the Scotland page, with the rest of the UK cropped out and the seas transparent. An example of my cropped version can be seen on Irvine, North Ayrshire.
I would contact the user who made the original satellite style maps directly to see if he was ok for standardisation, but he appears to have been inactive since last August, so I decided to ask here before I ploughed on ahead and changed any of the original boxes. Any comments welcome. SFC9394 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A standard map is a good idea and I agree with your points on the Stirling example. I too have been working on maps, although I prefer the style of this one. If it was to become standardised, we'd need to include orkney/shetland of course, but I'd be happy go along with whatever the community decides. Hellinterface 00:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with the idea of a standard map, and the Stirling example is very poor. The Irvine example is a better map, not least because it includes Orkney and Shetland. My only comment is that the red dot is still a bit indistinct against the strong green. I would suggest either changing the dot to yellow for better visibility, or toning down the green. --Cactus.man✍ 07:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to agreeing a standard map, should we also agree on standardised dimensions too? Also, I think I'm changing my preference to the Irvine style map. Hellinterface 10:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work guys. Although I have a preference for maps which show geographical relief, I must concede that at this small scale a very simple outline map works better. Somehow the blue Tillicoultry one seems clearer than the green one (something to do with colour contrast?). However we progress with this, I would like to express my strong preference for including both Orkney and Shetland in all Scotland (and UK) maps: it is ridiculous how many times Shetland especially is simply cropped out.--Mais oui! 10:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've produced a wee example with the Irvine style map to demonstrate why maybe black is the most suitable colour for denoting the location. Yellow is not a good choice as it is barely visible against the white background when used on one of the smaller western isles for example. See here. I was also thinking that we should upload the source as a layered Photoshop image, that way if the location dot has it's own layer, it can be easily dragged to new locations, whilst maintining size/colour etc. I'm not sure how popular Photoshop is around these parts though. One other consideration is dot size, obviously the larger the dot, the less accurate it is, particularly on a small map like this. I reckon the one in my example (5px) covers an area of roughly 8-10 miles in all directions from it's centre point. Hellinterface 10:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, a black dot is better (certainly in the islands example you give), but I think the green is still too strong and needs to be toned down somewhat. --Cactus.man✍ 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad everyone is roughly in agreement on the need for a change. I have uploaded a lighter version with a black locator: Image:Scotloc test.PNG. I had used a red locator (5px width) on the originals as roughly defined by the colour scheme set out in WikiProject Maps, and I originally dabbled with yellow as well (and found as Hellinterface did that it camouflaged itself on the coasts). Black does seem to work the best though (especially against a lighter green). I am not sure if there is any easy way of introducing topography without it clouding the image too much, it would be a nice extra though. Hellinterface, any layered image file formats generally should be uploaded as The GIMP .xcf format as it is all open source and free, where as psp is a proprietary format. The gimp can do most of what psp and Photoshop can do, but it is a bit more long winded. As a template, both a dot/background xcf layer file could be uploaded, and a png with a dot in the middle (like the test png above), that way those with the gimp could easily move the dot, and those without could easily scrub out the dot and place a new one wherever they wished. SFC9394 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GIMP supports PSD files. GIMP File types. Does anyone know of a PS plugin that allows you to save as .xcf format? I would argue that PSD is a more widely supported format. I don't agree that just because something is open source, it is better. I've tried the GIMP in the past, it's OK, but have never been impressed enough to switch away from PS. Hellinterface 12:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support SFC9394's Image:Scotloc test.PNG. The contrast between the dot and map is better, and the green is also not too "peely wally". I think trying to introduce any form of topography feature at these display resolutions would be counter productive. The layered idea for the dot is a great idea, but not my technical strong point. I'll let you guys work that out. --Cactus.man✍ 13:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is all to do with patents and proprietary formats. Basically PS, PSP formats are owned by their relative companies and the format characteristics have intellectual property rights and patents on them. It is all mixed in with the same reason that up until a couple of years a go gif's were frowned upon, because companies held patents on the gif format (the patents have now expired and they are now freely useable). As far as I know the various