| Revision as of 07:54, 11 February 2007 editMais oui! (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers111,268 edits →[]: clarify← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:01, 20 October 2023 edit undoGraham87 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Importers291,433 edits rm text from redirectTags: Replaced Manual revert | ||
| (328 intermediate revisions by 70 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {| {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|class="messagebox small-talk"|class="messagebox standard-talk"}} | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] | |||
| | '''] is a current candidate for the ].''' <br> Please see ] to comment on the nomination.] | |||
| |} | |||
| {{portalpar|Scotland|Flag of Scotland.svg}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="315px" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! align="center" | ]<br />] | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| #], approximately September 2005 to December 2005 | |||
| #], approximately January 2006 to February 2006 | |||
| #], February 2006 to March 2006 | |||
| #], March 2006 | |||
| #], March 2006 to April 2006 | |||
| #], March 2006 to August 2006 | |||
| #], August 2006 to November 2006 | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| '''''Welcome. If you would like to ask Scottish Wikipedians something, here is the place to do it. See also ], which has a role more focused on the quality of key articles.''''' | |||
| == Burgh of Partick == | |||
| I have a book purporting to list all of the burghs of Scottish history. However, it does not mention Partick, yet Partick is frequently called a burgh and has a burgh hall. Does anyone know the explanation for this. Was it actually ever a burgh? And if it was a burgh, as it seems to have been, what kind of burgh was it. BTW, is there any contradiction between being a burgh and being (in the non-episcopal sense) a city? Regards, '''] ('']'')''' 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I remember seeing a sign in Partick saying the "Burgh of Partick"- can't remember where though. ] 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::See the ] article for the many burgh variants (now linked from ] and ]). ] 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hey, thanks, all that clears it up. Regards, '''] ('']'')''' 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If it helps, Partick was annexed into Glasgow in 1912 after being created in 1852 as a Police Burgh.--] 00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Abernethy Move== | |||
| A user has moved ] to ], and edited the old Abernethy page as a dab page, so that his moved can only be reversed by an admin. Am I the only one who opposes this? Is a biscuit brand really more significant than one of the most important religious and literary centres in medieval Scotland? Now everyone who GOs it will have to know its in the arbitrary and newly created region of Perth and Kinross. '''] ('']'')''' 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh boy, it's the ] debacle all over again. (Goes to see if the same users are involved...) --] ]♦] 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see the disam page again. Most of the references are to other uses of "Abernethy" as a placename, there are others around the world as well as varying geographical and contextual use in Scotland. Due to the overwhelming number of Perthshire references, the others are hard to find via the "Search" box. I would have loved to have used the label "Abernethy, Perthshire" but despite this being in my experience the accepted usage there are others who routinely and swiftly "modernise" Scottish placename references even when it makes a contextual nonsense.--] 03:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Have a look at ] too. Maybe I'm biased but the programming language doesn't come to mind first, and it should be a disambig redirect.--] 13:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] (''Misplaced Pages: the encyclopedia that ]s can edit'') strikes again. ] ] 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Moves that are likely to be contentious should be done via ]. Both examples above (to move Abernethy back; retarget Forth) should be listed on WP:RM. For guidelines on when to disambiguate and what the primary topic is see ]. As for that dabpage, see ] for layout guidelines! | |||
| My 2p - the village of Abernethy is clearly the primary topic. Forth should be a disambiguation page as there is no clear primary topic (that it currently is the programming language is a sign of systematic bias, which is understandable). | |||
| Thanks/] 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't know whether I'll get a slapped wrist for this, but I've moved ] to ] as a disambig, and what was at Seton to ], I think that was the right thing to do? ] 15:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::For the cut'n'paste move, yes :) <small>(see ] and ])</small>. Seton should probably be a ], with ] as one of it's entries. /] 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] of ] to ] and ] to ] now open at ]. I'll do the ] one later. ] ] 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ] requested move is done, so I have opened a requested move for ] to move to ]. Have your say at ]. ] ] 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == WikiProject Transport in Scotland== | |||
| If i were to start a WikiProject as i think there desperately need to be one on Edinburgh and Glasgow (seperate ones or one as a whole?), how would i maintain it as i am not any good in that area? Should i set one up and would i have to be the main person if i did? ] 23:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm probably in way over my head and it may be too big but if anyone is interested (and could probably do a better job than i could) I have proposed a WikiProject on the ] for one to cover Transport around Glasgow and Edinburgh. ] 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Gone greatly different to how i expected so now Transport in Scotland. ] 12:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] Could use an experienced Editor's help. ] <b><span style="background-color: #008000"><font color="#ffffff">]</font></span></b> ] 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sutherville== | |||
