Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
A hotheaded and somewhat paranoid user is adding what I regard as nonsense to the article ] (see also ]). I am on 3RR for now, so can't revert him for now. Can people review and perhaps tell me if I am wrong to think as I do. - '''] ('']'')''' 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
A hotheaded and somewhat paranoid user is adding what I regard as nonsense to the article ] (see also ]). I am on 3RR for now, so can't revert him for now. Can people review and perhaps tell me if I am wrong to think as I do. - '''] ('']'')''' 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
:His final, rather lengthy, rant is possibly the best example of a user completely destroying their own credibility ive seen. I still cant get over the fact he defends his POV on a historical article (partly) on the basis he was once a fan of Scandinavian Metal - incredible. ]
:His final, rather lengthy, rant is possibly the best example of a user completely destroying their own credibility ive seen. I still cant get over the fact he defends his POV on a historical article (partly) on the basis he was once a fan of Scandinavian Metal - incredible. ]
:Yes, it's all my fault that you haven't read the same books as me. I'm sure it's a strange thing indeed. ] as you suggested, should have been your first act. Instead, you got unilateral on your own anyways. Now, you have your own personal attacks about my purported paranoia. With me, what you see is what you get. So, you admit the desire to have a revert war and are upset that the 3RR would spoil your fun?
:No, you're not wrong in being ignorant on the topic. It's not a widely promoted thing in the big cities, but when you go as a tourist to the countryside it is all they talk about. It is the story of us "backwards rustics and rednecks", but please, be open to cultural diversity and forestall the prejudice. You hurt my feelings, which is why I got upset. Leave it at that, rather than the dehumanising hothead-nonsense.
:Now, I see you've got another joker to come ridicule and silence the segment of population you want to claim as your own exclusive '''historic''' glory. The keyword ''is'' historic. ] 22:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
On a related issue, can I ask what folks think of the recent editing in of twin gaelic/english name usage on infoboxes (eg. Forfar)? The reason given by Grcampbell in the edit summary is "Scotland is a dual language country...". That may technically be the case (with 1.16% of the population speaking gaelic), but this is an english language wiki - it isn't designed to be for gaelic speaking people (that would be what the Gaelic WP is for), or to conform to Scottish Exec guidelines. I don't have a problem with the gaelic name being in the article itself, it is a useful and interesting piece of information, but don't see any need for it to be the header in the infobox (what next, gaelic name redirects to the english article?) especially for the case that I linked to above. It would make sense out in the west where there is widespread use, but Forfar doesn't have dual language signposts or anything like that, indeed only 0.42% (or 55 people out of 13,000) actually speak the language in the town. Isn't the prominent usage going to give a false impression to those from out with Scotland as to the languages use and status? I don't mean to have a go at Gaelic (I am attempting to learn it myself), but I just see an increasing proliferation of its use out of all proportions to its current situation in Scotland. I too would like to see the day that we have true dual language status such as is the case in Wales or Ireland, but to paint that as currently being the case by having gaelic names splashed at the top of infoboxes, implying that it is an official and used name for a place, is a bit of a misdirection. Exceptions would be, as I said out in the western isles, where it obviously is used, and probably Glasgow and Edinburgh since they have an odd bit of usage as well (at Queen Street and Waverly stations for example), but other than that it is just going to potentially misinform non-scottish readers. SFC939416:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I often enter, or correct, Gaelic placenames. This has nothing to do with any "dual language" status of Scotland, whether that exists or not, and nothing to do with pushing a Gaelic POV. Most places in Scotland have names which stem from Gaelic, or (like Fort Augustus) have Gaelic names which predate the English name (and are still in use today). When the Gaelic name for a place is mentioned, I see it as an additional bit of historical information. Also, toponymy is a subject that many people find fascinating. Lianachan16:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you - I am not saying they should be removed from any mention in the article, but they can be mentioned in a toponymy context without having to be header’ed. My fear is that we have gaelic place names emboldened as equal to english place names in an infobox in a current context (ie. not a historical look, but an implication that this is currently in use) then it is communicating to readers who don't know any different that they could use gaelic place names just as equally as English names and not expect to encounter any problems. SFC939417:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
One only has to look at the Scotland article to see that it has been welcome for a long time that Gaelic be used in that infobox. The reasoning behind using it for cities is along the same lines. The rest of the spiel I was going to say has been covered by Lianachan aptly. Also, the names are currently in use. By Gaelic speakers and the Scottish parliament. --Bob17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to continue this one on, we now have an anon IP editing in the Scots version as well - Edinburgh. IMHO it makes the top of the infobox look a bit top heavy and daft. Perhaps a few extra category spaces could be added into the infobox for all the variations and leave the wiki language version at the top. SFC939417:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, it isn't just cities that it has gone into - Forfar for one. Their usage by gaelic speakers is exactly the point - they aren't used by english speakers - this is the english language wiki. Historical context I have no problem with - current usage on the basis that the scottish parliament uses it, I am afraid I don't buy. SFC939417:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Having looked at the Forfar entry, I do see where you're coming from with this. Having the Gaelic name there offers no historical insight, or translation of the placename. (Irrelevant, but I think the Gaelic name for Forfar is actually Baile Fharfair anyway). Lianachan17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've seen both, but it is true that it is more often accompanied by the word Baile, which means town --Bob18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, if people are so vehemently against Gaelic placenames at the top of the box, then in the infobox we could place an optional line for both the name of the town in Gaelic and the translation. Which, in this case would be town of shelving slope. --Bob18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Why have infoboxes at all then? Also, I see no-one has yet suggested removing Alba from the Scotland infobox --Bob18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Would it not depend on how much the Gaelic name was in common useage, or how immediately relevant the Gaelic name is? Infoboxes aren't supposed to have every bit of information in them, but be a quick list of facts/stats/info. Lianachan18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not 'vehemently' against the use of names at the top of the box - I just don't think it is a good idea in the majority of cases. For example, it makes perfect sense with Portree or Stornoway, but no sense for small towns on the east coast of scotland where gaelic is no longer in general use. I would always encourage any historical additions that are about the gaelic name in the body of the article, as that adds a bit of depth and distinction to articles which so many other places struggle to get. Whether the names (including any scots versions) get a place as an optional line in the infobox is a judgement call - I have less of an issue with that as compared to the bold version - it is all down to whether it is a useful enough piece of info, since the infoboxes are just a gather box for the most useful facts to aid the reader. They aid both in allowing quick facts to be brought to the front (if someone wants to find out who the msp's are for Glasgow they can do so nice and quickly) and it also visually standardises basic facts (such as population) to aid fact finding irrespective of location or individual editors stylistic choices. SFC939420:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Further point with regards to Alba, that is be a special case, since it is a country box, not a place box. Also, if you want to look at it in a speaking sense, as you say, gaelic is an official language of Scotland, so it gets its place there, but zoom in to a town level and gaelic is not an official language of town foo so doesn’t get a mention, but is an official language of town bar, so does get a mention. Relevancy is all I am really after. SFC939420:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Since when did towns start taking "official languages"? If you want to take the opinion that a government's position on language status doesn't matter, then go over to the Kiev article, and put the Russian name of that Russophone city before its Ukrainian one, see how long it takes before the edit is reverted. :) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Again - what has Russia got to do with anything? I couldn't care less about Kiev, and it, or any revert wars taking place there, have nothing to do with this subject. If I go into my local council offices and ask them for foobar literature in gaelic they will say "no chance", if I go and do the same thing on Skye they will say "no problem". To be in ignorance of where gaelic is spoken just to suit your view is, once again, highly questionable. SFC939420:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Stranraer? Why don't you tell them to change the name of the town, because it's not in English anyway. The English translation is more fun anyway - "Fat Nose". --MacRusgail21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't have a clue what your point is - if you are trying to insinuate that I have a problem with gaelic origin place names then you haven't read anything I have posted here (and are 100% wrong, I like the origin of the name, as well as the rhins, which I believe also has gaelic roots). SFC939421:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have no problem with you missing the point. It happens. However much or little you care about Kiev, it isn't unimportant. It's one of thousands of examples which make a nonsense of the importance you are assigning to "foobar literature in gaelic". I'm not "in ignorance" (such friendly phrases!) of where Gaelic is spoken, it just isn't more relevant than the other historical or political factors that, for instance, lead to train stations in Glasgow and Edinburgh putting Gaelic names on their signs, and lead to the Ukrainian name for Kiev being placed before Russian (the language of the city) on the wikipedia article. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
But what you are talking about is very grey and blurry. The gaelic histororical context of a place should be included, but you are trying to bring in a lot of mystical things which can so easily become attached to a lot of romantic thoughts. You are arguing that the gaelic place name has as much right to be there as the anglicised version of it, on the basis that the 'official' version of events isn't always what really happened - but WP is not here to change what is officially accepted, merely to represent it. Truth is gaelic versions of place names are not used on a day to day basis throughout most of Scotland - all WP should be doing is representing that truth, not trying to represent some alternate version of things based on how things could or should be. SFC939421:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
And truth be told, the gaelic train station signs are there for the tourists - you don't get a gaelic welcome at anniesland, but you do at queen street - it has little to do with deep historical appreciation and much more to do with creating an image, an impression for those from out with Scotland - I wish it wasn't the case, but that is the reason you don't get a Fàilte at anniesland, but do at the transport hub (the same at Glasgow airport if my memory serves). SFC939421:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that when anyone opens with a title "POV pushing", my immediate reaction, based on my experience, is that they themselves are pushing the opposite point of view. It's not POV pushing to put the nation's second "official" language (and historical language BTW), it's informative. My opinion is that Gaelic names should be in the opening of the text, and at the top of the table, as they are in Irish articles, irrespective of the % of the population of the particular place who speak it. For all those simple souls who'll allegedly have their poor little heads confused by the status of Gaelic, there is always a link to the language next to the place name, where they will find all the info they'd need. I'm sorry I find that argument impossible to take seriously, but it's the argument I see all the time in revert wars over putting in/deleting Russian names at the same place in Ukrainian towns, or Polish names on Lithuanian towns, etc. There isn't an issue here, don't see why one or two people are trying to make it one. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect Calgacus,
I did not start this title - I merely added here since it was already running and makes more sense than starting yet another chapter on this very lengthy page.
I am sure you do see it all the time in Russian articles, but this ain't Russia, and to make such a comparison is in total ignorance of both the facts and the historical context. No too situations can be fully comparable - and to dismiss percentages out of hand simply because it suits you POV is questionable at the very least. SFC939420:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Now there's a friendly start. I'm POV am I? Now we all just learned something: read over the page User:Molobo for one of legions of examples of someone accusing someone else of the quality they themselves are characterized by. No, I've not said anything about you being POV; I say no such thing, and although you yourself are making it out as if you are "POV", I'm keeping an open mind on the topic. ;) And when did I say you started this title? I didn't say it, I know who started the title. And if you think the comparison is in "total ignorance", as you so nicely put it, maybe you'll discover how right or wrong you are when you start removing Gaelic names from busy Scottish town articles. Such things are prone to sensitivies; and unless you yourself have an agenda, then ... when you see a dragon sleeping, my advice to you is, let it sleep. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
First you said:
I'm afraid that when anyone opens with a title "POV pushing", my immediate reaction, based on my experience, is that they themselves are pushing the opposite point of view
Now you say:
No, I've not said anything about you being POV
I have no time for trolls - If you believe that I have a big issue about this then you are 100% wrong - but you can believe what you like, I don't have time to play games (or games of semantics, which is what you are doing now). SFC939421:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can read what I said. Now, if you had paid any care to what I've actually said, you'd have found that the statement "No, I've not said anything about you being POV" is actually true. Inconvenient maybe, since you obviously wish to slander me, the "troll" that I clearly am, but I haven't accused you of being point of view. If you, SFC9394, wish to slander me further, I have a talk page that you are welcome to leave it on; you can leave anything you like, but you shouldn't do it here; we don't want to be clogging up this comminity talk page after all. ;) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
By bringing in the first line in the way you did you were implying it - otherwise why bring it in? As I said, semantics, and that is my right to reply, and final word on it. SFC939421:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I imply only what I mean to imply; what you read from it is entirely dependent on your own care and/or level of paranoia. Why did I bring it up? Because it revealed quite clearly the presence of an unhelpful agenda; no other reason. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Point of information. I see that I am being criticised for the title I chose for the header: Gaelic POV pushing?. If you are super-observant then you will notice that there is actually a question mark at the end: it is not a statement. As it happens I disagree with the linked post at UK Wikipedians' notice board, indeed I voted for the use of the Gaelic name rather than Outer Hebrides during the Rename vote at Talk:Outer Hebrides.--Mais oui!21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make 100% more sense to reach consensus on the issues discussed here before you go around the place changing articles? SFC939422:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Why would he worry about that? Seems pretty uncontroversial, though I think the alternative name(s) should be just below the place, rather than in the box. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)23:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Places where a gaelic/scots name doesn't exist come to mind. Can the field be suppressed if it isn't needed? At least gaelic is a defined language, scots is a hodgepodge amalgam which often contradicts itself or a suitable word doesn't exist. It is going to look unsightly to have a load of {((placeS}}} littered about where things don't quite fit the template. Also what occurs for modern names which don't have gaelic origins? SFC939400:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the position for Scots is useful either; every place has a local name, like Glesga in Glasgow, but that's not necessarily what actual Scots-speakers in, say, Buchan call it. I think the Scots section would have to wait until the government or some related institution standardizes it. In any case, Scots is so close to English that most town names are actually referred to in Scots by their "English" name, so it is superfluous. (What does one gain from learning that Wigtoun is a Scots form of Wigtown)? Moreover, in about 2/3rds of the Scottish landmass, Scots was never really spoken for any extended period of time, whereas only a small fraction of it can claim that honour with Gaelic. Theoretically, Gaelic names exist for every location in Scotland, but they aren't always easy to find for the more obscure places in locations like those in the Northern Isles or the far south-east where (post-Old Irish) Gaelic has never been spoken, but they are so readily available that almost every location that would get a wiki article will have a Gaelic name easy to hand. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)00:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I would have put that the other way round: "In any case, English is so close to Scots that most town names are actually referred to in English by their Scots name".
I realise that some people are "Scots-sceptics", but I am not one of them, and I believe that the consensus here at Misplaced Pages is to respect Scots as a language, and not as a dialect of English. Obviously though, an intelligent presentation of all sides of the debate needs to be presented at the relevant articles.--Mais oui!09:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn’t say I am scots-sceptic, more scots-realist. It certainly exists, and certainly as far more than an english dialect (the amount of independently derived, completely different words attests to that) - but I find it difficult to define as one singular language. It is fractured into half a dozen, a dozen, (maybe even more) indistinct dialects of itself, and each zone blurs and merges into the next. Ultimately you have a result that in each separate 'zone' words are spoken and spelt slightly differently, and some words don't even exist in another zone, or have completely different meanings. So if I read Burns, it may be scots, but it is (even ignoring the historical differences) to my eye and ear, ayrshire-scots. In the above example, if scots was being used, I wouldn't use Wigtoun, I would use Wigtoon. There is no absolute source on what should be used, and what is right and wrong, so we are left with potential contradictions based on how each scots-dialect renders words. The fields when not used could at the very least be left blank (ie include them in the page's box but just don't put anything in) to ensure that people know the field exists and can fill it in if they see something that needs added (and it looks a lot better blank than with pageS all over the shop). SFC939412:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The Tillicoultry page has some external links which I consider to be poor quality and have removed in the past, these have recently reappeared. Does wikipedia have any guidelines on what sort of external pages should be linked to? --Hellinterface21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Cheers ;) OK, so do you interpret 'accessible', in particular I'm talking about this site which, to my eye is shocking. What do you reckon?
MacRusgail - Should you ever get lost on you way to Sterling Furniture, I hope you get pointed in completely the wrong direction by the local kids, as is traditional. ;-P
Should Acts with "(Scotland)" in the title, passed by the UK Parliament, be categorised under Category:Scottish laws? And if so, what should that subcategory be titled? Contribute to the discussion at:
Because this discussion has now been conducted on four(!) different pages thus far, I have copied the entire extant debate onto one public forum, ie: here. Please leave any additional comments on this topic here.--Mais oui!10:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you are removing UK parliaments Acts that relate to Wales out of the Category British laws, whereas I think they ought to be in British laws as they are made by the UK parliament, and Welsh laws (a category I recently created). I would like to agree the way to categorise laws like this. Kurando | ^_^11:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Still trying to work out the best way to categorise acts like this. After a discussion with User:Mais oui! yesterday we thought that that UK acts that apply only to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should go into the subcategories. I thought to begin with that an act like this could go in both Scottish and British categories, but he tells me articles should not go in a category and its subcategory. What do you think? Kurando | ^_^09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't bother with what Mais_oui! thinks in regards to categories. He has a history of removing all the British categories from various articles, and changing British to English, Scottish etc. If a law is passed by the UK Parliament it is a British law- not a Scottish law. Astrotrain20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
One solution would be to create a new category, called something like Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland, and make it a subcat of both Category:British laws and Category:Scottish laws. Although the current system is OK, it would perhaps be better to differentiate between pre-Union Scottish laws, British laws for Scotland, and devolved Scottish laws (at the moment they are all just lumped in together, which will become more and more messy as more articles are started and entered in the cat).
