Jump to content

Talk:Angus, Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Angus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move Angus to Angus, Scotland and Angus (disambiguation) to Angus.(non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– There is no primary topic for this term, none of the entries on the dab could be thought of as having long term significance. Making a local area the primary topic also gives the impression of systematic bias towards a certain area. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose, Angus is Angus. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A more appropriate example is Hereford and Hereford (cattle). Angus cattle is, in any case, not a valid name for the breed. The breed is known as Aberdeen Angus cattle everywhere other than the US and is differentiated to either Black Angus or Red Angus in the US. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Catfish Jim: Your statement applies exclusively to the cattle: the PRIMARYTOPIC claim refers to its beef. In the US, the beef is best known as just "angus". And since the beef comes from the cattle, differentiating the two is a very blurry line. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that doesn't wash. You go anywhere in the world and say the word "Gouda" and it means a specific type of cheese. Ask anyone in Gouda where you can buy some Gouda and they will point you in the direction of a cheese shop. Go into a butchers in Angus and ask for some Angus and they look at you blankly or laugh at you. The word "Angus" by itself is an adjective when applied to beef. You say "Angus beef" not just "Angus". And in any case it's called "Aberdeen Angus beef" everywhere except the US. A similar situation exists for Kobe and Kobe beef. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI before I read more into this statement: The affinity for the word Kobe, in the US, isn't exclusive to Kobe beef; the word's affinity with Kobe Bryant is just as strong. Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And George Bush's cat was called India (cat)... so what? We disambiguate India? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...George Bush had a cat? Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It really upset some people in India. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! The cat doesn't look too pleased about it either! -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...As for the rest of your statement ... your statement, in one way, validates my argument regarding "Angus". If one is in Angus (the current subject at Angus), what you said could very well happen, but in the US, a salesperson of meat (or really any grocery or restaurant) would understand that their customer is inquiring about the beef from Angus cattle. Considering that a good portion of the readers of the English Wikipedia are in the US, the current setup of article titles has systemic bias which caters exclusively to non-US English speakers/readers. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're exaggerating more than a little there. Anyway, even if the salesperson of meat would be able to figure out such a request, nobody goes into a shop in the US and just asks for some "Angus". They might ask for Gouda though. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: the majority of the world's English readers live in India and Africa so its not systematic bias that what words mean to the majority of the worlds English readers is taken into account. But even in the US "Angus" is not used in US for cattle, other than for "Angus cattle" found in some US books. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews of what? Angus is the only highly notable subject called "Angus". Angus cattle are not called just "Angus" period. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Readers in the US, for the most part, don't know the difference. "Angus" refers to the beef, so being redirected the cattle would make sense for US readers. (But again, I know it's not a worldwide view, thus why I'm suggesting he disambiguation page move to the ambiguous title.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just not right on either count. To the pageviews, I suppose: 1) the top 10 (you can only enter 10) pages of things called Angus (even excluding the cattle breed for now) show that the council area does not even have a bare majority of views. The film (with Kathy Bates, George C. Scott, et al) and the given name article are both relatively popular and significant. So, at a minimum, the basename should be moved to the disambiguation page. And 2) the cattle breed is obviously often referred to as "Angus": ("breeds such as Hereford or Angus are calmer than continental breeds"). So, adding in "Angus cattle" to the pageviews analysis shows the breed with nearly 2/3rds of the pageviews for "Angus" articles. And the cattle breed is certainly at least on a par with the Scottish council area for significance. So by all rights, the basename should redirect to the cattle article as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Dohn joe (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you take out a trivial 1995 childrens film (obviously trivial entertainment subjects like films and albums hoover up massive page views) the encyclopedic subjects left are all centered on the ancient and modern Scottish county. It's one of those few cases where there genuinely is a real WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and while "apple" still directs to the fruit, rather than the brand, no reason why a county should be unseated by its cow In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be well and good if there was a food called Angus. There's not. There is "Aberdeen Angus beef" that is called "Angus Beef" in one country, but it is not just called "Angus" anywhere. Cheddar and Gouda are different as the cheeses are genuinely, and generally, referred to by their mononyms. Angus beef is not. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even without looking at Angus cattle, the council area does not have a majority of views among several ambiguous subjects, despite being at the base name.[8]--Cúchullain t/c 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True of the cows, but the name "Angus", figures such as Aengus or Oengus I (both also known as Angus), and others aren't derived from this council area.--Cúchullain t/c 02:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the suggested location, oppose. As others have said, Angus is not a city nor as a region is it primarily a council area (unlike, for instance, 'Highland' or 'Dumfries and Galloway'). It is a traditional region and province of Scotland. Scottish provinces pose some naming challenges for the guidelines because they are neither represented by modern administrative structures nor are they out of use as concepts (both in historical writing and modern community identities); nor when they are represented by modern structures are they represented coherently. When a province happens to be, also, a modern administrative area, like Fife, Moray or Angus or even a defunct modern administrative area like Argyll, Ross or Tweeddale, having separate articles fragments the content and leaves the encyclopedia much poorer. Non-Scottish Wikipedians will find these issues difficult to understand and will expect to be able to impose the closest thing Scotland has analogous administrative units in the USA, Australia, etc. As things stand, Wikipedia has no standard guidelines for Scottish provinces/districts but precedents suggest that Province, Scotland is strongest standard: e.g. Lorne, Scotland, Carrick, Scotland--but the sample size is small and it is not standard: e.g. Eskdale (Scotland), Kyle, Ayrshire and until recently Lennox was at Lennox (district).

