Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board

Archives
Archive 1, approximately September 2005 to December 2005 Archive 2, approximately January 2006 to February 2006 Archive 3, February 2006 to March 2006 Archive 4, March 2006 Archive 5, March 2006 to April 2006 Archive 6, March 2006 to August 2006 Archive 7, August 2006 to November 2006

Welcome. If you would like to ask Scottish Wikipedians something, here is the place to do it. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, which has a role more focused on the quality of key articles.

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--Doc^g 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.--Doc^g 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.

• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Scotland

--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 (UTC)

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.--Doc^g 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. --Doc^g 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.--Doc^g 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.--Doc^g 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 ;) --Doc^g 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!--Doc^g 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?--Doc^g 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)

• I hope this project is not being used regularly for canvassing or votestacking. Please consider the following guideline Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. Alan.ca 05:08, 12 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.

• [9]

--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)

• I've restored the page- since Chris did not bother to merge all the information in the Scottish page into the English/British one. Astrotrain 11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Please identify what was missing, and merge it into borough constituency. I would do it myself, but thanks to a certain editor with no regard for policy and an inability to count, I cannot repair the situation myself. Chris cheese whine 12:13, 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:

• Aschaffenburg
• Gifhorn
• Cantù
• Pskov

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:

• [11]

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:

• CFD discussion

--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.--Doc^g 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:

• Portal talk:Scotland/Suggestions

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!

Replaceable fair use disputed

Images of Goldie, Salmond and Stephen have already been deleted. Please see discussion at Image talk:Jack McConnell.jpg. This "fair use" issue is also current at the newly-uploaded Image:Alex Salmond.jpg.

It would be especially helpful if Users familiar with copyright and/or images could comment on this hot potato. --Mais oui! 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will lose this. Bottom line is that with high profile public figures, free images should be available. Either someone has snapped them at some point and will be willing to release it under the CC terms, or you could contact their publicity machines and see if they are willing to release something.--Doc^g 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

or maybe one of you Edinburghers can nip down to the parliament building with a camera and hang about a bit. Anybody from Banff & Buchan or Gordon needing to see their MP about something ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Earl of Carrick

There was an action earlier today by User:Tryde, who copied and pasted the contents of Earl of Carrick to a new article Earl of Carrick (Scotland), turning Earl of Carrick into a dab page. I reverted this move. Besides the fact that moves are not supposed to take place like this, my view is that the Scottish Earl of Carrick is clearly primary usage. I think this is quite safe, but if the user wishes further action, there may be a vote. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Presbyterianism

I notice that the Presbyterianism article lumps Scotland and England together. As any fule no, Presbyterians have historically been in the ascendancy here, and are "dissenters" south of the Border. They have quite a different history, just as the Episcopal church does on either side of the Border. --MacRusgail 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you know a bit, historically, and currently, about presbyterianism, perhaps you could add a bit to the religion section in Lewis, hint, hint... ;-) MRM 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New species discovered in Scotland

The following article may be of interest - Catacol Whitebeam. I would appreciate any help that you can give me to improve it.--MacRusgail 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dead Kings

I've created a new article on Burial places of British monarchs. I've focussed quite a lot on the Scottish stuff - but anyone interested in helping would be appreciated.--Sandy Donald 18:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Banner

I was looking for a WP:SCO banner to put it in my user page in commons, I didn't find any, so I made one and create a category, "Banners of Scotland" at commons. here is how the banner looks Like, any commnents?

John Manuel-01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency across articles

Please see Talk:University of Dundee#Edit wars. --Mais oui! 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Scotland portal a candidate for removal from featured portals.

See here. The portal seems to be poorly maintained Lurker 17:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

POV in Inverness article?

If anybody is suficiently interested, please check Inverness and the discussions on its talk page. It seems to me, and others, that there is an over-stressing of what is a minor issue in the introduction, and that the issues raised (such as they are) would be better represented by their own section. As it is, it reads very negatively and is quite unlike the entries for pretty much every other place I've seen here. Personally, I am sick fed up beating my head against the wikiwall on this issue and would appreciate some independant review of the situation. Lianachan 12:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fettes. Again.

POV-pushing seems to be happening once more over at the Fettes College article. Lurker (talk · contribs) 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image request

First of all, sorry for my English but I'm French...
I'm looking for a nice photo of the flag of Scotland to put in the banner of the french Scotland Portal. I'd like something like this one or this other one. So if you have a saltire in your garden or next to your home please take your camera and snap it with a nice sky in the back. Thanks a lot, Ayack 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC) And don't hesitate to correct my mistakes :-)

Salut Ayack, I'll reply in English... I'm sure someone here would be willing to let you use their flag, especially if requested in the group discussion. As I'm a member, I can ask if you like? MRM 18:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jo Rowling, the pride of Aberfeldy

At a loose end?