Although I regret the catty nature of Astrotrain's comment left on your Talk page yesterday, he does have a reasonable point in wanting British laws to be correctly labelled as such, even when they are only applicable to Scotland.
All of the above goes for Eng, Wales and NI too.
Finally, I think that an article actually listing all the UK parliament legislation only applicable to Scotland would be an excellent tool, helping to give structure to the new subcat. Same obviously for Eng, Wales and NI.
Oh, another "finally": you really, really ought to try very hard indeed not to enter an article in both a subcat and the parent cat (although occasional exceptions do exist, this isn't one of them). It is just standard good practice, widely observed throughout Misplaced Pages.--Mais oui!18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.
Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but I genuinely do not understand. You say:
"British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland". That is in line with my understanding, and is crystal clear, and easily categorisable.
"contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales". Navigating through the tortuous phraseology, what I think you are saying is that that law extended what was previously only an E & W law into Scotland? Is that right? Whatever, the fact is that the terms of that Act apply solely to Scotland: it is a Scottish law.
I really do think that we ought to take the most sensible, and above all useful, approach to this. It is utterly undeniable that every single Westminster statute with "(Scotland)" in the title has a special status in Scottish law: therefore all such articles really must be included in Category:Scottish laws. Whether this is via direct entry, or as a subcat, is open to debate. As I said earlier, subcats are the most obvious solution.
Finally, I consider it singularly unhelpful that you have "archived" a discussion strand on your Talk page that was only started today.--Mais oui!21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The Employment Rights Act 1996 was originally a law that applied throughout the UK, though a few sections only applied in E&W. The 2003 Act amended these sections to apply also in Scotland. No new law was created, just an extension of existing law from E&W to include Scotland. To say "Scottish law", implies that it is a unique law for Scotland- when in fact it is exactly the same law as England and Wales. Astrotrain21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"No new law was created". This may be stating the blindingly ovious, but a new law most certainly was created! No less than statute law. The new law even has a title, a date, a text, an archived debate and parliamentary vote (and a Misplaced Pages article): Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003.
The Act called the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is a unique law for Scotland: it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on England, Northern Ireland or Wales: it is a Scottish law. I think that you really are being a little obscurantist here. Category:Scottish laws is exactly what it says on the tin.--Mais oui!22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I do see your point. However laws passed by the UK parliament should be kept seperate from laws passed by the Scottish Parliament to avoid confusion. Astrotrain22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you on that point: Category:Scottish laws should have (at least) three subcats, with names something like:
I'm not sure that that wording is best, not least because I'm not sure if Statutory Instruments are meant to be getting included too, but you get my drift.--Mais oui!23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is actually more complex than that. Although the purpose of the Act is to make a change that relates to Scotland, the Act itself does not have an "extent" provision (normally found in the last few sections) and therefore applies UK-wide. It does therefore amend English law. While many Acts with "(Scotland)" in the title do indeed extend only to Scotland, this is not always the case - for example some provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Act included a provision relating to the Channel Islands. The moral of this story is that the presence or absence of "(Scotland)" from the short title of an Act is not a foolproof guide. We had much debate when the Scottish Parliament was established about whether its Acts needed to have "(Scotland)" or some other indicator of their Scottishness in the title.--George Burgess14:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, very interesting comments. In that case, I would say that all acts passed by Westminster should be British laws category as there is no guarantee that they only apply to Scotland. Astrotrain14:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Category:Scottish laws should surely be used for laws which apply (or used to apply) in Scotland whether or not they have the word "Scotland" in the title of the enabling act and whichever Parliamentary body may have passed them. When it comes down to it, Scottish laws are those which the judiciary of Scotland use. The discussion on Astrotrain's talk page seems to confuse Acts of the various parliaments and the various laws which they promulgate. In particular a British Act like the Sunday working one, may make changes both to English Law and to Scots law. So it is important to differentiate between (English or Scots) laws and the (British) acts which introduce them. -- Derek Ross | Talk00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I am in favour of new subcategories per mais oui!'s suggestion as most of the exisiting categories are rather overloaded anyway. If we kept British laws, Scottish laws and English laws, and then had
'UK acts' which contained all acts passed by UK
'Scot acts' passed by Scot parl
Laws passed by UK which apply to Scot would go in UK acts AND Scot laws, but not Scot acts
which would make a somewhat more complex categorisation scheme, but I think less ambiguos as it would not contain double entries. Anyway, i think I will try it out when I think of some suitable category names. Kurando | ^_^09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Some subcategorisation of British laws, Scottish laws and English laws is needed. I am creating UK acts by year for all UK acts, but ones which apply to Scotland I think should stay in Scottish laws (until suitable subcategories are created). Kurando | ^_^09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I note that User:Kurando has now started cat: Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 2003, etc..., which seems quite an elegant solution: so for example that Sunday working hours Act is now in both cat:Scottish laws and this new UK parliament cat. Both of those cats are subcats of cat:British laws.--Mais oui!11:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
While I am quiet happy that there are such things as British Acts of Parliament, I am less sure that there are such things as British laws, except in the trivial sense that Scottish and English laws are both British. What did you have in mind as an example of a British law, Kurando ? -- Derek Ross | Talk23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine British laws eventually should contain no articles, only categories such as English laws, Scottish laws, UK Acts, Scottish Acts etc. Though I suppose there could be something like EU regulations that apply specifically to the UK? Kurando | ^_^14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Scots/Scottish Gaelic Wikipedias
It seems to me that it'd be a good idea to include links to the Scots and Scottish Gaelic wikipedias on the Portal. I don't ever deal with the portal, so I figured I'd put up a request for such a thing here (the Portal's talk page looks like it gets much less traffic, and isn't really the place to discuss it). Thoughts? Canaen01:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't spot this when you posted it. Yes, excellent idea: just go ahead and put in a wee box if you like. --Mais oui!16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I created an article for the prominent public artist George Wyllie from a red link and immediately got hit with a Speedy Deletion notice. Not best pleased about this when I consider the number of pages for one-time drummers in Finnish metal bands, etc. Anyway, folks, like to review the page and its deletion notice and enhance the case for a page on a mere Scottish artist? AllyD11:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I figure the listing of works asserts notability, googling on the straw locomotive, so I've removed the tag. Shimgray | talk | 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Adding more content helps to assert notability - I put in a bit about the Straw Loco and an external link, I'm sure more can be added. ::Supergolden::12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been adding infoboxes to a few Scottish towns with a new style map, and I am seeking consensus to standardise the existing boxes based around the new map style before I go ahead and add many more. Basically the previous map used (as can be seen with Stirling, for example) appears to me to be difficult to decode, with the dot barley visible unless the map is clicked on for a full view. Given the point of the map is to give a quick and easy pointer to a settlements location, having to open the image to full view is a bit pointless. The other problem would be purely aesthetic, with the blue/green mix appearing a bit queasy.
The new map style I am using is just a reworking of the Image:UK_scotland.png image, as used on the Scotland page, with the rest of the UK cropped out and the seas transparent. An example of my cropped version can be seen on Irvine, North Ayrshire.
I would contact the user who made the original satellite style maps directly to see if he was ok for standardisation, but he appears to have been inactive since last August, so I decided to ask here before I ploughed on ahead and changed any of the original boxes. Any comments welcome. SFC939400:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
A standard map is a good idea and I agree with your points on the Stirling example. I too have been working on maps, although I prefer the style of this one. If it was to become standardised, we'd need to include orkney/shetland of course, but I'd be happy go along with whatever the community decides. Hellinterface00:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the idea of a standard map, and the Stirling example is very poor. The Irvine example is a better map, not least because it includes Orkney and Shetland. My only comment is that the red dot is still a bit indistinct against the strong green. I would suggest either changing the dot to yellow for better visibility, or toning down the green. --Cactus.man✍07:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition to agreeing a standard map, should we also agree on standardised dimensions too? Also, I think I'm changing my preference to the Irvine style map. Hellinterface10:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work guys. Although I have a preference for maps which show geographical relief, I must concede that at this small scale a very simple outline map works better. Somehow the blue Tillicoultry one seems clearer than the green one (something to do with colour contrast?). However we progress with this, I would like to express my strong preference for including both Orkney and Shetland in all Scotland (and UK) maps: it is ridiculous how many times Shetland especially is simply cropped out.--Mais oui!10:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've produced a wee example with the Irvine style map to demonstrate why maybe black is the most suitable colour for denoting the location. Yellow is not a good choice as it is barely visible against the white background when used on one of the smaller western isles for example. See here. I was also thinking that we should upload the source as a layered Photoshop image, that way if the location dot has it's own layer, it can be easily dragged to new locations, whilst maintining size/colour etc. I'm not sure how popular Photoshop is around these parts though. One other consideration is dot size, obviously the larger the dot, the less accurate it is, particularly on a small map like this. I reckon the one in my example (5px) covers an area of roughly 8-10 miles in all directions from it's centre point. Hellinterface10:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, a black dot is better (certainly in the islands example you give), but I think the green is still too strong and needs to be toned down somewhat. --Cactus.man✍11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Glad everyone is roughly in agreement on the need for a change. I have uploaded a lighter version with a black locator: Image:Scotloc test.PNG. I had used a red locator (5px width) on the originals as roughly defined by the colour scheme set out in WikiProject Maps, and I originally dabbled with yellow as well (and found as Hellinterface did that it camouflaged itself on the coasts). Black does seem to work the best though (especially against a lighter green). I am not sure if there is any easy way of introducing topography without it clouding the image too much, it would be a nice extra though. Hellinterface, any layered image file formats generally should be uploaded as The GIMP .xcf format as it is all open source and free, where as psp is a proprietary format. The gimp can do most of what psp and Photoshop can do, but it is a bit more long winded. As a template, both a dot/background xcf layer file could be uploaded, and a png with a dot in the middle (like the test png above), that way those with the gimp could easily move the dot, and those without could easily scrub out the dot and place a new one wherever they wished. SFC939412:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The GIMP supports PSD files. GIMP File types. Does anyone know of a PS plugin that allows you to save as .xcf format? I would argue that PSD is a more widely supported format. I don't agree that just because something is open source, it is better. I've tried the GIMP in the past, it's OK, but have never been impressed enough to switch away from PS. Hellinterface12:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I would support SFC9394's Image:Scotloc test.PNG. The contrast between the dot and map is better, and the green is also not too "peely wally". I think trying to introduce any form of topography feature at these display resolutions would be counter productive. The layered idea for the dot is a great idea, but not my technical strong point. I'll let you guys work that out. --Cactus.man✍13:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is all to do with patents and proprietary formats. Basically PS, PSP formats are owned by their relative companies and the format characteristics have intellectual property rights and patents on them. It is all mixed in with the same reason that up until a couple of years a go gif's were frowned upon, because companies held patents on the gif format (the patents have now expired and they are now freely useable). As far as I know the various proprietary format implementations in the Gimp are reverse engineered (in much the same way that the MS office formats are reverse engineered in openoffice). It should work, and mostly will, but it isn't guaranteed 100% accurate that if something is saved by you in PSD in photoshop, that it will open 100% correctly in the gimp. It is a bit annoying if you have used one or the other program for years and know it inside out, but I think the decision was taken so as to avoid format wars on WP, and to ensure that the software is freely available and compiled versions exist for multiple OS's. For more complex work I still find it easier to lift what I am doing out of the Gimp, edit it in a better editor and then paste back in. SFC939413:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of format, Image:Scotloc test.PNG looks good to me. Assuming everyone else is happy with it, what's next? How do we go about letting others know about it? Are we going to have a drive to roll it out to articles? Hellinterface17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I am currently experimenting with a topographical version of the map, hopefully I will be able to post an image of it tonight or tomorrow morning for comment (I don't know how it will turn out yet, it may be good or it may be rubbish). As for how we proceed once we have agreed, I would suggest setting up a sub category within Maps of Scotland titled "locations of Scottish settlements" or something like that and then just fire in the templates and fill it up with the maps. There aren't too many needing replaced, and a comment could be put on the Scottish infobox template page suggesting the usage of the map template. Any other thoughts? SFC939423:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The topographical version looks good, nice work SFC. I would be interested to see how readable the dot is in the middle of the Grampians. How about knocking up versions of the plain and topo maps for, say, Braemar. --Cactus.man✍07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The topo version is aestetically is far superior, IMO. As ✍ says, if it retains the readability of the non topo map, then it's my definite choice. One of the main reasons I didn't initially like the non-topo version was the non-antialiased coastline, but it looks like you've recified that with the topo version. Hellinterface09:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I have created a comparison of the three with highland dots, 1 is the original, 2 is the topographical original and 3 is a lightened topographical.
1 2 3
About the only drawback of the topo versions is that they are ~25kb compared to 3kb for the plain one. Not a huge worry, but it is a minor issue with regards to page loading. SFC939411:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Great stuff SFC! No 3 does the trick for me, contrast with the dot is fine and the topographical detail is still there. BTW, how did you add all that topographical detail, just curious. --Cactus.man✍12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have cleaned and polished up a final version, and have created a category on the commons for all the maps (Scottish Location Maps) and have uploaded a couple of template images as well. So once a map is created we can just dump it in that category and they will all be kept in one place. Comments on the final version are still welcomed if anyone feels there are things which need changed.
Cactus.man, all the topographical detail is added by using the SRTM & GTOPO30DEM data. I have been experimenting with using the data for the last month or so. This map has a heavily down-converted resolution, Topo map of Galloway was my first effort, and gives a good idea of the more native resolutions of the data.
WikiProject Maps is a good place to start, with FreeGIS being a good external website listing of free tools and data (all my work so far has been using free software & resources). If you are interested in playing about with it all then drop me a note on my talk page with any questions you have and I will be happy to help you out (it took me a few days of scrabbling about in the dark to start to get some good results). SFC939416:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that we use SVG maps, but the relief maps have persuaded me that this is useful information that we should use here if at all possible. Unfortunately the way MediaWiki handles SVGs means we couldn't incorporate the relief information into an SVG, and I'd rather have the relief and live without SVG. Can I make some requests/suggestions:
the darker of the two relief maps is, for me, the clearer
I think the single black dot (or one of any other colour) isn't going to be clear everywhere. I'd suggest a black dot with a white (or transparent) circle around it.
I'd suggest that the images we have mediawiki store at commons be double (in both dimensions) the final desired size - hopefully the imagemagick downscale will produce an okay result, and having a larger version on hand (as opposed to asking for new images to be manually created) allows higher resolution applications (I'm thinking initially of for-print Wikireaders) to work nicely and without the maps either being titchy or blocky in the higher-than-screen resoltion format.
If we do finalise on this format (and I say go for it) I'm very anxious that you also upload super-detailed instructions on how someone can regenerate the basic map and the final annotated ones. We (Misplaced Pages) have a bad habit of starting to do something major like this, and then having the person with all the knowledge on how to do so quit, leaving us with a job half done.
Again if we finalise on this, can I ask you to upload a very large scale blank version. In addition to the doton geolocator maps, it would be nice to use this same basic map as a basis for stuff like historical maps (maps of wars, roman walls), transport maps, and political maps.
Lastly, a geotools question - can one get (for the UK) hydrological datasets (the courses of rivers and the locii of their watersheds)?
I really like topographical map #3. Yes, #2 is better just as a relief map, but the primary purpose here is to stick a visible pin on the picture, and #3 just seems more likely to allow that.--Mais oui!18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Map #3 has the best visibility of the target dot whilst retaining the relief features. I agree with Finlay that the original image (on commons) should be larger, but some testing should be done for stability when it is downsized for browsing on WP. This leads on to the question of what should the final size be in the Infobox. The inclusion of Shetland over-extends the image size vertically. Would it be a good idea to reproduce this in a floating box near the mainland in the same manner that paper map publishers do? Thoughts welcome. --Cactus.man✍19:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded a higher res (553x933) to the commons area - I have also uploaded a dot version at that res and have scaled it here and compared against the Glasgow pic that was already uploaded, that will give an idea how well mediawiki is going to resize (it seems to be fine).
I recognised the Shetland problem, and the eagle eyed will notice that the two images above show a slight difference with the high res one being as per reality, and I then 'pulled' Shetland down a few pixels to try and compress it a bit for the standard uploaded template file. Here is a test boxed version, I don't have any problems with that, thus allowing more space for the mainland - however I don't know if any Shetlanders have problems with always ending up 'boxed'.
At some point I can upload a super high res, as the current one is not (near) as high as it can go, but to go up from there will require me to rebuild the maps from the topo data (I am away on business from tomorrow until Friday, but I should have plenty of time to take a crack at doing a very large template map at the weekend).
In theory a white/black spot is a good idea, the only problem I see is that the marker is going to get so big that it will be covering too large an area to be individually distinctive (Location of Glasgow vs Paisley will become the same dot effectively if a white surround extends out from the black dot).
An outline of the methods I used are on Hellinterface's talk page - it is all basically variations on a theme, and should certainly be reproducible by others.
hydrological datasets is a sort of yes/no situation - I have experimented with them privately, and have implementations of all the watercourses for the Galloway map that I made - the reason it doesn't appear on the final map is all down to possible copyvio problems. I have posed the question on the issue here, but nobody has answered. The basemap data contains a lot of useful GIS components, but if it is OS derived then it can't be used - so at the moment I am not using with it for any WP work. SFC939420:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Getting aread of myself...I speculatively went started rolling this out before it was finalised, I'll obviously need to rectify that if any more changes take place. However, for those of you who want to see how it looks in an infobox before making up you mind on size/Shetland etc, check out Glasgow, Edinburgh or any other Scottish city. Hellinterface22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In regard of the placement of Shetland, personally I'd favour the geographically correct rendering, even at the comcomitent expense of the shrinkage of the rest of the country. Part of the argument normal publishers use for consigning poor Shetland to a box is shortage of space; I'd argue that we can be afford to be moderately profligate with space (wiki is, after all, not paper). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to use the lighter map, the black dot marker is fine (perhaps a tad large, indeed). There's no hurry for the large map (indeed, I wouldn't bother until we're all agreed what the little maps will appear). In the longer term, I'd feel more comfortable if your intermediate files (the adjusted heightfield, and presumably a config file that defines the projection and maps colours to contours) were safely on commons; unfortunately commons still prohibits zip files and other archives, which makes storing such source-material there problematic. And thanks for the info about the hydrology; if only OS data were uncopyrighted like USGS. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk
It's looking good. I would prefer the "larger mainland / boxed Shetland" version (but with a lighter weight line for the box), but could live with either version. The resized image renders perfectly well. --Cactus.man✍08:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
These examples look fine, though the black dot is on a lighter area and it's possible that a dot on the darker hill areas would look indistinct: could a lighter halo be added so that the dot is always against the light green background? Please keep Orkney and Shetland in their place: a friend from Orkney found her (London) office thought the ferry from Aberdeen wouldn't take long, as Orkney was just off the east coast. I welcome the proposal of a large base map with instructions so editors could crop, add a text layer and save as a new .png image (for me, using Photoshop Elements or Graphic Convertor), and have been on the lookout for such a base map to illustrate the Firth of Clyde. ..dave souza, talk10:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Dave, see examples 1, 2 and 3 above by User:SFC9394, submitted 11:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC). The dot looks fine in the middle of the Grampians on the light green map. Just as well your friends colleagues wern't going to Shetland then :-) --Cactus.man✍13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have experimented a bit with putting a white border or marker on the black dot, but it seems to conflict with the map scaling a bit too much. It seems that for the infobox the map is auto scaled to 115px width or 200 px height, whichever comes first. So for these maps the rendered infobox map will be 115x194. Below is the scaled original dot, versus a scaled white border dot for comparison:
Normal DotWhite Border
It appears to make a little bit of a difference, however the white surround becomes more of a problem when the full image is viewed Image:Scot loc white surround test.png, now the location marking is overlaying out to a radius of ~30 miles, which both clouds the 'actual' location, and masks all the relief underneath (which could be a significant problem in highland regions). So we then have a full size image that is less than 100% useful due to overlarge markings. I have experimented with crossing white lines and various transparent shadings, but the problem keeps cropping up that to make something noticeable on the infobox scaled image it is going to stick out like a sore thumb on the original image. SFC939413:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the white border is problematic, and in island locations it would obliterate large chunks of land. I support the simple black dot, light green topographical map, larger mainland with repositioned Shetland in a lightweight lined box. Comments please everone so that we can agree the final format and start to roll this out. --Cactus.man✍09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the version with the black dot and no white halo, though I'd go for the geographically-correct-Shetland version. Nice work on the topo map! ::Supergolden::15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Any more thoughts or is everyone happy with the consensus situation outlined by Hellinterface above? I will give it a couple more days to see if any more views are posted and then we can update the category page and start running these guys out into WP (a super duper high res version is next on my to-do list, but it shouldn't impinge on the standard rollout). SFC939413:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, everyone seems settled. I have uploaded the set of HR maps to Scottish Location Maps. I have uploaded a new version of the St Andrews map just to check they can be overwritten without causing any probs, so Hellinterface's earlier work hasn't gone to waste. So it is just a case of getting this rolled out to everywhere it is required. SFC939414:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As the final piece of the jigsaw I have uploaded the super high resolution version (3097 x 5230), which can be found here (I would post a thumbnail, but mediawiki appears to refuse to scale the image for some reason, probably due to it's size). The image can be cut up and annotated for use on smaller localised maps, or scaled for use as a Scotland map. I have included a height legend on the map, so that most location heights can be calculated (the colour scale is linear from light to dark, so if height resolution of <100m is required then the correct height can just be interpolated). If there are any queries with regards to map details I will be happy to help. SFC939420:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Scottish Topics Template
I've updated the Template:Scottish topics to be more in line with the Template:English topics but of course changed the colour scheme. I'll put this template on more Scottish pages (the ones listed on the template) and if not wanted for any reason, just go ahead and remove it. Cheers, AntzUK21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well after what seems like hours, I've added the template to most pages listed on it (with a few exceptions). Personally, I find it much easier to browse Scottish topics. --AntzUK22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Doc Glasgow says in an Edit summary, regarding Rutherglen: "Rutherglen is the only name for this town":
Is this the case? The Scots and the English names are Rutherglen, and I am certain that there must be a Gaelic name.--Mais oui!13:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The new highlighted article at Portal:Scotland is Scotland at the 2006 Commonwealth Games. Could people help out by creating stubs for the red-linked Scottish medallists? Also, please Watch and help improve these two articles:
We are doing really well so far, certainly far better than expected, and this is a great opportunity to present the best of Scotland to Misplaced Pages readers.
While we are on the topic, it really is time that we get the Sport in Scotland article underway. I would start it myself, but... you know how it is... I keep getting distracted. --Mais oui!17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Scottish Castles
I have a personal target of creating a full page for each of the Castles in Scotland - alone, this may take some time (esp. since I'm a few hundred miles away at the moment). I propose Wikiproject - Scottish Castles. If there is suitable interest, I would like to create a template to incorporate as much information as possible about each castle. I am still quite new to editing the Misplaced Pages so it will be a learning experience. Any takers? Slink pink13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a biiiig job. But go ahead. Anybody can start a Wikiproject if they want to and as you say it will be a good learning experience. For background information remember that Nigel Tranter produced the seminal book on Scottish castles. You may be able to get it through your library. -- Derek Ross | Talk20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly take time, even with more than one of you. But I'd certainly be interested in joining such a wikiproject. ::Supergolden::09:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is a BIG job, but I would be interested in participating. I have a few on my ToDo list, no doubt this would give me a few more ... :-) --Cactus.man✍10:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to link it in to the main Wikiprojects page so that people who are browsing the Wikiprojects can see it. -- Derek Ross | Talk15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The kilt article has been tagged for clean-up since January of this year. The main problem with it is that the article does not actually say what a kilt is as the term is used in the article. As a result, the article does not contain an adequate description of what characterizes a kilt, how it is constructed, etc.
I am now seeking support for the resumption of a clean-up effort which was initially begun about a month ago but which was interrupted soon after it began by the beginnings of an edit war. Given strong enough support from several people, I will proceed. The clean-up which I propose involves major revisions to the kilt article, including the creation of new articles based on the current content of that article. These changes, including additional material discussed below, could not be accommodated within the current article as it would then be too long.
What I propose to do is:
remove the material on kilt accessories as this material has already been incorporated into a new article of that name (kilt accessories);
remove the material on the history of the kilt and incorporate it into a new article of that name;
remove the material on contemporary kilts and incorporate it into a new article of that name;
define the word kilt as it is to be used in the article (meaning, roughly, the traditional Scottish kilt) and then describe the basic construction of the kilt as so defined.
The kilt accessories article is defined broadly as dealing with everything worn with the kilt other than the kilt itslef. It still needs a section on the Inverness cape. The proposed history of the kilt article will need expansion by the addition of information related to 19th century developments such as the various pattern books, the Vestiarium Scoticum, and the introduction of knife pleating. The proposed contemporary kilts article could be expanded by more detailed discussion of the actual construction of these garments.