I suspect that most Wikipedian contributors will not care about how Scottish provinces are treated, so long as the disambiguation problem is resolved. I find it unlikely that the long-standing location of the Angus article is so problematic as to cause serious issues and the desire to rationalize unnecessarily not clearly helpful, it does also seem that the case for this page remaining at Angus is not a clear one, since even in Scottish use the personal name is at least as prominent as the region name. I think the best solution, if the page absolutely had to move, is probably Angus, Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, Scotland, or Angus (region) as I suggested below, would both be suitable to me.--Cúchullain t/c 20:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Dohn joe (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

[edit]

Let us try to give max help to any intending closer.

Dohn joe, Cuchullain, Catfish Jim I think you all now support this too, correct me if I'm wrong.

Derek Ross, not sure of your exact position on this.

In ictu oculi, still opposed to moving the DAB? Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Several oppose !votes above note that the cattle etc. are named after the area. If this were Andrewpedia I might well accept such an argument as relevant to deciding a primary topic,, but it's not, and the policy here is clear that this is not a consideration. Andrewa (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here there are two relevant points when it comes to deciding a primary topic. One is usage, which it has been argued is greater for the cattle/beef. I have several issues with this... one is that the cattle/beef is not known primarily as "Angus". The opening sentence from Angus cattle: Angus cattle, known as Aberdeen Angus in most parts of the world, are a breed of cattle commonly used in beef production. Secondly, Angus is not generally used mononymously to refer to be cattle/beef. It was pointed out above however that, in the scope of an article about cattle/beef that can be shortened to just "Angus". There is merit in debating primary usage but we have a situation in which a subject "Angus" (the place) is known only as "Angus". The other subject "Angus cattle" is known primarily as "Aberdeen Angus Cattle" or "Angus Cattle" or "Aberdeen Angus beef" or "Angus beef" and, only sometimes, where the context is clear as "Angus".
Primary long term significance, on the other hand, cannot be argued. Angus was a kingdom in Pictish times, going back to the early medieval period. Aberdeen Angus beef/cattle does not have long term significance. Certified beef has been around since the late 1970s, but much of the current interest in the product started in the early 2000s, with the fast food industry promoting it as a premium product. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jim is right. In addition I'd point out that "Angus (council area)" is a very poor title. The article does not just describe the council area, it describes the region which has at various times been a kingdom, a county and a district. And the first two for much longer than it has been a council area. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any of my resources on me at present, but to my recollection there was never a kingdom called "Angus". The region itself has had different names over time and it's hard to argue it is the primary topic over Angus (given name), Aengus, Oengus I, Oengus II (all also called "Angus") plus the breed of cow. Angus (region) or similar would also be a good title depending on what the scope of the article should be.--Cúchullain t/c 02:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Fraser, J.E. (2009), From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 895, Edinburgh University Press, it was a kingdom. That's the standard textbook for that period. The kingdom is traditionally associated with an older kingdom known as Circinn and the name change is likely to have taken place in the 8th C AD (named after Oengus I) but that's largely conjectural.
Given names? Miles away from primary usage. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Still, the region's name has changed a number of times (Circinn, Angus, Forfarshire) and there are many other notable things of the same name (several of which predate the region).