• Talk:J._K._Rowling#Scottish.3F

--Mais oui! 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nationality proposal in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles)

A rather interesting proposed innovation in guidelines is taking place at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles) and Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (United Kingdom-related articles). Essentially, it is an attempt to prescribe that all Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish people be called "British" in all articles concerning people from the United Kingdom. Essentially, if one finds themselves trying to retain "Sir Thomas Sean Connery (born August 25, 1930) is an Academy Award-winning Scottish actor and producer " instead of "Sir Thomas Sean Connery (born August 25, 1930) is an Academy Award-winning British actor and producer", the person pushing the latter will be able to quote the British only guidelines at you. If you support or oppose this innovation, or if you have any thoughts, you should go to the talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please debate this proposal on the relevant talk page, not here Lurker (said · done) 14:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lurker, I trust you transferred all of the messages deleted from this over there - didn't you? --MacRusgail 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'll leave that to the people involved (use the history). If you don't want comments deleted don't post them in the wrong place. Lurker (said · done) 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy to say that after people have posted, and you put the warning after there have been several replies. --MacRusgail 14:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Cities

The article "City status in the United Kingdom" needs more Scottish input. --MacRusgail 21:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Lauder

There is a dispute going on at Talk:Lauder. I am one of the two parties, the other being David Lauder. The dispute concerns the presentation of out-dated pseudo-history as fact in the article. I have requested third parties look in, but no-one has done so yet. So I invite a wider audience here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Scottish space school

A desperately sad article. Surely it could be fixed up before it gets sent off to AfD. Anyone fancy the challenge? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic Wiktionary - volunteers needed

Hi all,

I'm User:Alison - I'm sysop over on ga.wiktionary, where I'm rehabilitating the Irish language Wiktionary. Either way, I discovered last week that the Scottish Gaelic Wiktionary had been badly vandalised, had not been cleaned up in ages and was in serious disrepair. They had no sysop at all!! In fact, it's a prime candidate for shutting down and archiving :(

I requested emergency sysop privs and, to my surprise (horror! :) ), ended up with three months. So rather than just do a quick tidy-up and bail out, I'm hoping to stick around and get the wikt back on its feet. Though it's dormant, it's actually got a lot more pages than the Irish wikt does!

The problem I have is, though I'm reasonably fluent as Gaeilge, I cannot write Scottish Gaelic. I can read it okay & get the general idea, but I cannot do content creation. So right now, I'm updating the wikt; fixing MediaWiki to use proper Gàidhlig - that shouldn't be an issue, adding templates & systems pages, etc.

So ... this is a call to arms. Anyone interested in saving the Scottish Gaelic Wiktionary? You don't have to speak Gàidhlig to dig in - there's tons of work to do. Just click here!!

Who's with me? - Alison ☺ 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Didn't even know it existed. I wonder who set it up ? It's a pity they didn't let the contributors to the Gaelic Wikipedia know. Anyway, I'll do what I can but we really need native speakers like AnSiarach for the job. By the way the link should be to the Duille Mor really, shouldn't it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Duh! My mistake. Fixed now :) If anyone's active over on gd.wikipedia, spamming it to the Halla Baile, or whatever the noticeboard is called, would be cool. BTW, anyone who wants to help out on the Irish Language wikt would also be more than welcome - Alison ☺ 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia story in Scotland on Sunday

This may be of interest to some Users. However, I have got to say that SoS do appear to be a tad late with this. The WikiScanner story has been doing the rounds in the world's media for ages now.

• "Wikipedia warzone", Scotland on Sunday

Bit unfair to pick on Aberdeenshire Council too, considering that many public libraries and schools have their ip addresses. This is yet another reason to consider very carefully the advice contained in Wikipedia:Why create an account? --Mais oui! 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was good for a laugh, especially the mention of their "sophisticated scanning software", which I'm sure us mortals will never be able to use :D Jonathan Oldenbuck 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the recent edits of Ann Gloag and Section 28. The poster calling himself Sylvester McCoy has also edited bits of stagecoach articles, and other things on the homosexual debate a few years back. One has to ask, is this another case of corporate editing? --MacRusgail 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New Babel templates

If anyone likes to use the Wikipedia:Babel or Wikipedia:Userboxes on their Wikipedia:User page, then we have a new set of templates at our disposal. Please see:

• Template:User en-sc

--Mais oui! 07:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Renewable energy FAC

This began with various grumbles about images that I imagine I can fix. However, Tony then entered the fray and had unkind words to say about my deathless prose, ending up with "Try to find others to help with the copy-editing." Does anyone have such skills and/or know where to find such? I am somewhat in awe of Mr. T and I have been through so many reviews and re-edits of this article already I am struggling to see the cellulosic decomposition for the Forestry Commission plantations at present. Any help gratefully received. See Renewable energy in Scotland (nom). Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Celts

This culture, which has influenced literature, farming, navigation and so much of European life, for 4,000 years, and covers places as diverse as Portugal and Asia Minor, would be worthy of its own project. Modern areas still Celtic include Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Scotland and Wales. Please weigh in at the proposal Chris 04:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I understood Galicia to also be a modern celtic area. Or am I wrong? Rab-k 12:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Galician is a Romance Language. Of course, Galicia would once have been culturally Celtic, like much of Western Europe used to be, but that is in the distant past. Lurker (said · done) 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Galician issue is thorny, but as far as I can tell, England is as Celtic, if not more so than Galicia. --MacRusgail 15:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Saint" Kilda

I've nominated this for moving to St Kilda as there is no such place as St Kilda. Join in the discussion here. Lurker (said · done) 10:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Andy Murray, again