| ] looks like a hoax to me. If anybody knows different, please remove the {{tl|prod}} tag. ] ] 12:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've speedy deleted it, if it were a real place that article didn't have enough context... and it isn't a real place, so... /] 12:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed re-draft of Scotland: Geography sub-section == | |||
| I have created a proposed revision for the Geography sub-section of the Scotland page at ]. Constructive comments are welcome on the associated ] page. ] <small>]</small> 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Holy Isle, Firth of Clyde== | |||
| Just a request for someone to look in at the ] article. ] removed a chunk of information about the Gaelic name of the island, I replaced it, and he removed it again saying "I dont think the gaelic stuff is really nessicary Grinner. Do it again and I'll issue you with a ban". Just a heads up about this really. Cheers ] 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That passage seems eminently reasonable to me. It looks as if JFBurton may be making some kind of ] against ]. --] 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Military of Scotland== | |||
| I'd like to draw attention to the edits by an anonymous user starting with , on the Military of Scotland article. ] <b><span style="background-color: #008000"><font color="#ffffff">]</font></span></b> ] 08:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Any interest in doing something with this, say along the lines of ]? --] ]<font color="navy">♦</font>] 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for assistance== | |||
| Three or four US editors are attempting to push a heavy US-POV on the naming of '']'', a UK topic about a Scottish native plant, trying to enforce US name usage. Please help out at ] - thanks, ] 12:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As one of those "three or four US editors", I believe that MPF has badly misinterpreted our actions and motives in editing this article. Several of us (with the support of at least one Scotsman, I might note) have objected to MPF's (1) use of a Misplaced Pages article to attempt to discourage a common name that is VERY widely used in English speaking countries (not just the USA) for a widely cultivated and naturalized plant, and (2) unsupported assertion that the name "Scotch broom" for this plant is offensive. The name "Scotch broom" as a common name in the USA goes back to at least 1818, long before any controversy over whether "Scotch" is, in and of itself, an offensive term to be avoided at all costs. Note also that as now revised the article is ''not'' attempting to enforce "Scotch broom" as a common name for this plant, but rather is stating, neutrally, simply that this name is used in certain countries outside the UK. ] 21:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is absurd. At this point I am just sick and tired of being told how stupid American common names for plants are--especially being told this by someone who spends no time finding out how the plant got the name, and was wrong a couple of times, making incorrect assumptions about the meaning of the common name. No editor was trying to push "a heavy US-POV on the naming of ''Cytisus scoparius'' or "trying to enfource US name usage." What we are almost always trying to do in the case of MPF's edits is trying to remove his denigrating comments about American choices of common names. I'd bet anything he doesn't insult Brittish common names. ] 00:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==''An Comunn Gàidhealach'' and ''Comunn na Gàidhlig''== | |||
| I've added ] and ] to the list of stubs needing expansion. Also, ACG's website seems to be down. --] ]<font color="navy">♦</font>] 09:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =='Shopping' Section on Kirkcaldy page== | |||
| An anonymous user has added a relatively large section on shopping to the ] article. I tweaked the format of the headings, but from first impressions the section is POV, can someone have a look for me please.--] 21:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've removed most of the POV stuff I found (throughout the article), fixed a lot of typos etc. The text could still use a hefty rewrite; do we really need to know the dates all the shops in Kirkcaldy opened? dull as... --] 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was my opinion too :) I think we may get some POV pushing from this anonymous user. --] 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been keeping an eye on all the edits that are happening. Generally they are all about the modern history of shops in Kirkcaldy, and opinions on areas of the town. Fairly badly written, with frequent typos and grammatical mistakes, and overly concerned with where things are located relative to each other, e.g. "''Kirkcaldy also has another small shopping centre on Hill Street known as The Postings which can be accessed best by the gap between Bank of Scotland Halifax and New Look which brings you straight up to the doors or round by Hunter Street.''" I'm starting to go in with a bit of a heavier hand and removing a lot of trivial nonsense, but would appreciate some other users taking a look over some of the edits by 80.193.58.202 --] 21:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Scots language discussion == | |||
| Those of you with an interest in Scots and the Scots language wikipedia may wish to take a look at the village pump ]. Take a deep breath now. ] <small>]</small> 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Australians trying to annex Perth == | |||