proprietary format implementations in the Gimp are reverse engineered (in much the same way that the MS office formats are reverse engineered in openoffice). It should work, and mostly will, but it isn't guaranteed 100% accurate that if something is saved by you in PSD in photoshop, that it will open 100% correctly in the gimp. It is a bit annoying if you have used one or the other program for years and know it inside out, but I think the decision was taken so as to avoid format wars on WP, and to ensure that the software is freely available and compiled versions exist for multiple OS's. For more complex work I still find it easier to lift what I am doing out of the Gimp, edit it in a better editor and then paste back in. SFC9394 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of format, Image:Scotloc test.PNG looks good to me. Assuming everyone else is happy with it, what's next? How do we go about letting others know about it? Are we going to have a drive to roll it out to articles? Hellinterface 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently experimenting with a topographical version of the map, hopefully I will be able to post an image of it tonight or tomorrow morning for comment (I don't know how it will turn out yet, it may be good or it may be rubbish). As for how we proceed once we have agreed, I would suggest setting up a sub category within Maps of Scotland titled "locations of Scottish settlements" or something like that and then just fire in the templates and fill it up with the maps. There aren't too many needing replaced, and a comment could be put on the Scottish infobox template page suggesting the usage of the map template. Any other thoughts? SFC9394 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Scotloc topog test.png Here is the topographical version it is a bit rough around the edges and Shetland needs added, but it gives an idea as to how it would look. Comments welcomed. SFC9394 02:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The topographical version looks good, nice work SFC. I would be interested to see how readable the dot is in the middle of the Grampians. How about knocking up versions of the plain and topo maps for, say, Braemar. --Cactus.man✍ 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The topo version is aestetically is far superior, IMO. As ✍ says, if it retains the readability of the non topo map, then it's my definite choice. One of the main reasons I didn't initially like the non-topo version was the non-antialiased coastline, but it looks like you've recified that with the topo version. Hellinterface 09:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, I have created a comparison of the three with highland dots, 1 is the original, 2 is the topographical original and 3 is a lightened topographical.
1 2 3
About the only drawback of the topo versions is that they are ~25kb compared to 3kb for the plain one. Not a huge worry, but it is a minor issue with regards to page loading. SFC9394 11:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff SFC! No 3 does the trick for me, contrast with the dot is fine and the topographical detail is still there. BTW, how did you add all that topographical detail, just curious. --Cactus.man✍ 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! Another vote for #3. Hellinterface 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
float
Ok, I have cleaned and polished up a final version, and have created a category on the commons for all the maps (Scottish Location Maps) and have uploaded a couple of template images as well. So once a map is created we can just dump it in that category and they will all be kept in one place. Comments on the final version are still welcomed if anyone feels there are things which need changed.
Cactus.man, all the topographical detail is added by using the SRTM & GTOPO30DEM data. I have been experimenting with using the data for the last month or so. This map has a heavily down-converted resolution, Topo map of Galloway was my first effort, and gives a good idea of the more native resolutions of the data.
WikiProject Maps is a good place to start, with FreeGIS being a good external website listing of free tools and data (all my work so far has been using free software & resources). If you are interested in playing about with it all then drop me a note on my talk page with any questions you have and I will be happy to help you out (it took me a few days of scrabbling about in the dark to start to get some good results). SFC9394 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest that we use SVG maps, but the relief maps have persuaded me that this is useful information that we should use here if at all possible. Unfortunately the way MediaWiki handles SVGs means we couldn't incorporate the relief information into an SVG, and I'd rather have the relief and live without SVG. Can I make some requests/suggestions:
the darker of the two relief maps is, for me, the clearer
I think the single black dot (or one of any other colour) isn't going to be clear everywhere. I'd suggest a black dot with a white (or transparent) circle around it.
I'd suggest that the images we have mediawiki store at commons be double (in both dimensions) the final desired size - hopefully the imagemagick downscale will produce an okay result, and having a larger version on hand (as opposed to asking for new images to be manually created) allows higher resolution applications (I'm thinking initially of for-print Wikireaders) to work nicely and without the maps either being titchy or blocky in the higher-than-screen resoltion format.