Re the given name, the point is there is no primary usage. The region is not more historically significant than the mythological figure or the Pictish king it's apparently named for, nor is it the primary topic in terms of usage out of all topics of the name.[9]Cúchullain t/c 13:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, Scotland would be acceptable. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better than the original suggestion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Ross, is it acceptable to you? The goal here is to build consensus. Best of all, if you could cast a positive or even neutral !vote at #Alternative proposal, that would be a great help to the closer IMO. (And there are several other contributors who could help similarly.) Andrewa (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still prefer to leave the article at its present location. But if it is definitely going to be moved, then it should be moved to "Angus, Scotland". -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might even have consensus on this! Not that it's mine to call. Noting that the proposed target Angus, Scotland has neither significant history nor a talk page, so non-admin closure might be possible. Caution: It would be necessary to suppress the redirect creation when moving this article, to make room for the DAB talk page in the second move (owing to a long-standing software bug). I don't know whether a non-admin can do this. BUT if you have trouble, just do the first move (the article) and close the RM and drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll clean up (that's why we call adminship the mop). I can't close this as I'm involved, but happy to clean up. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As main opposition to the proposed move, I'd be happy for you to do the move Andrew. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in view of the backlog at RM I'm tempted... but I'd have to then say that if anyone objects I'll revert and relist rather than going to WP:MR. Neater if someone else does, so I'll wait a little at least. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the more I think about it the more I think I should not. The discussion is quite involved, and I'm clearly involved (;->. Surely there'a a better closer available. Andrewa (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Page movers are capable of performing redirect suppression, and in a nutshell, performing these moves in the way they need to be done. Steel1943 (talk)|
OK... but without page mover authority, not so? Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I am confused about the point of this inquiry... Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I think a non-admin close would be OK. But I'm not sure whether they have the required permissions to do it neatly. You seem to be saying they don't, as I suspected, I just wanted to be sure. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Yes, the only non-admins that can suppress redirects after a page move are ones who have the Page mover user right. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In which case my offer to clean up is material, that's the significant thing. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got around to writing an essay on this common error, or at least starting one. See Wikipedia:What is named after what. Andrewa (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have been omitted from the list of contributors pinged above, but for the record I remain opposed to the move. The page has been at this name for twelve years and I don't see that anything has changed to make its subject no longer primary. As has been argued above, the term "Angus" is only used as a shorthand for Angus cattle or Angus beef when it is clear from the context that cattle or beef are being discussed. The other topics that may lay claim to long-term significance are the given name and surname, but these are already covered in articles with parenthetic disambiguation. --Deskford (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred outcome is also that it stays at its present location. Angus, Scotland would be more acceptable than any of the other suggested page moves, but I think, reviewing the above, that this is similar to the Apple/Apple Inc. question and should be decided by consensus. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angus, Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Council boundaries vs Historic County

[edit]

The statement "The boundaries of the present council area are the same as those of the historic county minus the City of Dundee..." is not entirely true as before the boundaries were tied up in the 19th century Angus/Forfarshire was a little different - if you go back far enough places like Invergowrie and Coupar Angus were in Angus, but are currently in Perth and Kinross. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Angus is very accurately and honestly the council area of Scotland. Euanjohnb (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angus,_Scotland&oldid=1198751203"