Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Scottish people article
There has been a long-running dispute over the relevance and sourcing of various claims regarding the genetics of Scottish people, particularly the R1b Y-chromosome hapgroup. Any comment on the talk page would be most welcome.--Nydas(Talk) 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been raised before. Accordingly with the subject I REALLY do have a big greasy caledonian chip on my shoulder. Surely this is within the remit of Scottish cuisine, not as a byblow of English/UK culturally imperialistic opinion, viz. all the chat about the Scots Tung being a dialect of English. Full English Breakfast surely has its place, (obviously without those dodgy American Hash Browns shewn in the illustration for the so-called English Breakfast :)), But Scotland is the home of the Black pudding, at least in the last hundred or so years, just as Ireland is home to the White pudding, not to mention Scotland's wonderful Square sausage, tattie scone, dumpling, and the recent arrival of haggis as a morning bite.(dubious however, as it's a bit of a "We're different" token). Let's see who has the best coronaries in these islands. I think our menu is far better qualified to stand on its own rather than perch on the back of a Saxon Greasy-spoons menu. Brendandh 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno. I find it difficult to get het up about the minor differences between these "national breakfasts". As far as I'm concerned they're all just fry-ups -- and that includes the North American variants. In any good hotel the fact that this one includes herring and that one includes pancakes is more a matter of what the customer asked for than anything else. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories for discussion
Please would people have a look here and post their thoughts, I think there should be more of a Caledonian influence on this one . Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 18#Category:Straths and glens Cheers Brendandh 08:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Battle of the Somme FAR
Battle of the Somme has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
District questions
Is there a district of Glasgow actualy called St George's Cross? What is it named after? Simply south 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Clan Fraser
Hello everyone, as some of you may have noticed, I've basically written the Clan Fraser article all by me lonesome (that's actually true; I would avoid claiming it if I could), and I would love some input as to how I (or others!) could improve the article. I wonder if I should go about this by requesting a Peer Review? I'm completely knew at actually attempting to gain status (sush as GA or FA) for articles, and I'd love whatever input I can get from y'all knowledgeable and generous fellow Scots. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 05:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Order of the Thistle FAR
Order of the Thistle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Dispute regarding treaties relevant to the formation of the United Kingdom
There is currently a dispute going on at the Template talk:UKFormation which regard the inclusion of treaties specific to England within the template which aims to display the treaties leading to the formation of the United Kingdom i.e. the Union of Parliaments and Union of Crowns before that. Comment upon the dispute is needed so that a consensus may be reached. siarach 04:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment
Volunteers needed! Please sign up at:
A User has just requested an assessment of our Aberdeen article. Ta. --Mais oui! 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:SCOWNB WP:SCO etc. - Spring cleaning
- Please see relevant discussion at:
- --Mais oui! 08:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
As noted there I intend to merge the essentially duplicate lists of participants at WP:SCOWNB and here, and close the latter. Your support and assistance is appreciated, your comments are welcome. As it may be a lengthy exercise it might occur in stages. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Representative peer FAR
Representative peer has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
New infoboxes
A new infobox has been developed for use on UK places articles. If you have any concerns or appraisals, please make them at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Regards, Jhamez84 02:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have already made it plain that I do not support the dropping of the historic county field, but my objections have been ignored. If this is supposed to replace the existing templates it absolutely needs to provide the same information as the previous ones or a lot of editors are going to be very annoyed. Owain (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus can change. It has. consensus has been assessed three times in response to your complaints, and in each case, the new consensus was not to your liking. DDStretch (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't there already templates for Scottish places? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding of what is going on here is hazy but I believe someone has designed a new infobox in the hope it may become a standardised UK one and that there is a 'roll-out' replacement of the Scottish template going on. I suggested it might be helpful to have this clarified here but the only response so far is the above. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The first message invites people to comment at Template talk:Infobox UK place. I did not devise the new template, though I have been active in discussing it, and I did get some changes made in the information it contained by engaging the principal authors of it in debate and discussion. As you can see from the second and third message under this subject heading, some changes were not viewed as being a good thing and not adopted (by means of 3 separate procedures to gain consensus.) My own feeling is that the new template is a great improvement over the old one, but I accept that others may not share this view. The new template is quite flexible, and I do encourage all who have the time to go to the template's talk page and read about it and comment, even if they ultimately think that after consideration it is not a good development. DDStretch (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The UK infobox has all the functionality of the Scottish version and more. It retains a Scotland specific map, options for Scots and other minority (forgive me please) languages, and retains the Scottish arrangements for governance and land division! There are no plans for a UK flag here either.