If we do finalise on this format (and I say go for it) I'm very anxious that you also upload super-detailed instructions on how someone can regenerate the basic map and the final annotated ones. We (Wikipedia) have a bad habit of starting to do something major like this, and then having the person with all the knowledge on how to do so quit, leaving us with a job half done.
Again if we finalise on this, can I ask you to upload a very large scale blank version. In addition to the doton geolocator maps, it would be nice to use this same basic map as a basis for stuff like historical maps (maps of wars, roman walls), transport maps, and political maps.
Lastly, a geotools question - can one get (for the UK) hydrological datasets (the courses of rivers and the locii of their watersheds)?
But in summary: it's good, let's do it - either #2 or #3 are good by me. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really like topographical map #3. Yes, #2 is better just as a relief map, but the primary purpose here is to stick a visible pin on the picture, and #3 just seems more likely to allow that.--Mais oui! 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Map #3 has the best visibility of the target dot whilst retaining the relief features. I agree with Finlay that the original image (on commons) should be larger, but some testing should be done for stability when it is downsized for browsing on WP. This leads on to the question of what should the final size be in the Infobox. The inclusion of Shetland over-extends the image size vertically. Would it be a good idea to reproduce this in a floating box near the mainland in the same manner that paper map publishers do? Thoughts welcome. --Cactus.man✍ 19:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a higher res (553x933) to the commons area - I have also uploaded a dot version at that res and have scaled it here and compared against the Glasgow pic that was already uploaded, that will give an idea how well mediawiki is going to resize (it seems to be fine).
I recognised the Shetland problem, and the eagle eyed will notice that the two images above show a slight difference with the high res one being as per reality, and I then 'pulled' Shetland down a few pixels to try and compress it a bit for the standard uploaded template file. Here is a test boxed version, I don't have any problems with that, thus allowing more space for the mainland - however I don't know if any Shetlanders have problems with always ending up 'boxed'.
At some point I can upload a super high res, as the current one is not (near) as high as it can go, but to go up from there will require me to rebuild the maps from the topo data (I am away on business from tomorrow until Friday, but I should have plenty of time to take a crack at doing a very large template map at the weekend).
In theory a white/black spot is a good idea, the only problem I see is that the marker is going to get so big that it will be covering too large an area to be individually distinctive (Location of Glasgow vs Paisley will become the same dot effectively if a white surround extends out from the black dot).
An outline of the methods I used are on Hellinterface's talk page - it is all basically variations on a theme, and should certainly be reproducible by others.
hydrological datasets is a sort of yes/no situation - I have experimented with them privately, and have implementations of all the watercourses for the Galloway map that I made - the reason it doesn't appear on the final map is all down to possible copyvio problems. I have posed the question on the issue here, but nobody has answered. The basemap data contains a lot of useful GIS components, but if it is OS derived then it can't be used - so at the moment I am not using with it for any WP work. SFC9394 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting aread of myself...I speculatively went started rolling this out before it was finalised, I'll obviously need to rectify that if any more changes take place. However, for those of you who want to see how it looks in an infobox before making up you mind on size/Shetland etc, check out Glasgow, Edinburgh or any other Scottish city. Hellinterface 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regard of the placement of Shetland, personally I'd favour the geographically correct rendering, even at the comcomitent expense of the shrinkage of the rest of the country. Part of the argument normal publishers use for consigning poor Shetland to a box is shortage of space; I'd argue that we can be afford to be moderately profligate with space (wiki is, after all, not paper). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to use the lighter map, the black dot marker is fine (perhaps a tad large, indeed). There's no hurry for the large map (indeed, I wouldn't bother until we're all agreed what the little maps will appear). In the longer term, I'd feel more comfortable if your intermediate files (the adjusted heightfield, and presumably a config file that defines the projection and maps colours to contours) were safely on commons; unfortunately commons still prohibits zip files and other archives, which makes storing such source-material there problematic. And thanks for the info about the hydrology; if only OS data were uncopyrighted like USGS. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk
It's looking good. I would prefer the "larger mainland / boxed Shetland" version (but with a lighter weight line for the box), but could live with either version. The resized image renders perfectly well. --Cactus.man✍ 08:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These examples look fine, though the black dot is on a lighter area and it's possible that a dot on the darker hill areas would look indistinct: could a lighter halo be added so that the dot is always against the light green background? Please keep Orkney and Shetland in their place: a friend from Orkney found her (London) office thought the ferry from Aberdeen wouldn't take long, as Orkney was just off the east coast. I welcome the proposal of a large base map with instructions so editors could crop, add a text layer and save as a new .png image (for me, using Photoshop Elements or Graphic Convertor), and have been on the lookout for such a base map to illustrate the Firth of Clyde. ..dave souza, talk 10:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, see examples 1, 2 and 3 above by User:SFC9394, submitted 11:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC). The dot looks fine in the middle of the Grampians on the light green map. Just as well your friends colleagues wern't going to Shetland then :-) --Cactus.man✍ 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have experimented a bit with putting a white border or marker on the black dot, but it seems to conflict with the map scaling a bit too much. It seems that for the infobox the map is auto scaled to 115px width or 200 px height, whichever comes first. So for these maps the rendered infobox map will be 115x194. Below is the scaled original dot, versus a scaled white border dot for comparison:
Normal DotWhite Border
It appears to make a little bit of a difference, however the white surround becomes more of a problem when the full image is viewed Image:Scot loc white surround test.png, now the location marking is overlaying out to a radius of ~30 miles, which both clouds the 'actual' location, and masks all the relief underneath (which could be a significant problem in highland regions). So we then have a full size image that is less than 100% useful due to overlarge markings. I have experimented with crossing white lines and various transparent shadings, but the problem keeps cropping up that to make something noticeable on the infobox scaled image it is going to stick out like a sore thumb on the original image. SFC9394 13:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the white border is problematic, and in island locations it would obliterate large chunks of land. I support the simple black dot, light green topographical map, larger mainland with repositioned Shetland in a lightweight lined box. Comments please everone so that we can agree the final format and start to roll this out. --Cactus.man✍ 09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer the version with the black dot and no white halo, though I'd go for the geographically-correct-Shetland version. Nice work on the topo map! ::Supergolden:: 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Black dot only. Geographically-correct-Shetland. Hellinterface 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any more thoughts or is everyone happy with the consensus situation outlined by Hellinterface above? I will give it a couple more days to see if any more views are posted and then we can update the category page and start running these guys out into WP (a super duper high res version is next on my to-do list, but it shouldn't impinge on the standard rollout). SFC9394 13:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support consensus outlined by Hellinterface. --Mais oui! 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, everyone seems settled. I have uploaded the set of HR maps to Scottish Location Maps. I have uploaded a new version of the St Andrews map just to check they can be overwritten without causing any probs, so Hellinterface's earlier work hasn't gone to waste. So it is just a case of getting this rolled out to everywhere it is required. SFC9394 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(<-- Unindent) Brilliant! Image:Scotland (Location) Template (HR) (with dot).png works fine for me in PSP 7.0 The image retains transparency when imported and I can reposition the dot whilst retaining transparency. Will start to reapply to articles when I can. --Cactus.man✍ 16:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all this work.--Mais oui! 16:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish Topics Template
I've updated the Template:Scottish topics to be more in line with the Template:English topics but of course changed the colour scheme. I'll put this template on more Scottish pages (the ones listed on the template) and if not wanted for any reason, just go ahead and remove it. Cheers, AntzUK 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well after what seems like hours, I've added the template to most pages listed on it (with a few exceptions). Personally, I find it much easier to browse Scottish topics. --AntzUK 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does the colour have to be quite so fierce? --Bob 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Camillus
talk|contribs 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
2 
3 
_Template.png)
.png)
Resized
_Template_(HR)_(with_dot).png){kind=link}
21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)