Yes, it's another Andy Murray edit war. Here we go again! Lurker (said · done) 13:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrific. Get involved in an edit war, and then go seeking recruits to support you so you don't get a 3RR warning? --Breadandcheese 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses..... --Mais oui! 15:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit war. I engage in negotiation and, while that is ongoing, I revert edits that are made without any attempt at justification in the edit summary or talk page (an act which is, of course, contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines). Just for the record, I have not edited the Andy Murray page at all during this, but I've gone to the effort of putting in some suggestions on the talk page. You, on the other hand... --Breadandcheese 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, restored the ref which had mysteriously managed to get removed by someone who found it inconvenient. --Mais oui! 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Breadandcheese, bringing an article to the attention of those who are interested in it is seen as a good thing on Wikipedia. And don't impugn my motives for doing so. Lurker (said · done) 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Go seeking recruits? Geez, Mr Cheese, weren't you one of the ones who wanted to delete any mention of Scotland, Wales and England, and replace it with GB/UK, without bothering to consult the various national boards about it? --MacRusgail 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not remotely what I wanted to do. Aren't you the one who kept prattling on about your bizarre political ideas until we were all thorougly bored and gave up? --Breadandcheese 04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Even disambig pages aren't safe! That's right, Glasgow Airport is not in Scotland. Lurker (said · done) 17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I never said that either. It seems bizarre to me the sort of people who would think that Scotland could in any way be equuivilent to the United States rather than a state thereof. It was blatently wrong, and now we've ended up with a 'compromise' that just looks silly. It appears that mentioning Scotland twice in fourteen words is not your view of 'enough information' on a location being in Scotland. I'm afraid it's very difficult not to question motives when faced with things like that. --Breadandcheese 04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Press-ups and Push-ups

There is a discussion underway at the press-up talk page as a user wants to move to the U.S usage- push-up. As this would appear to be in violation of the MoS (no renaming articles to other national varieties of English unless the topic has strong national ties), the move is unlikely to be approved but additional input on the talk page would be welcome. Lurker (said · done) 09:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rfc - is Andrew Murray a Scot?

Please see:

• Request for comment

--Mais oui! 14:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

English language?

Featured article today, "thou" - it may be worth pointing out that Lowland Scots is included in English dialects. By the way, I'm not getting into the whole language v. dialect thing - can't be bothered. I'm just bringing this to your attention. --MacRusgail 17:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's life. It's not worth getting upset about. Especially since most Scots dialects abandoned "thou" a long time ago. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality POV-pushers reach a new low

I suggest adding the article on the recently deceased rally driver Colin McRae to your watchlists. His body may be barely cold, but that isn't stopping the article from becoming the subject of a Scottish/British edit war. Lurker (said · done) 11:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. This is the most disgusting piece of petty nationalist shit-throwing I can remember on Wikipedia. The biography has stated that he was Scottish for as far back as I can be bothered to look in the edit history, but the moment the poor guy is killed, and therefore back in the headlines, the ranks of mindless British nationalist flag wavers come out of the nearest swamp. Truly, truly nauseating behaviour. --Mais oui! 12:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MO, I totally agree. Disgusting. --MacRusgail 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"petty nationalist shit-throwing". Can we tone down the language please? Debate should occur without everything falling into the gutter. AGF, NPA etc etc. SFC9394 18:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question: How is this "disgusting"? People die, it's a sad but nessascary fact (We don't want the world to be overrun afterall). The fact is that he has a British racing license and a British passport, therefore for encyclopedic usage he is British, not Scottish. Not only that but he is considered Scottish in the lead, isn't that enough? --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are pursuing a petty political agenda, with someone who has just died. That is disgusting. You really don't get it do you? The man is, and was, Scottish. --MacRusgail 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

One: I rather think you're doing the political agenda pushing. As we saw from the Nationality proposals, you are totally unwilling to discuss any merits of anything, just to throw around what Mais Oui! so eloquently refers. Now stop pretending that it matters a jot to Wikipedia that the man has just died - we didn't know him and we're supposed to be objective seekers of fact, not emotional playactors. If I come across a fact that is incorrect, I edit it, simple as that - although I did not participate in the editing of the page in question. The man is, and was, British too. What of it? --Breadandcheese 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that you're not very objective at all. Stop pretending to be. What of it? Is it illegal to be Scottish? If it bothers you so much, why not include it under some British subcats? Scots is my nationality, not "British". Britain is not a nation, but a state. --MacRusgail 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

An Englishman here, coming in peace (I hope!). I was reading McRae's page earlier, and noticed that the Nationality field was missing entirely from his infobox, so that it just read "{{{Nationality}}}". Clearly that needed fixing, so I changed it to "British". I did not change "Scottish" to "British", as it happens. However... I have to agree with those who feel he should be listed as such. Is McRae's Scottishness notable and relevant to the article? Absolutely it is, and mentioning it in the lead paragraph is sensible. But Scotland is not an independent country - whether people believe it should be independent is as much irrelevant here as it is with articles about Welsh or Cornish people.

If he'd been a footballer, cricketer, rugby player etc - any sport where the governing body made a significant distinction between the two nations - then that would be different. In motorsport, the FIA does not do this, and so "British" is correct. As it happens (not that it changes the argument) I was a huge fan of McRae, and was extremely upset to hear this news, but that doesn't mean we should start down the dangerous road of leaving "respectful intervals" before editing a deceased person's page. Actually, seeing as a death like this will mean a lot more views, I think it's important edits are continued at such a time. Loganberry (Talk) 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A non-British from the continental side of the Channel, here. I have a simple "yes or no" question here. Is Scotland an independent country? --Pc13 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland is a sporting nation. Is France part of the EU? If so, why don't we convert all references to France to "European Union", as that body takes precedence over it? --MacRusgail 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No... but there isn't one single criterion that will suffice for all sports. For example, consider someone from Belfast. In football, their nation would be considered to be "Northern Ireland". In rugby, it would be "Ireland". And in motorsport, it would be "United Kingdom". What's important is what the governing body of that particular sport uses. Loganberry (Talk) 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the entire point - it isn't a simple question. And attempts to distil this complex situation into some "simple answer" has lead to the current problems. It is complex - there is no simple answer. Scotland is part of the UK, yet has a very distinct and separate identity - much more so than it being nothing more than some "regional area" that it is viewed as in some quarters. To "simplify" is pointless - illustrated no better than the rejected guideline proposal that anyone with a UK passport had to be defined as their nationality being British - as the discussions that torpedoed it proved, there were literally hundreds of situations where the guideline was not only completely inappropriate, but frankly ludicrous. Simplified solutions never work - not for a complex socio, political and historical situation - it is actually completely insensitive to arbitrarily apply such simplified solutions. And while I am on a run with this I might as well bring up another area - wikpedia needs to get off this ridiculous "standardisation" bandwagon. The extent to which articles are forced to fit into some specific content "template" is getting silly. We are ending up with nothing but thousands of identikit articles that are actively *not* allowed to show any individuality away from "what we cabal of 5 editors on some backwater template page agreed upon" - any deviation is reverted as being non-standard - I am getting fed up with it. SFC9394 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The field in this infobox is nationality. Comparing to other sports doesn't work. I looked at {{Infobox Rugby biography}} which does not have a nationality field. It includes fields for place of birth, and national teams represented, without regard to whether the player was actually a citizen of the country they represented. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, my main area of work is biographies of cricketers - and in that sport we have several interesting factors. Firstly, as I mentioned above, England and Scotland are distinct sporting nations in cricket, and so Darren Gough, for example, gets a big English flag in his infobox, while Fraser Watts gets a Scottish flag. Wales is considered together with England for cricketing purposes (hence England and Wales Cricket Board) and so the Welshman Robert Croft also gets an English flag. Then you have to consider that Scotland have sometimes competed in English domestic competitions, and on those occasions non-Scottish people (such as the Indian Rahul Dravid) have appeared in Scotland colours. Note that he's categorised under "Scotland cricketers" but not "Scottish cricketers"; they're not the same thing. (Not to mention West Indies, a collection of independent countries who are considered a single nation specifically for cricketing purposes!)

On top of all that, we have people like Gavin Hamilton, whose international history is somewhat complex. He played international cricket at One-Day International level for Scotland, then appeared in a single Test match for England, and then played further ODIs for Scotland! His case was further complicated by the fact that that one appearance for England required him to spend four years re-qualifying for Scotland! Tests are more prestigious than ODIs, so on that score he should have been listed as "English", but against that he'd appeared many more times for Scotland. I think a combination of that and his actual birthplace tipped the balance in the end towards "Scottish", which is how he's listed now. "British" would have looked silly simply because there's no such national identity recognised by cricket's governing body. As a previous editor said, it's not always simple! However, until and unless the FIA decide that drivers should be listed as English, Scottish etc, I can't see that UK competitors in motorsport should be listed as anything other than "British". Loganberry (Talk) 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[12]. As I said - simple blanket rules are not only a bad idea, but a pretty naive way to write an encyclopaedia. SFC9394 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the flags on the side of the car are not official as the drivers request which flag they have on the side of their car. A good, and recent example, is down in the Formula BMW category where a certain Rupert Svendsen-Cook races under a UK license (thus the "GB" in this document from the Official FBMW UK site) but has the Flag of Norway on the side of his car, (see picture here [13]) so tell me, is Rupert Norwegian because he has a flag on the side of his car? No, because he doesn't have a Norwegian passport or racing license, therefore he can't be considered Norwegian - The same with McRae and Scotland. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 12:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice there is some major hypocrisy going on, the Andrea McLean article is edited to read that she is British, and a comment about her accent edited out, oh and its by an anonymous IP which I find deeply suspicious. Yet both Carol McGiffin and Coleen Nolan have English as their nationalities and it is left alone, and the Scots are accused of being petty..... Douglasnicol 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues regarding ownership of articles seem to come up here. The article on David Coulthard was reverted with an edit summary saying it was " per consensus on WP:F1", who are not an authority regarding nationality as far as I am aware. Lurker (said · done) 12:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest argument is "nationality of racing license". I was not aware an inanimate object could have a nationality. Lurker (said · done) 10:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe "nationality of racing license" is your phrase - it was not used in the discussion on Coulthard. "License" with that spelling was *certainly* not used by me! An inanimate object can *show* a nationality, just as the WP infobox does.

Why is your opinion - unilateral, to use your word - better than a consensus? Every change to Wikipedia is made by a single user, so you can call it unilateral. David Coulthard is Scottish. There is no argument about that, the article states it in its first few words. He is also British - he participates in motor racing as British, the Union Jack is raised when he finishes on the podium. If you dispute that, cite a source. If not, it becomes a matter of opinion which nationality is used in which context. You are welcome to re-open the discussion, but not to overrule it with your own POV. -- Ian Dalziel 11:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still interested in only one thing, which is to define legal citizenship. Whatever regional hang-ups you guys have inside your borders is up to you. As far as I'm aware, Colin McRae and all other Scottish racing drivers are as British as Nigel Mansell. As a non-Brit, I don't see the Scottish claim to nationality as having more value than the Catalunian, Flemish and Tibetan claims. --Pc13 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Scotland isn't a "region", it is a consituent kingdom/country of the UK. But then again, you probably think the Dalai Lama is Chinese - he isn't by any stretch. --MacRusgail 17:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although on a related article, look at the Graham Obree article, he was born in England, yet seems to be referred to often as Scottish, when I brought this up I got a rather snide reply about 'petty nationalism'. It's strange that its the English that seem to be throwing most of the insults around. I think you should be able to be proud to be Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish, you can even be proud to be one of those AND British, but it seems to be that if you're a proud Scot you're suddenly getting tarred with the SNP/SSP brush and I object strongly to that. I know some English folk have said that they sometimes feel (this was on another internet site) that if they display the St Georges cross the tabloid media often start throwing insinuations around regarding the BNP which is unfortunate. Can't we all be proud to be an inhabitant of one of the constituent countries that make up the UNITED Kingdom? Douglasnicol 16:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Scotland good article in jeopardy

The good article status of the Scotland article may be rescinded, due to several issues, such as overlinking and badly-formatted references. See the talk page for a fuller list of problems with the article. Lurker (said · done) 10:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New Scottish English userbox

See original Talk page announcement above: Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#New_Babel_templates.

Hello all, there are the new Scottish English userboxes. These userboxes replaced {{User en-sc}}, since ISO 3166-2:GB#BS-only codes shows Scotland's code to be gb-sct, not "sc". For more details, see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Non-ISO Languages#en-gb-sct (Scottish English). Cheers! Taric25 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the policy to discuss before making changes that very specifically affect something across hundreds of userboxes - consensus? after all these are choices made by individual editors - now having their language rolled into "GB" - whatever that means (see discussion above) SFC9394 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on further inspection you simply shouldn't be doing that Taric - [14] that's someone's user page - you can make one change on good faith - but you should not be reverting - most certainly because this isn't in any severe polemic area. SFC9394 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to Taric, it seems it was only in use in three places, although that does not alter the principle. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for choosing to engage in this positive way. I note that ISO 3166-2:GB#BS-only codes states "None of these codes are part of ISO 3166-2. GB-UKM United Kingdom... GB-SCT Scotland." They are also area codes rather than language codes. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I fear that we are developing a reputation for boisterous dialogue and that M. Taric may have seen this as an announcement rather than an ongoing dialogue. I will move the above to Template talk:User en-gb-sct-N and continue the discussion there. There seem to be two issues. Firstly M. Taric's insousiance with User pages (bygones), and secondly whether the new template is of value. Personally I am of the view that whilst it is unlikely to be used a great deal the 0-N gradings could be considered an improvement. However, "English-British-Scottish" in a userbox is an absurd mouthful and not consistent with other userboxes. I intend to suggest the 'gb' be removed. See you there. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A while back I created a set of Userboxes for speakers of Scottish English: {{Language table|en-sc}} Another user then created a duplicate set of boxes and their associated cats, the only difference being that they renamed them from "en-sc" to "en-gb-sct". Which do you prefer? Please contribute at:

• Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Scottish_English

--Mais oui! 07:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the consensus of the our discussion at Per Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Scottish English categories, we now use the following userboxes.

{{Language table|en-sco}}

Cheers! Taric25 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Young

In Douglas Young (classicist), I wikilinked Act of Union to Acts of Union 1707. I did it as part of The Red Link Project, but I don't know the facts here. There are four acts of union. I'm asking for a doublecheck that I linked to the right one. The context is below.

In 1938, Douglas Young joined the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and served as leader 1942 to 1945. Christian Kopff wrote an article called "A Free-Minded Scot" which is a biography of Douglas Young focusing on his efforts to test the Act Of Unions right to force Scots to serve in the British Military outside of the British Isles.

Whether it's good or bad, I'll leave it the experts here to fix it. Thank you. Guroadrunner 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Scottish people yet again

There's a new picture gracing Scottish people. It includes that weel-kent son of Scotia Mel Gibson. As Sean might say, shurely shome mishtake! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image: Image:St Margaret.jpg

I've listed Image:St Margaret.jpg at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. It's currently used in three articles. The grisly details are at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 September 25. Essentially the stained glass window remains a copyrighted work (creator died 1950, work created 1934) and as an imagining, it can't be fair use in two of the three articles. Whether it can be fair use in Saint Margaret's Chapel, that I don't know. Do you? If so, tell the nice people at PUI. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Angus, it always gives me a chuckle when I hear "unfree" - it's a word I have only ever seen on wikipedia and in 1984. --MacRusgail 14:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Relocation Proposal

I am putting a proposal in the talk page of Lewis that Lewis be moved to "Isle of Lewis" and the disambig page moved to Lewis (or just no article at "Lewis"). This is because of an endless stream of people vandalising the "isle of lewis" article with messages for friends called "Lewis". If you are interested, please comment on the Lewis talk page.MRM 11:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)rm

North Briton move

I have proposed a move of the North Briton article to North Britain in order to be able to incorporate more information and give a clearer introduction to the concept. I feel that while the latter can easily imply the former, the present situation seems to be entirely geared towards simply discussing the people rather than the entirety of the topic.

Anyway, I've started a discussion on the talk page. --Breadandcheese 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again!

The edit warring on Colin McRae has resumed.

Sigh. Lurker (said · done) 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And its funny again how the Scots get accused when its the other side making a bigger issue...disgusting. Douglasnicol 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Beware, at least one of the parties concerned appears to be using a sock puppet too. --MacRusgail 14:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ulster Banner straw poll

Hello there,

A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Irvine Central Hospital

Can someone help me find out whether Irvine Central Hospital (an article I just created) is the same as Ayrshire Central Hospital? They look like sharing telno and address but they are listed as distinct hospitals in one of the refs... no time for me to google it more. NerdyNSK 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient universities of Scotland - redirect?

Should the Ancient universities of Scotland article be redirected?. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Ancient universities of Scotland.--Mais oui! 10:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been redirected for months. Feel free to open up a discussion on it, however I believe its an entirely uncontroversial merge and a waste of time. --Breadandcheese 11:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really fit with the British image considering that most of these were founded when Scotland was an independent country, and so have entirely different styles and foundations. --MacRusgail 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Equally, there are enormous features in common with the institutions and, moreover, is anybody going to create a "Ancient Universities of Ireland" or "Ancient Universities of England" article? The ancient universities article is inevitably going to have a large Scottish focus as there have been five (or six, depending on outlook) ancient universities in Scotland, vs three in the rest of the British Isles. --Breadandcheese 04:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. With that focus the "Ancient university" article should be more descriptively named, perhaps something like "Ancient universities of Scotland, etcetera", <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. That'd be rather like redirecting British people to White British just because most of the former are part of the latter. In other words, patently ridiculous. --Breadandcheese 07:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was Egregious Professor of Accountancy at the University of Gondwanaland for a time and I take serious issue with the use of 'ancient' in this context. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good suggestion, perhaps someone can start the articles about the "Ancient Universities of Ireland" and "Ancient Universities of England" --MacRusgail 18:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone feels they can create a good-quality, cited article about this subject, the best option would be to be bold and create it where the redirect used to be. Lurker (said · done) 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Scotland: The Worst?

We prominently display our successes at WP:SCO, but in the interests of maintaining a balanced view of our achievements, perhaps we should own up to our deficiencies. Why not a list of the project's worst articles? I'd like to nominate Slainte with its hilarious combination of non-sequitours, and lack of disambiguation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style (biographies): British, or English, (Northern) Irish, Scottish, Welsh?

Hi, there's currently a proposal by me for "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)" to be clarified with usage notes regarding the use of "British" or "English", "(Northern) Irish", "Scottish" and "Welsh" to be used to describe the nationality of persons in biographical articles. Do provide your views at the "talk page" so that broad consensus on the matter can be reached. Cheers, Jacklee 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Ireland

Portal:Ireland is up for featured portal candidacy. All views welcome! --sony-youth^pléigh 11:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates - Help?

I've just finished an article House of the Binns and I'm working on some more properties. But I'm wondering how you put the coordinates on these things. Can someone point me to the right page, cos I can't find instructions?--Doc^g 09:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have a look at Template:Coor, that covers what there is in the way of templates that work with latitude and longitude. The main problem seems to be people using a template that expects degrees, minutes, (and seconds) with a decimal value or vice versa. If you want to use OS map references, there's Template:Oscoor.

That means that SD7668 should be about the same place as 54°6′40.31″N 2°21′27.1″W and so it is! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay Peer Review

The article on the island of Shapinsay is up for peer review. Feel free to contribute suggestions on how the article can be improved. Lurker (said · done) 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

UK infobox place

An edit shuffle has been taking place as various editors have attempted to remove the Saltire in the Inverness infobox. This is clearly not just about Inverness and as there are several other unresolved issues concerning the use of this template, I have begun a dialogue at Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/examples (the talk page adjacent to the 'Scottish' example of the infobox). Your input is welcome. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Carnegie

Andrew Carnegie's article has been stripped of its Good Article status, due to a lack of references, and stubby paragraph style. Feel free to help correct this. Lurker (said · done) 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Shapinsay Featured Article Candidate

The article on the island of Shapinsay is now a Featured Article Candidate. Please go to its nomination page to give your opinion. Lurker (said · done) 13:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Céilidh

I'm no expert on céilidhs but having just read the article it seems overly prescriptive as to the definition and to have too much emphasis on a modern day and non-Highland concept of a céilidh. It's also lacking in-text citations and could do with some copy-editing. Mutt Lunker 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland national football team/Tartan Army

The Scotland national football team's nickname is listed as "The Tartan Army", in contradiction to the latter's own article. This is cited though, although I'm unsure how reliably. Surely Tartan Army is only ever used in reference to the support and not the team. Does anyone know of any reputable, particularly Scottish, reference's to support this usage before I scrap it? Mutt Lunker 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that you'll be able to find a reliable reference, so scrap it. The two websites referenced in the article are just plain wrong. The Tartan Army has always been the fans, not the players. As I recall the term first became popular during the Argentinian World Cup campaign. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't like to talk about that. :(--Doc^g 02:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge of National Cuisines

Apparently there is no unique Scottish cuisine. I nearly choked over my rowie at that one. See a proposal to merge all UK national cuisine articles into British cuisine. Leithp 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people just love to merge. It's getting a little much in some places. Why have an article on Scotland at all, why not merge it into East Anglia or Brugges or Chocolate?MRM 13:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd very much like to live in a word where Scotland could be easily merged with an article on Chocolate from Bruges. Generally though, merging does work and is fairly positive rather than the duplication that would exist without it. Sometimes it's considerably more difficult to contain and article within a strict and tight (and sometimes entirely arbitrary) remit. --Breadandcheese 22:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Government

It apears that WP is having problems keeping up with restructuring at the recently renamed Scottish Government. The problem seems to be the replacement of a dozen departments with around 40 directorates, and how best to present this on WP. Please see discussion at Talk:Scottish Government#Directorates. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Anybody fancy some proof-reading?

Unlikely I know, but if you do, perhaps you could take a quick look at Constantine II of Scotland. It's rather long, although not as long as Scotland, only a pudgy who-ate-half-the-bridies? 47K, and a fair bit of that is references that nobody will read anyway. Any and all criticism gratefully received. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I'll take a wee look later on today. Lurker (said · done) 12:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting Shapinsay

The Shapinsay FA nomination has been opposed by an editor who feels the article could be with some more copyediting. Two of us have made some improvements, but a copyedit from someone who isn't so familiar with the article may catch things we've missed. Lurker (said · done) 12:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neilston peer review

Hello team,

Just a note to all those geographers out there that Neilston (a village near Glasgow) is up for peer review. Any feedback/input is welcome at Wikipedia:Peer review/Neilston. I'm aware some of the text is a little weak, but I've struggled finding source material as the village is so small. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Last call for Shapinsay

The Shapinsay article has been a Featured Article candidate for a while now. Objections have been raised and dealt with; there are now no oppose votes. However, some extra input is needed to get this passed. Please go to the nomination page, have a look at the article, and then give your opinion. If you can vote support, great. If you have objections, please raise them sooner rather than later so we can get them fixed. A lot of work by multiple members of this WikiProject has gone into this article, so please support us by voting for the article or showing us where the article needs fixing. It'd be a shame if, after many of us having extensively worked on the article to deal with objections, the article failed because of apathy. Lurker (said · done) 15:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone heeded the call, and the article was promptly promoted. Thanks. Lurker (said · done) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Scottish counties by area

Have you noticed this is prodded? Not by me, btw. Greswik (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Records of the Parliaments of Scotland

There's a new website, currently in the beta test phase, for the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland at http://www.rps.ac.uk which might be of interest, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks very interesting. Well done, St Andrews University and in particular, the RPS project members! I particularly like the feedback form for pointing out corrections that need to be made to spelling, translations, etc. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Scotland peer review

With the intention of getting Scotland promoted to Featured Article early in 2008, there is now a peer review to comment on. Any help would be much appreciated. Lurker (said · done) 15:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia become a free publicity vehicle for the Labour Party?

After an edit yesterday, the Scottish independence article reads:

• "Scottish independence is a separatist political ambition of..."

When did Wikipedia become a free publicity vehicle for the Labour Party? --Mais oui! (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Fixed (the article, not Wikipedia). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sections of the article deeply trouble me as well (not for obvious reasons either). It does seem highly POV and does sound like a collection of WP:OR statements, that are kind of referenced in a certain way - to reference the claim - but not to reference the point that is being made, if you catch what I mean - ie the references are ambiguous.

There are also plenty of POV (disputable) statements:

"There are also many who are concerned that independence would lead to the break-up of Scotland itself, with popular movements for Self-determination existing in Orkney and Shetland, which were historically part of Norway." Unreferenced not cited, and linking to a defunct political movement.

Others argue that as part of an unitary British state, Scotland has more influence on international affairs and diplomacy, both politically and militarily, as part of NATO, the G8 and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. No reference unambigously stating this point.

I could go on.

Ironically a huge amount of the references of that section and the article come from The Scotsman, not exactly noted for its political impartiality. I haven't got time to clean it up right now, but it is becoming an essay and a pretty biased one at that. Cheers Globaltraveller (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We should just chop all the crap, per WP:VERIFY and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. Far better to have a clean, respectable, quality stub than a filthy long essay. Political topics, which are often highly disputed/disputable, should never be over-reliant on media sources. This article needs to be supported by weightier works. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hugely up on the machinations of the various Wiki policies. There are some pretty obvious misleading unqualified statements within the section, but there are also others that are referenced by news articles that are based upon the machinations, arguments and opinions of political parties and political organisations, and there are other references that are nothing more than political party propaganda, for example:

Many Unionists have also contested claims by the SNP that Scotland currently underperforms economically, relative to other small countries in the region; such as Norway, Finland and Ireland which is referenced by this article:[15] Clearly not neutral neither does it quantify the statement "Many Unionists".

My take on WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE as well as WP:OR is that sources should techinically be "third party" and "independent" not the opinions of politicians, journalists or anybody else, otherwise Wikipedia would become nothing but a recepticle for the opinions of...well...everybody and everything. But I'm not really sure on all this bureaucracy. Globaltraveller (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree there are problems with the article, but I don't think the first sentence is one of them. What's wrong with characterising Scottish independence as a 'separatist political ambition'? In what respect is separatism an inaccurate description? Terraxos (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• • It is a technically accurate phrase, but in this context highly POV as the word has been used so frequently by opponents of the idea as a criticism. An explanation of this would not go amiss in the article, but to have it in the first sentence (and with no subsequent discussion) is out of order. I note your interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Comparisons of this kind may not be either accurate or fair, but it may be a little like inserting the word 'Zionist' into the lead of Israel. Whatever the truth of the assertion the result is likely to be inflammatory rather than educational - the reverse of which is my intention here. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 14:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Alright, fair enough. Although it can be used neutrally, I agree that 'separatism' has negative connotations, so perhaps should be avoided in the lead. It's entirely clear what 'Scottish independence' refers to even without it, anyway. Terraxos (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Edinburgh congestion charge

Hi all. This is an article I have expanded quite a bit from a short one on the road tolls referendum in 2005. I would appreciate others looking at it for accuracy and bias as I am not local and have found a wide range of sources more difficult to come by. Also, I think it could do with a map of the proposed cordons. Many thanks, Regan123 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jacobites

An enthusiastic anon (User talk:80.229.9.98) has carried out a series of edits to Jacobite rising and Jacobitism to make "corrections to a sometimes factually inaccurate account that used markedly Jacobite terminology in spite of the FACT of Britain's evolution into a *constitutional* monarchy after 1688." My own preference was for the previous terminology, some of the changes may be worthwhile, a few appear inaccurate. How do others feel? ... dave souza, talk 14:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the changes, far from improving the article, have added notes of stridency and hostility which were previously absent from the article. My own sympathies lie with the Hanoverians rather than the Jacobites yet I do not see the "pro-Jacobite" point of view which the anonymous editor takes objection to. I think that we should handle this in the same way that we dealt with changes by the Jacobite sympathisers a while ago. In other words basically keep what we originally had. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hej då!

For the first time ever since joining Wikipedia I have decided to take a Wikibreak. I am getting married on Monday, Hogmanay, and thereafter have a long holiday to look forward to. In addition, my old job was the type where you sit around and wait for things to go wrong, which they often did not, and that allowed me to spend an amazing amount of time around here. However, I have moved onwards and upwards on the career ladder too, which has slowly squeezed out my activities here, and on the various other language versions of Wikipedia to which I have periodically contributed.

I am inordinately proud of my record here at Wikipedia. I am probably only marginally less capable as a Wikipedia editor than I was as a blogger. I wish all well who wish Scotland well. Slàinte mhath! --Mais oui! (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mais, don't overdo the pride, all the best for married life and your career! .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mais Oui!, all the best to you. I'm glad you're moving into a better and more fulfilling life. You will be missed sorely by most of us, though I'm sure one or two won't miss you (no names need be mentioned). Good luck with the marriage! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed. If I knew your address I'd send a tandem. Have great break .... and haste ye back. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 21:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mais Oui! We'll miss you, and welcome you back. Have a great break, wedding, honeymoon and holiday! Slàinte mhath! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good health and good luck to you! You've done some fine work on Wikipedia, of which setting up this noticeboard is just one example, and you deserve a break. But I hope that your new job (and your new wife) will allow you a little time to continue editing with us sooner rather than later. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mais Oui! I hope your wedding is great and wish you all the best. And I look forward to seeing you again when you return to editing, the wife permitting. Lurker (said · done) 14:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard you had left Wikipedia. It's worth my coming back for a day just to say "Thank bloody goodness"! Maybe I'll start contributing again ... Mallimak (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Larbert

I've significantly updated the Larbert article. Not the most exciting place in the world, I'd agree but I am considering submitting the article for Peer Review in the near future. However, before I do so, I'd be eternally grateful for anyone to have a read through pick up any schoolboy errors/spelling/prose/punctuation etc or to do a copyedit etc. Any advice on how to improve the article and constructive criticism would be gratefully received. Cheers Globaltraveller (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Pictish monarchs

Template:Pictish monarchs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Michael Sanders has nominated for deletion the old Scottish Monarchs template. He has created in the last few minutes a Scottish monarchs template. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_3#Template:Scottish_Monarchs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hew Scott

A head up that a new article about Hew Scott, author of Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, has been nominated for AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jamie Rennie

I would be grateful if a Scottish Wikipedian could have a look at this. For mine, the article doesn't establish notability and there are serious BLP concerns. I would like to nominate it for AfD but would appreciate views of Scottish Wikipedians as to the notability of this person. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stow, Scottish Borders

Move of Stow, Scottish Borders to Stow of Wedale proposed at Talk:Stow, Scottish Borders. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)