| Should all Perth related categories be assumed to relate to the Australian Perth? Seems to presume ours doesn't exist. See ]--]<sup>g</sup> 23:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've spent some time dabbing ]. I'm thinking that a dab page is wrong, and that ] should be there. Most uses of Perth seem to refer to the antipodean city. ] ] 13:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Gairloch Highland Gathering - candidate for deletion? == | |||
| I have prodded ]. What do other editors think? --] 11:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Seems verifiable? But I just don't like 'notability' deletions.--]<sup>g</sup> 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In my view it is perhaps an honest attempt, but an 'advertisement masquerading as an article' nonetheless and {db:spam}. ] <small>]</small> 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Lavellan - vandalism == | |||
| Can people keep an eye on the "lavellan" article please? It seems to be undergoing regular vandalism. --] 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay. -- ] | ] 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested photographs == | |||
| I have just come across this cat. | |||
| *] | |||
| --] 10:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Categories for discussion == | |||
| Please would people have a look here and post their thoughts, I think there should be more of a Caledonian influence on this one . ] Cheers ] 12:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Indeed. In my view 'Valleys of Scotland' is a rather odd idea. --] <small>]</small> 16:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There was that song ] used to sing: "For these are my mountains and this is my valley", or something like that. There are no end of weirdly named categories, ] is especially euphonious. Picking on this one seems unfair. If nothing else it will make it easier for the category gnomes to find the right one. ] ] 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Even in the song, it's "glen": | |||
| :''For these are my mountains, and this is my glen'' | |||
| :''The braes of my childhood will know me again'' | |||
| "Valleys of Scotland" definitely sounds odd. -- ] | ] 14:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Fauna article == | |||
| I've posted an article on the ]. I'd like to think it is a decent amateur effort, but I am not a zoologist and would appreciate input from Wikipedians with a knowledge of the subject. I also note the existence of ]. I think its fair to say it's a start class article and does not even mention flora. (Fauna = animals only of course, 'wildlife' = flora and fauna). Should this be ignored, should a merge or a deletion be suggested, or... ? I note the existence of ]. Any advice or pointers gratefully received. ] <small>]</small> 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==David I of Scotland== | |||
| ] (] <small>•</small> ]) has <u>comprehensively</u> revamped ]. Don't cheer just yet. Apart from some tidying, all <u>140kb</u> of the addition was added in . Now it's possible that the article was written offline, and pasted in here, but there are some strange features. Reading the text, it seems likely to be an academic paper of some sort; so far so good. It's certainly an improvement on what was there before, and perhaps I'm ]. However, there are a couple of glitches that suggest to me that it was OCR'd: "Malcolm Ш" appears in place of "Malcolm III". Having upper-case ] in place of III is not a very likely typing error. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation, but if it was your paper, written in the last couple of years, wouldn't you have an electronic version? ] ] 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I'd share some of those concerns... Notice also the section numbering used. One thing is certain, it's not a source published on the 'net or any book in Google Books search list. Thanks/] 23:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Regardless of whence it came, the article needs some serious copyediting. It includes phrases like, "During the reign of king David I, Scotland was not made – it was re-made." (As an aside, the word "king" seems to be always lower case in the heavy-prose sections. Odd.) – ] <sup>''('']'')''</sup> 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most recent source is Oram, 2005. It's about 20,000 words long, maybe journal-article or short dissertation length. Hmm. ] | ] | 23:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The mystery is resolved - see ], where it's "''...a pared down version of a Master's Thesis on king David, written by Jordan Diacur (ie. me) for Prof. Elizabeth Ewan, at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, and completed in February, 2006''". ] | ] | 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Having read through this tome it's obvious that it requires a little wikification. On the whole though, with a few tweaks here and there, proper referencing, and some piccies, this I think has a sound basis for good article status, poss. featured article. ] 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Does somebody want to welcome the user and perhaps probe a bit? Just to make sure we're not away to cleanup up some copyvio text. Thanks/] 09:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Already welcomed a while back. I left a note. ] ] 12:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. {{unsigned|Jrp|03:09, 22 January 2007}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Anyone got a picture of ] I/we could have for this? We could use an article on the Loch itself too, ot at least a redirect to an article on the area for now. I am also finding borderline sources that speak of Spanish coins found more recently in the vicinity - but I can't find any more that in reliable sources. Any help? BtW, our coverage of the various non-royal Jacobite figures sucks.