Once begun, the entire task (apart from the additions and expansions noted in the preceeding paragraph) should take no more than about 15 minutes since the articles have already been written.
Please leave any coments on the talk page of the kilt article.
I think that JFPerry's proposals sound reasonable, in fact I would go further and say that they sound pretty good. I am not aware of the Edit war, but I will Watch the relevant articles. What do other SCOWNB participants think? --Mais oui!18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do. If you run into trouble like you did last time, let us handle it. It's a sad fact that on Misplaced Pages being an expert with good writing skills is not always enough. A stubborn (but tactful) streak is also required sometimes. And a few supporters don't go amiss either! -- Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that there are tens, if not hundreds, of Scottish examples like this of frankly stupid disambigs. I could happily spend a week working on them, but life is just too short. But maybe if we compile a list, here, we could work on them collectively? Eg, a prime example is Paisley (it cannot be moved back to where it should be without an Admin's intervention, which may well require a week-long vote). --Mais oui!14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know there were examples like that. We should prolly wait to see the outcome of the Tain move. If it's moved, then we can site it as an example which might be needed owing to the drasticness of mass moving. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)14:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Request for consensus: Should we include the Gaelic and Scots names in Infobox for every Scottish place?
This discussion was started following a debate at Talk:Rutherglen.
I would like to request that we reach a consensus on whether or not we use of the Gaelic and Scots names for places in all Scottish place Infoboxes; or whether we need to create separate Infoboxes for different regions. The current Infoboxes are:
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Support English, Gaelic and Scots are all part of our cultural heritage; and all three have some history in every single corner of the country. --Mais oui!14:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What constitutes a traditional area? Its range has shrunken greatly in the recent past, not to mention last few centuries. --MacRusgail23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Neither - Makes perfect sense to have it in the article for all Scottish places (where relevent), makes no sense to have it in the infobox *except* in the areas where it is spoken. (so I suppose I argue that the infoboxes don't have to change, but the field is not used where it isn't a gaelic speaking place) See comment below for my full views. SFC939415:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Support where possible, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland, where the Gaidhlig names probably shouldn't be used. --MacRusgail23:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak support - For now I tepidly accept that all names should be included in the infobox. My preferred solution is to remove the name field from the infobox template, so avoiding the what about Norn ? and is this a traditional Gaelic-speaking area ? questions. On any level it makes little sense to have the name in itty-bit type in the infobox when it appears in BIG FRIENDLY letters at the top of the page and in bold ones in the first sentence. I'm a definite no when it comes to multiple templates. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm in agreement with SFC9394 here. By all means include it in the article where relevant, but bloating the infobox with it seems to be pushing an agenda that all places have or should have three names, and those that don't are inferior. Owain (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Separate template for Northern isles perhaps. And different template for places whose official name in English is the Gaelic name (but wiki doesn't seem to be adopting that). But different templates for "Lowlands" (all the area not in the Gaidhealtachd? All the area not in Highland Council? All the area not in beyond the 18th century "Highland Line"? Is Galloway lowland, or highland? etc) is not appropriate in the 21st century. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)14:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how easily these things are available. Would that be three placenames then, or would Gaelic go? How often are the Lowland Scots names different from English? Would they go to? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)14:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The Scots and the English names are identical in nearly every case, indeed that is pretty much the point: the modern English language simply uses the placenames of the pre-existing Scots language. Are there many Gaelic names for places in the Northern Isles, or just for big, important places like Kirkwall? --Mais oui!15:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, just the larger ones, or those in Orkney nearest the early modern Gaelic coast of Caithness. Theoretically, the Scottish parliament should be able to talk about every place in Scotland in Gaelic. Maybe An Siarach might know better. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think having multiple infobox templates is confusing, and causes problems / inconsistency if one is updated and others aren't. IMO, it would be better to have one infobox, with optional parameters for a number of languages. Then different articles can have a different selection of languages displayed, depending on whether the name is known, or commonly used in that place etc. Vclaw15:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Conditionals very interesting: thanks for highlighting that. My only worry is that such a system could lead to all kinds of protracted arguments on hundreds of different pages about what to include and what not. As I see it English, Gaelic and Scots are all three our national languages, and they have validity throughout the whole country.--Mais oui!15:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
To have a gaelic place name in the infobox in a town of tens of thousands where about 50 or 100 people speak it (and even they will be doing it as a hobby, not using it as a first language) is intentionally misrepresenting its status - WP is here only to represent reality, and the reality is 1.16% of people in scotland speak gaelic. If that changes in the future and gaelic becomes much more mainstream (and I genuinely hope that that occurs) then WP should change to reflect that, but at the moment that isn't the case. Undue prominence of gaelic is inherently POV. The historical context of a town is important, but I don't believe important enough for the infobox (else why not have a settlements founding times field - ancient, bronze, iron, roman, modern? - those are equally as important historical facts as the gaelic name). SFC939415:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"... why not have a settlement's founding times field - ancient, bronze, iron, roman, modern?" - that's actually not a bad idea! --Mais oui!16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
m:Polls are evil. Let's discuss but avoid a vote till we've clarified the issues. Otherwise everyone gets painted into a corner and you'll end up with no consensus at all. I notce already Astrotrain has (quite legitimately) offered a yes, but opinion. That gets lost in polls. As to the issue, including Gaelic in Scottish articles is generally a good idea. However, infoboxes are for prominent facts about an area. They don't allow for nuanced information - or compromise wording. The importance of a Gaelic name to a Scottish location will vary, depending on 1)Was it historically a Gaelic area? 2) Is the Gaelic prominentyl used today? 3) Does the area, or has it over the years, had a Gaelic-speaking community? 4) Is the English name derived from a Gaelic original? In some/many cases, a Gaelic name will be a very important fact and should be prominently included int he infobox, in other cases it will merit inclusion somewhere in the article, but not as prominently as one of the 12 main facts in a infobox. So, whilst a meta discussion to agree principles and emphasis is good - a meta poll which will have an either 'all in', or 'all out' answer, is a bad idea. Let's be pragmatic and not doctrinaire. --Doc16:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, inconvenient polls are evil. Don't worry too much yet, it might still swing your way, then you can praise polls as wonderful. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No, because I don't have a 'way', and I don't praise polls before discussion regardless of the outcome. I will ask you again to assume good faith and stop attributing motives to people. --Doc16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey again, how are you? Yeah, I'm sorry for not having that much faith. It's just that, you're making an issue out of something a neutral wouldn't care about; and I just know you're gonna have the same conclusion no matter what the arguments or votes are. So, you'll have to forgive me Mr Doc, I'm an old cynic. But, everyone here knows that, so we needn't get our pants in too much of a twist over it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
WTF? What conclusions are you propheticaly assuming I'll reach? I've stated my views clearly above and they are that we need to be pragmatic and there is no meta conclusion to be arrived at. I'm interested in the content of an individual article, I have no desire to attempt to enforce my preferences across every geographical article in Scotland. I've only expressed my opinions on one article, to which I have contributed, and intend to contrbute more. I've never claimed to be 'neutral' (who is) but I try to stick to facts rather than pushing political agendas. --Doc17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey again Mr Glasgow. You're talking about the opinions expressed in Talk:Rutherglen, yes? No, you've definitely been a model of objectivity. It's such a shame scoundrels like me with their "political agendas" me have to take up your valuable wiki time limiting the scope of your objectivity. It's just that, I don't think many people will see what exact "political agenda" lies in listing the Gaelic and Scots names in these infoboxes. I don't understand why this is information you so passionately want to hide. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)17:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not hide; and by constantly painting that picture you are misrepresenting the views of others. The information should be in the correct place in the correct context - it is where that place and what that context is that should be being debated, not trying to misrepresent others views for your own gain. SFC939417:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What about it? You used the word hide - an emotive word which appears nowhere else in the infobox proposal, nowhere else on this page, and nowhere on the Rutherglen talk page. Nobody has used the word hide - yet that is what you accused Doc of wanting. Pretty poor show. SFC939417:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Well, sorry I ain't entertaining you enough. As for the hide stuff, that seems to be the desired consequence. I'll get my fairy servant to deliver you a $1 million on her flying pig if you can find me saying that anyone said "hide". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Please tone it down. You accused me of having information I 'passionately want to hide' (see just above). You have repeatedly accused me of wanting to remove information from the Rutherglen article, when I have repeatedly said that the Gaelic should be included. Can we debate the real issues, and not conspiracy theories and strawmen. --Doc18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it was SFC throwing the conspiracy theories. At any rate, I still haven't heard why you want to hide it. The infobox, being an infobox, is supposed to give information, and the Gaelic names are information, and important information. Bottom line. Now if you want to continue offering pretences for getting rid of them, I'm just too cynical to take them seriously. At some point, you should stop being surprised and indignant, and just accept that I'm a cynical git. ;) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Entertained? I am here to help build a good quality and accurate encyclopedia, nothing more than that - if I want to be entertained then I will switch on the TV. Are you going to debate the proposed issues or just misrepresent others views? SFC939418:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So let's be pragmatic: one template, without the names in it. The name is, after all, the article title, and all other names which editors think should be included (Gaelic, English, Scots, Norn, Latin) would appear in the first sentence. Duplicating the names in the infobox template is redundant. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Latin. Many of the Latin names are based on the English, but if the place is big enough, or has a significant Latin name, e.g. Sweetheart Abbey, I suppose it should be included. With Falkirk it is interesting to compare the different versions I suppose. --MacRusgail05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Angus McLellan above. This is the English wikipedia, and so English names are given precedence. Names in other Scottish languages can be added to the text as appropriate to the individual places. ::Supergolden::10:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Angus. A uniform template without alternative place names in the box, not a multitude of infoboxes for different areas. Any alternative names should go in the opening sentence in the lead. No need to overcomplicate things, and these infoboxes are already very large and intrusive on small to medium sized articles. KISS (That's not an offer to anyone BTW ;-) --Cactus.man✍15:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point Cactus, I have found myself adding a couple of infoboxes where the article itself is not even reaching beyond the map - obviously that should be a good encouragement to add more content, but on some smallish towns with no great historical or current claims there isn't a lot you can directly add without it looking like a lot of padding and filler. On the size of the infoboxes, there are situations existing (the West Lothian ones that I have been adding to for example) where there is a great deal of redundancy occurring, with Council area, Lieutenancy area and Former county all pointing to the same page - again a bit of field suppression might be enacted here to thin out duplication. I don't know if that might create problems on non-uniformity between infoboxes, which could obviously be a bit of a negative (browsing user asks, "does xyz have a former county then or not?". SFC939416:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Armadale is a fine example. Field suppression definitely needs to be investigated to restrict the scope of info in the box, related to redundancy and article size. I would say that the Armadale infobox for the article as it stands only needs the map, Statistics and Ordnance Survey sections. Some of the other info is redundant because it's in the article, the rest is just bloat on such a small article. How about a show / hide feature similar to the TOC, or is that just a Mediawiki software feature? Do we need a template guru? --Cactus.man✍17:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm missing something obvious, but why not just have a template with optional fields? For example, in Template:Cite journal, the coauthors field only affects the output if it's filled in. Why not have a template with optional parameters for Scots name, Police force, etc., which could be used when appropriate and ignored when not? I agree than in English Misplaced Pages that English should take precedence. --Craig Stuntz18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If you are then I inferred slight differences. I presumed that Cactus was suggesting a show/hide ability so the info would still be there but could just be 'folded up' so the layout would be from the top: map | Stats | OS grid ref | other info header (with show button). Whereas Craig sounds like he is suggesting just not entering things for articles that are quite short. It does make sense for the police force not to be shown in Armadale by default, but it would be a shame if it was just dropped altogether (so if an un-informed user dropped by the article he could at least find that out by using a show button, but if it was just not even there then that would leave the user a bit confused). Whether the 'folding up' can be used depends on whether anyone knows of implementation, it is not something I have seen, but sounds like a very handy option to compact articles when required. SFC939412:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was that where I used "field suppression", the intention was really the same as "optional fields" that do not appear if left empty. At the moment for example, using Armadale again, both Gaelic: and Scots: are empty but the fields still appear. That's plain daft. The show / hide idea was really just an afterthought based on the TOC feature. I have no idea whether or not this can be implemented in a template. Anybody? --Cactus.man✍13:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Since we are now having splinter infobox templates created by people who don't want the two extra placename fields, can we attempt to move this to consensus before we lose continuity on the situation? Field suppression (as you describe it above) seems like the best thing to implement right now (the show/hide is a good one to look into in the long term, but not necessarily needed immediately). That would at least avoid having new infobox templates created. The question then arises as to when the fields should be used. In places where gaelic is spoken in any significant numbers it makes sense, elsewhere is makes no sense (in the infobox - I am always happy with it in the article body) - it should be clearly defined where it should be used, otherwise edit wars will just ensue. SFC939412:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
but what is the point in debate when you have already forced the galiec infobox on all of us? User:retro_junkies(Talk) 16:12, 28 March 2006 (left in vote section, moved to discussion)
The point should be to provide the Gaelic form of the name somewhere (not necessarily this template box) if (1) the name has its origin in Gaelic, as many placenames do from the Borders to Caithness, or (2) the name went through a period of Gaelicisation, i.e., was linguistically transformed by being reanalyzed by a local, Gaelic-speaking population (and again, these were to be found throughout Scotland over the last 1,200 years). It should have nothing to do with the number of Gaelic speakers in the locale in the modern period, or with the contemporary perceptions of what the "national language" is supposed to be, as this is not at all indicative of Scotland's past. Of course, it would be misleading to provide Gaelic translations of placenames if there is no known "tradition" of the placename being used in Gaelic. Such Gaelic information needs to remain in the English version of the WikiPedia, and not ghettoised in the Gaelic version, as though it were an alien outcast. It's pathetic to see so many Anglophones balk at being offered a linguistic insight into the Gaelic history of their own locales. Gaelicmichael21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
My vote:
We should have only one standard format InfoBox;
Gaelic and alternative names should appear in the text of the lead section, not in the InfoBox;
All other parameters should be optional - if they are not filled in, then the field should not appear on the page.
It seems to me though that User:retro_junkies has a point, very few people if any speak or understand Gaelic in these areas, so it seems quite misleading to have the Gaelic names on there town names, giving the impression that this is considered the norm.
I think that it is fairly clear that we have reached consensus on retaining a single Infobox for places in Scotland (plus a near identical one with a map). As Cactus man suggests, perhaps we should pretty much repeat this exercise as regards "dynamic" boxes which can hide things etc. Could I ask Cactus man, or anybody else interested, to start a new Request for consensus process, similar to above, with the options laid out for us to mull over. I would do it myself, but time short next couple days. Ta. --Mais oui!17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mais oui! that there is probably concensus to use only the two "standard" infoboxes, {{Infobox Scotland place}} and {{Infobox Scotland place with map}}, but not for whether the Gaelic and Scots names should be in the box, or confined to the text in the lead section. I think this issue needs to be resolved before we get into questions of which other parameters could be optional and complicated collapsible formatting. Therefore a poll below. --Cactus.man✍14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Poll on Gaelic and Scots names in the 2 standard Infoboxes
These options are mutually exclusive. Therefore, please only offer *Support for one or the other. i.e. do not *Support one and *Oppose the other. Please add your reasoning, then sign as normal. Thanks.
Option 1:
The Gaelic and Scots names should be excluded from the Infoboxes entirely and included in the lead section text on the article page if necessary.
Support The infoboxes are already overlarge for some articles, and this information belongs in the lead section, no need to duplicate it in the Infobox. --Cactus.man✍14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Infoboxes are already too big; we should be attempting to make them as efficient as possible, not bloat every little detail into them (especially since the gaelic name is in the first line of the article - it should be one or the other, duplication is pointless). SFC939415:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Support seems like the obvious solution. Angus McLellan(Talk) 15:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Voted retracted: Apologies, I just realised that this option doesn't say what I thought it did; I misread this option as excluding all names from the infobox. Angus McLellan(Talk)23:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you clarify this comment Angus? This option does propose to exclude all names (currently Gaelic and Scots) from the Infobox. That's apart from the header name, if that's what you mean. --Cactus.man✍17:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that very few people if any speak or understand Gaelic in these areas, so it seems quite misleading to have the Gaelic names on there town names, giving the impression that this is considered the norm.
The Gaelic and Scots names should be included in the Infoboxes as optional parameters which would only be displayed on the article page if the details are added to the wiki markup.
Not really - you will have an edit war kicking off on every page where someone takes exception to it (see Selkirk history for an example of this at the moment) SFC939400:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
True, but is that not also the case with all the options? The material will be reverted in and out be it in suppressible field, non-suppressible field or the article body if there are so-minded editors! If this material is to go in the infobox, as I think it should when we have it, the difference between 2 and 3 is whether we show the titles at all times, and I just think it looks neater to omit the title when there's no corresponding info. Aquilina09:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem! I suppose the "requirement" will be decided (as now) on a case-by-case basis between the editors of each article. I am not an expert on this issue and am not going to display an opinion until I am better educated. This here is more an argument of aesthetics: in general I just think infoboxes look better when the titles of empty fields are omitted.
Some separate debate may, perhaps, be in order to decide a verifiable level of notability and use which the Gaelic or Scots name should have for a corresponding level of prominence in the article; that is, if the aim is to establish some convention and groundrules to stop the current edit wars. But again, I leave this thankless task to those better qualified! Aquilina14:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Support; The information appears if, and only if, it is required. Sounds the best option to me --Bob21:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Support Lets relevant information appear on the page, without adding irrevlevant bits to the box. Good stuff. Canaen08:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Option 3:
The Gaelic and Scots names should be included in the Infoboxes as standard parameters which would always be displayed on the article page, even if the details are lacking for specific articles.
Support although a liberal at heart, I do feel that a strong dose of centralised authoritarianism is required on this issue. If we give people an option then we are going to end up with turf-wars similar to Selkirk. That said, I could live with Option 2, or I suppose Option 1. I find it a bit depressing how little respect we seem to have for our indigenous languages: no wonder they are in trouble. --Mais oui! 15:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Changed mind, support Option 2. (Fuzzy liberal values regaining dominance.) --Mais oui!17:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The answer to encouraging indigenous languages (and such advocacy can never be a goal of a neutral encyclopedia anyway), is not 'centralised authoritarianism' which forces people to use them. Socotland, thankfully, is not Quebec, and the English wikipedia should never be. --Doc15:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that Misplaced Pages should be "advocating" any languages. Let he who is without POV cast the first stone regarding "neutrality". --Mais oui!16:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Who on Earth is forcing anyone to 'use' anything? We are discussing how best provide, or whether to provide at all,specific information. Some of the fairly emotive language used by those against the display of any names but those based in English, regardless of pertinence, is curious to say the least. An Siarach
Have to agree with Doc. There's been a pushing of Gaelic names in articles on areas with no Gaelic tradition, though arguably these areas had a relatively brief period of Gaelic rule around the 11th century. If Gaelic as an "official" language has to appear in articles I'd prefer to see it in the infobox rather than at the start or the lead section, but hope that isn't going to be the case. ...dave souza, talk16:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If the parameters are not optional, and are omitted, then the Infobox is a compete and utter mess and totally unprofessional in its presentation. Having the parameters as optional does not remove them from the template, they can be added in at any time. --Cactus.man✍16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Support - Option 1 seems a strange one to me. I would have thought the info box would be the best place to provide the names if at all rather than lumping them into the opening paragraph. Vote Retracted :An Siarach
Why does the old spelling have to be used all the time? It wasn't even standardised at the time of writing in many cases. We use "Malcolm Canmore", for example, which was probably not the contemporary spelling. --MacRusgail18:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "old spelling" ? I don't favour antiquarian affectations (diacritics and ligatures where necessary). I don't see that modern Gaelic usage is relevant, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Anyway, Fergananim pointed me in the direction of vol. IX of the "New History of Ireland", which is actually available in the national library (KRB) here, so I can check how the Irish experts handled the names, and Calgacus will be checking Bannerman's book on Dál Riata when he has the time. But, for the moment, the issue is less "what should the titles be changed to ? " than "should they be changed at all ?" Angus McLellan(Talk)19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have strong reservations about this. It really must be shown that these names are the most common names in English-language sources, which I suppose must be done on an article-by-article basis. Your statement "... the exact names are yet to be determined in some cases" does concern me: we must only use sourced material, re WP:CITE. Relying heavily on only one or two sources, no matter how authoratitive, does seem problematic. --Mais oui!20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would still be one or two more than were relied on originally. If we begin with the best known figures, and I think I can safely say that Áedán mac Gabráin and Fergus Mór (mac Eirc) are the best known (indeed, the only known), then the rest will fall neatly into place behind them. I'll let you do Fergus Mór yourself, but for Áedán the results are as follows (in collective works, only the editor(s) get the credit) :-
Áedán mac Gabhráin: Smyth, Warlords and Holy Men; Williams, Smyth & Kirby, Biographical Dict. of Dark Age Britain;
Áedán mac Gabráin: Taylor Kings and Chronicles; Sharpe, Adomnán's Life of St Columba; Broun & Clancy, Spes Scotorum; Byrne, Irish Kings and High-Kings; Thomas, Early Christian Ireland;
Aedán mac Gabráin: Foster, Picts, Gaels and Scots; Lynch, Oxford Companion to Scottish History; New Cambridge Medieval History, vol 1;
Aedan mac Gabrain: Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England; Cowan & McDonald, Alba;
Áedán son of Gabrán : Forsyth in Wormald, Scotland: A History; Cummins, Age of the Picts; Kirby, Earliest English Kings;
Aedan mac Gabran : Laing & Laing, The Picts and the Scots; Alcock, Arthur's Britain;
Aidan mac Gabran: Cambridge Hist. Enc. of G.B. & Ireland.
As a datapoint, John Morris's The Age of Arthur - I was reading it on the train today, so it's to hand - uses "Aedan " and "Fergus of Dalriada". Interestingly, though, he also uses Aedan for the saint; how far should we take this standardisation?
That's a 1973 work with a note that "the most recognisable forms are usually used. Irish names are normally given in plain English spelling". Shimgray | talk | 23:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but apart from the anglocentricism of many Scottish historians, they aren't exactly noted for their Gaelic grammar. --MacRusgail02:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps. There are reasonable grounds for omitting diacritics, or using Gabhran in place of Gabran, but few academics perpetrate barbarisms like "mac Gabran" or "Ædan", and those apparently not Scots (or Irish). Angus McLellan(Talk)11:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This move is part of an ongoing campaign by this user to try to claim that these are not the Arms of the United Kingdom, but rather that they are the Arms of Scotland. Note the horrendous (and presumably intentional) similarity to the separate Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland article (if you can't see the difference, compare in with of).
I urge other Users to Watch this article like a hawk. I personally have a poor relationship with the User in question and want to get involved as little as possible with their edits. I would appreciate it if calmer heads than mine were to monitor the situation. --Mais oui!01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
He edited the old Talk page so that it cannot be moved back to its original spot, see:
We have a "new" user, User:No More POV Please, who is going around POV pushing on Gaelic related articles. The crux of his POV pushing is Gaelic being synonymous with Irish. He is certainly a version of a previous user, as he knows too much about wiki culture to be otherwise. It'll be worthwhile to keep an eye on his Contribution History. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)00:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Council Logos
I am working towards uploading a decent .png image for each of the Unitary Authorities. I've done a few and put them in Category:Scottish council logos. I note that some of them are already in the relevant geo-stub templates, so I'll add more in as I do them. BTW if there are any other council logos floating around please put them in this category. Thanks, ::Supergolden::15:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
These logos are fair use, so should not be used on stub templates (or any other templates). They should only be used on the article about the relevant council. I'm sure a better free image can be found that represents each area for the stub templates. --Vclaw15:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
A hotheaded and somewhat paranoid user is adding what I regard as nonsense to the article Norse-Gaels (see also Talk:Norse-Gaels). I am on 3RR for now, so can't revert him for now. Can people review and perhaps tell me if I am wrong to think as I do. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
His final, rather lengthy, rant is possibly the best example of a user completely destroying their own credibility ive seen. I still cant get over the fact he defends his POV on a historical article (partly) on the basis he was once a fan of Scandinavian Metal - incredible. An Siarach
Yes, it's all my fault that you haven't read the same books as me. I'm sure it's a strange thing indeed. WP:AGF as you suggested, should have been your first act. Instead, you got unilateral on your own anyways. Now, you have your own personal attacks about my purported paranoia. With me, what you see is what you get. So, you admit the desire to have a revert war and are upset that the 3RR would spoil your fun?
No, you're not wrong in being ignorant on the topic. It's not a widely promoted thing in the big cities, but when you go as a tourist to the countryside it is all they talk about. It is the story of us "backwards rustics and rednecks", but please, be open to cultural diversity and forestall the prejudice. You hurt my feelings, which is why I got upset. Leave it at that, rather than the dehumanising hothead-nonsense.
Now, I see you've got another joker to come ridicule and silence the segment of population you want to claim as your own exclusive historic glory. The keyword is historic. IP Address22:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
2 
3 
_Template.png)
.png)
Resized
_Template_(HR)_(with_dot).png){kind=link}
21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)