It may be that this infobox has other features such as distances from Edinburgh, and does not infringe upon the status of any part of the UK! This infobox brings with it increased compatibilty, flexibility and consistency for wider Wikipedia place articles, and is less susceptible to content hijacking and forking. Jhamez84 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Infobox flag straw poll
Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It's election time folks!!
I think that the kick off of the election provides us all with a wonderful opportunity to showcase the more serious Scotland-related content here at Wikipedia. Can we start a discussion here as to how best to improve the quality of our articles relating to the politics and government of Scotland?
I would suggest that the key articles/sections are as follows:
- Politics of Scotland - only B-rated - really not that good in places, could do with benchmarking, and a total rewrite of some bits; it was actually myself who inserted the Introduction (lifted direct from the main Scotland article), but now that I re-read it, it really is extremely poor at outlining the key aspects of the topic - far too pedantic and officious - could someone do a decent, brief intro?
- the "Politics" section of the main Scotland article, see Scotland#Politics - ditto, as above
- Scottish Parliament - FA (as is the Building article) - the only articles that are up to standard
- Scottish Parliament election, 2007 - currently B-rated - this is the key article here, I suggest we start by benchmarking against other election articles - if we want we could probably get this up to GA or A
- Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions - this main article is OK, but nearly every article on an individual constituency or electoral region is a stub! They all need a lot of work, eg lists of candidates, and referencing
- Members of the Scottish Parliament - I am particularly concerned that even senior (ministers and shadows) MSPs' articles are still stubs
- see Template:Politics of Scotland, and Category:Politics of Scotland, for links to other important articles
I intend to put the main election 2007 article as our featured article on Portal:Scotland, probably until after 3 May. This should help it get some traffic.
And we need photographs, maps, diagrams, statistics, excellent referencing, and anything else to bring this broad range of content up to speed!
Thoughts? --Mais oui! 09:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to get more involved with Scotland articles but the various factions and the often intransigent standpoints (actually all rather Scottish!) make it unlikely. I don't have the time to get involved in endless arguments/edit wars with the pro-independence crowd, or those in North America who see Scotland through rose-tinted glasses, not to mention those who seem to wish to turn the clock back over 1000 years by insisting on putting Gaelic names into everything, especially in those parts of Scotland where there simply is not a trace of Gaelic. (East Lothian, for instance, has been Anglicised since at least 1000; I cannot imagine St. Margaret calling her husband anything other than Malcolm). We saw this 'movement' in Ireland and I just thought it was rather sad. I shall just continue making my modest contributions. Regards, David Lauder 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The articles on Scottish Ministers and leaders of the parties need to be updated and expanded. Even looking back, the Donald Dewar article is very short. I have been working on Jack McConnell, and some work on Annabel Goldie. Thunderwing 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Bilateral relations discussion
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
James I of England FAR
James I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Caledonian MacBrayne Fleet
I've got an interest in the Clyde Cruising scene dating back to the sailing of Henry Bell's PS Comet. The question however that I have is of a more modern nature, I notice we have articles on Cal-Mac and the Cal-Mac fleet. My question is that should the Cal-Mac fleet article only include vessels that are at present part of the fleet, or include those that have formerly served. Some vessels like the former TS Queen Mary had a number of owners and it served for a while with Cal-Mac. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Douglasnicol (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
The only reason not to so far as I am aware, would be if the article size became too unwieldy in which case it could be split into two or more. Go for it by all means.Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- How far do we go? Seems a good idea to link to more notable vessels such as Queen Mary and the Waverley. Anyway, nice to see a demand for individual articles on the current ferries, will aim to get some local ones on the go. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Auditor of the Exchequer for Scotland
What is this position? Is it notable? It is under afd at Robert Arbuthnot (auditor). Can anyone improve the article? - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Main page feature 2 May: Scottish Parliament Building
Scottish Parliament Building is going to be the Main page featured article tommorrow: 2nd May. Congrats to Globaltraveller et al :)
Please "Watch" the article over the next few days, because articles which feature on the Main page often get a vast amount of vandalism over the period they are up. Please request semi-protection or even full protection if the vandalism is overwhelming. Ta. --Mais oui! 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Here we go folks! Please monitor the nomination page, and implement good suggestions:
--Mais oui! 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Charles I of England FAR
Charles I of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikibook
Anyone want to make a wikibook for learning Lowland Scots? I want to learn the language, but i can't find anywhere to learn it. Please respond at my talkpage. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Local History Articles
Could someone have a look at Lambroughton, Corsehill, Lugton, Auchentiber, Knockentiber, Springside, Gatehead, Cunninghamhead and see if they relate to your project. Rosser 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Alex Salmond - Not first minister
Please bear in mind that although Salmond was elected today by the Parliament, he is technically only the parliament's nominee for office. He is not first minister until the Queen appoints him. --Docg 11:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony Blair FAR
Tony Blair has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Aubigny-sur-Nère
It is a bit of a disgrace that the Stewart enclave in France has about three or four lines written about it. Yet the history of the offspring of the Earl of Buchan and a few of the Stewart Kings used this French haven as a small part of Scotland during the late Middle Ages and early Modern Period. Furthermore, it was used as a base of Jacobitism after the (POValert. in)glorious revolution. Surely someone out there has the heid to sort this one out. Brendandh 23:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Scotland national football team FAC
The Scotland national football team article has been nominated at WP:FAC. Comments are welcome here. Kanaye 16:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Copy of today's (3 June 2007) discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Scotland
- I am disappointed that the team working on this template have decided upon the change without refering it here --Stewart 14:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have completed the conversion of those templates now, bar one which has been reverted twice. I have therefore requested deletion. Regan123 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The map still hasn't been corrected. The red dots are in the wrong place - is anybody working on this? --Bill Reid | Talk 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- On which ones as when I compared them to the previous static ones they seemed quite similar. I may have transposed the longitude / latitude incorrectly on a couple which would show the dot in the wrong place as well. Point out the problematic ones and then I will look at them. Regan123 09:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Portree, Burghead are examples. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Burghead is too far north, but what is the issue with Portree. Could you also check out a couple more in the south / west so that we can see where the problem lies? Regan123 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Portree lies on the south eastern side of the Trotternish peninsula, not in Vaternish. It has been displaced to the north and the west by about 10 miles. Brodick is displaced to the north by a similar margin. Lamlash is displaced north by a lesser amount. Incidentally, these are the first four places I looked at. Inverness is displaced west. Kirkwall is wrong too - slightly north and west - that's six out of six. Hopefully some are correct! Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have changed the map values on North. Do you think Burghead is now in the right place north/south wise? Pressing edit forces a proper reload of the map... I will start working on east/west. Regan123 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right I think Portree is now in the right place, can you confirm? Regan123 11:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Inverness is also back where it should be I believe. Regan123 11:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK. They all seem to be where they should be give or take a little bit. Do people agree? Regan123 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I do not find this wholesale change very helpful. By the time I was aware of the change, it had already happened, and since the old Scottish Template had been deleted, I could not carry out a critical comparison with the previous version. As a occaisional editor of scottish places articles, the removal of certain information (specifically Historical Counties) saddens me. However those responsible for the UK template have deemed it appropriate to delete the Scottish Template without even highlighting the impending deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. I will reluctantly live with this change. --Stewart 14:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I made a stern effort to oppose this, but only received lackluster backing and was subject to abuse, name-calling and innuendo for my troubles. That being said, almost every Scottish user who voted on the deletion proposal voted oppose, but were numerically muscled out by vote stacking. Mais Oui!, though he opposed it, wasn't around to vote either. No-one ever explained why the change was necessary except "Scotland is not a country ... is part of the UK" kinda thing. Change for change's sake. Still, if all that work replacing templates is worthwhile for them ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The text of the old infobox can be found at User:Doc glasgow/Infobox Scotland place if anyone wants to subst it from there.
Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Scotland.svg
There's some confusion in User_talk:Zipola if the image Image:Coat_of_arms_of_Scotland.svg is a correct rendering of the Royal Arms of Scotland. I would appreciate opinions and especially heraldic views on the matter. Zipola 10:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Measuring Activity
I don't know what do you think?, but in my boredom I created this template to measure our members activity, this can be transcluded in the user pages, both as reminder and a motivator of this WikiProject. You can choose any given period of time: By monthly, bimonthly or trimonthly basis, to count user contributions. Also it can be customized to facilitate the task of the WikiProject Editorial Team 1.0 for representing the quality status of articles at glance. Let me know your comm nets. Here it is how this works for now.
{{ScottishWikiProjectActivity| UserTalk=2 | WikiProject=4 | Mainspace=1 | Activity=A }}
Example:
{{ScottishWikiProjectActivity |UserTalk=<font color="White">2</font> | WikiProject=<font color="White">4</font> | Mainspace=<font color="White">1</font> | Activity=<font color="White">A</font> }}The UserTalk, WikiProject, Mainspace and Activity parameters are all optional. Use only the ones that are appropriate for the situation. Typically, the Top, Left, Bottom and Right sections will be filled in, as a minimum; to determine inactivity within a predetermined period of time. User Inactive is depicted like this A and Active with an A.
| Color | Meaning | Values |
|---|---|---|
| Left | UserTalk | |
| Top | WikiProject | |
| Right | Mainspace | |
| Right | Activity |
◙JMK◙ -22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This article states that noblesse is the term used in Scotland for the titled and untitled nobility and that the Court of the Lord Lyon uses the term. I have been able to find one brief mention in Burkes Peerage and some online mentions but I would be grateful for some advice. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as meaning "The quality of being noble in birth or rank, or in character or mind" but does not give any indication of a specific Scottish usage. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC).
- Well, the Court of the Lord Lyon's principal activity is heraldic. A former Lord Lyon King of Arms, Thomas Innes of Learney, Advocate, makes the following remarks in his book Scots Heraldry (Edinburgh, 1934, which has a 'Foreword' by John Buchan, LL.D): "A coat of arms is the outward indication of nobility....the power of granting is 'a part of the Royal Prerogative" (p.15). Lt.Col. Robert Gayre of Gayre and Nigg, a renowned heraldic expert and General Editor of The Armorial, has a chapter in his book The Nature of Arms (Edinburgh, 1961) entitled "The Nobiliary Status of Arms in Scotland in the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries" where there is much talk of nobles, nobility, tesserae nobilitatis, etc., and the citation of the Lord Advocate in the Act of 1592 which states "Arms are insignia of nobility and non-nobles cannot carry Arms".(p.22). Further on Gayre comments that "the recording of Arms was an investiture in nobility." It is a complex chapter but you get the drift. The Oxford English Dictionary states that noblesse gives two meanings: "the class of nobles of a foreign country" or "privilege entails responsiblity". The only way to ascertain in what context, general or otherwise, the Lyon Office use this word would be to write to them and ask. Regards, David Lauder 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)