--]<sup>g</sup> 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There are some on Geograph which are {{tl|cc-by-sa-2.0}}, which I believe is an acceptable license. Try . ] ] 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've sort of finished this now. But any comments/improvements would be welcome. It has been nominated for a DYK. I'd particularly like to beef up the sources if anyone has any specialist books on the Jacobites, they might scan the indexes and add in some corroboration. --]<sup>g</sup> 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Geograph is indeed quite acceptable. There are various minor licencing protocols I was given some instruction in recently if you need a hand. Talking of royalty I note that ] has a fine article dedicated to her inestimable role - which barely mentions Scotland but has an entire section on Ireland. ] <small>]</small> 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've put an image for that source in (thanks). I just hope I've got the commons licence right. I've also stared a complementing article on ] (but this still needs work - I've more sources to work in). I'm rather appalled that there is nothing on the 'gentle Locheil' either. Where are our Jacobites!!!? I mean we've got every noble nonentity in the English peerage you care to name.--]<sup>g</sup> 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A major problem is that it can get a bit confusing for the casual contributor to figure out who was who, esp. with those multifarious Camerons. Would it be worth a competent historian of the period cobbling together a short list of significant figures in the '45 and then we can work out which ones we can crib from the DNB, etc? ] | ] | 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup. But I'm not the man. I'm working off a couple of basic books and a google. But I would love to see ] go blue. And I'd be over the moon if it ended up as a dab.--]<sup>g</sup> 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, I'll give it an hour of work and see what I can do. If he's not in the DNB I'll be shocked ;-). ] | ] | 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::] - basic but done. Just a general one-page overview; feel free to expand it. ] | ] | 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As for disambigging, have some stubs ;-) - ], ] ] | ] | 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Succession boxes here we come ;) --]<sup>g</sup> 01:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I amended the licensing. It was probably OK from a legal point of view before, but this way gives clearer access to the original site etc.. I am by no means an expert in this black art but I think it will do. ] <small>]</small> 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks looks good. I've added ] to my Jacobite series. Any help welcome. I'm rather enjoying this!--]<sup>g</sup> 21:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Dunfermline == | |||
| Could someone take a look at the ] page? Dunfermline has 4 High Schools, and the article currently has sections on the historic Dunfermline High School, and the not-historic but quite big Queen Anne High School (5th largest school in Scotland). QAHS also has it's ]. Various anonymous IP addresses keep removing the QAHS section from the page, due to it's perceived lack of importance. To give you an idea of what I mean, their edit summaries are: | |||
| *QAHS section not relevant, DHS has a notable history so it deserves space. QAHS was a substandard school set up for people who failed the "qualy" exam. | |||
| *Deleted Queen Anne Section- irrelevant, vanity, not history | |||
| *Removed unencyclopaedic information | |||
| *Removed other 3 schools(unimportant vanity inaccurate) (This last one removed small sections on the other 2 schools as well) | |||
| However I believe they are displaying POV against QAHS, as the content seems fine to me. As far as I'm concerned, if Dunfermline HS has a section, there shouldn't be a problem with the other High Schools also having sections, provided it's notable, verifiable etc. Any opinions on what should be the correct course of action here? --] 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have spent a few minutes cleaning up the formatting of that section. DHS should probably have its own article and there's enough in the Dunfermline article to start a stub. Then the section in the Dunfermline article needs to be shorter, in ]. I'll keep an eye on the article. Ta/] 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Harris== | |||
| The poor old thing seems to receive more than its fair share of vandalism and could probably do with another watcher or two. A recent edit by a new user adds an external link which is probably spam, but I am not sure. Could an experienced spam-watcher take a look please? ] <small>]</small> 10:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Clan Fraser == | |||
| Hello everyone, as some of you may have noticed, I've basically written the ] article all by me lonesome (that's actually true; I would avoid claiming it if I could), and I would love some input as to how I (or others!) could improve the article. I wonder if I should go about this by requesting a Peer Review? I'm completely knew at actually attempting to gain status (sush as GA or FA) for articles, and I'd love whatever input I can get from y'all knowledgeable and generous fellow Scots. ] <b><span style="background-color: #008000"><font color="#ffffff">]</font></span></b> ] 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Anyone in Anstruther? == | |||
| ] needs a better picture?--]<sup>g</sup> 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Imminent deletion of ] == | |||
| I am very concerned indeed about ]. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the nominator, nor by any of their supporters, as to why this Aberdeen cat has been targeted, out of the set of related "people associated with" Scottish cats. They have also completely ignored the wide range of sub-categories. This is a disgraceful example of the arbitrary pig-headedness that can be CFD, and I urge everyone with an interest in Scottish biography, or in Aberdeen-related content, to take a close look at the category, and its ], and contribute to the CFD discussion. Thanks. --] 07:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:01, 20 October 2023
Redirect to: