Talk:Glasgow

Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Glasgow is a big city and in that big city you can find almost everything. It's a very nice city and you can do much things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.41.211 (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Glasgow 800

I wonder if anyone else remembers the celebrations and festival to celebrate 800 years of Glasgow receiving Burgh status. It was of course in 1975 and I remember it as being quite an important year for Glasgow. I was considering writing an article on it, unfortunately I don't seem to be able find much information on it (probably my incompetence). Has my memory of it been blown out of all proportion or was it as important as I seem to think it was? Coll Mac (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it was just me that thought it was a big deal. :) Coll Mac (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I still have my mug, as received by all school children at the time...well, my Mum has it on top of her cabinet...lol82.6.1.85 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Sorry, I would help if I could, but I wasn't around in 1975. Andrewmc123 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) hallo ik ben pietje bell en ik ben raar!!!!!:D

WikiProject Glasgow

Recently, I have been starting to develop WikiProject Glasgow and I was wondering if anyone would like to help out? Andrewmc123 (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I rememeber this from primary school and still have the mug that every school kid got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domainscot (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Tourism

The ONS has this week published figures (see reference!) that show Glasgow to be the fifth-most visited UK city by overseas visitors. Perhaps someone closer to this article than I could work this in...? Matthew (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dialect

A headbutt is known in many parts of the British Isles as a "Glasgow kiss", although this term is rarely used by Glaswegians themselves, instead saying "Malkie" e.g. "ah'll Malkie ye" or "stick the heid on ye".

A Malky is a Malky Fraser, that is, a razor, alluding to the straight razors formerly used by Glasgow street gangs: "Ah'll Malkie ye" therefore specifically means an attack with an edged weapon. Furthermore, sticking the heid on someone was more typically called sticking the loaf on them. Nuttyskin (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, your right, a malkie is a razor. Found this on google books where they do say it possibly comes from rhyming slang for Malcolm Frazer. Can't say I've heard of the expression sticking the loaf though I have heard the term using your loaf. We shouldn't forget that different parts of Glasgow had some different slang terms. Slang terms in Glasgow have changed over the years with many of them no longer being used. At one time a place like Maryhill would have a different slang term than say that of the southside. Coll Mac (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A malkie is definitely a headbutt perhaps it means something different to older generations but no one these days would know it to mean razor. To stab someone is known as to chib. The origin of the word may be razor but the original poster was correct in it's current usage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.170 (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any call for most of the dialect examples given to relate to violence?! The 'malkie' thing seems completely unnecessary - hardly anybody even uses that, especially in everyday conversation! Why not include distinctive Glaswegian words like 'wean', for example? Why 'malkie', of all things? I mean we only have about three examples here and they're crap. I've studied the Glaswegian dialect and I'm shocked that this is the best we can do in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.2.26 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Am I the only person who thinks there are too many pictures in this article? Seems some people just use wikipedia as an extension of their flickr accounts these days. Greggykins (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Before the discussion page was refreshed there was significant discussion relating to the fact that there were an insufficient number of images in the article. I personally added some respectable images in response to this, some of which were CC images available on Flickr. I consider the article to look a little drab now, particularly when compared to other city articles. What are the thoughts of others?GeorgeRob (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Collage picture is garbage and is filled with abysmal pictures. Author seems to wish to invoke a peculiarly parochial viewpoint of Glasgow.86.169.98.251 (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an update, I had to revert back a image. It's not as good as perhaps the Edinburgh collage, i'm sure we can select better pictures, I think the top picture in the current collage needs to be replaced. I should add, I think the point of a collage is to show images of the city, not images that are symbolic of the city, like an image of underneath a bridge or an image of a wall full of graffiti.86.169.98.251 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Got to agree that my collage isn't great and I was (and still am) hoping that someone will replace it with something better which isn't in violation of copyright, which this new images is.... See here. Please remove this image as it will be deleted at source. Bjmullan (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I see what you were trying to do, maybe you could work with some of the images already on here to create a new collage? I think the collage of Edinburgh is really beautiful and says a lot for Edinburgh. I think you could do the same for Glasgow. I shouldn't have unilaterally removed your image, it took you time to make, it just was very grey and more like a collage showing the symbolism of the city rather than images of the city itself. It's better than what I could do. Have a look at the images already here and maybe you could make something?86.179.77.214 (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I agree that the page does look pretty drab, particularly when looking at other cities (but at the moment, Edinburgh's isn't much better if we're getting bogged down in continually comparing ourselves to the East Coast??). However, I have made a collage, fully sourced and indeed, trying to show off Glasgow's good points - what else should a title picture do really? I am wholly new to Wikipedia though and am finding it hugely difficult to get my bearings and thus am not able to include the collage myself, but I can link it and perhaps others could incorporate it? Scottfree92 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Scottfree92 the best thing you can do is to upload your picture to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and ensure that you attribute all work and then link it here and someone will upload it. Bjmullan (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Bjmullan. Here is the link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glasgow_montage.png Thanks again!! Let me know what you think. Cheers. --Scottfree92 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I have no idea whether I've done it correctly either... Scottfree92 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks OK to me and I have now added it to the article. Bjmullan (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Looks great! Thanks for adding the geotag descriptions too (and well done for recognizing Hyndland). Hopefully others can add to it in future and tailor it to what best represents the city (as well as showing off the good parts). Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottfree92 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

These pictures are superb. Well done to whoever created the collage, makes our city look brilliant. Outstanding! Joseph1990 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Crime section

Basically, huh? It doesn't read like a wikipedia article at all. I'll have a go at fixing it but I've never undertaken a big section of a big article like this. Anyone with a little more experience want to volunteer? Jackster (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually read it for the first time the other day and i suppose it is based more on the fact of tourists and what / where tourists should / should not go. In that sense it is good but it could be retitled. I wouldnt remove anything just yet though, maybe put a proposal up here and get feedback on it.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

This section is written so badly id consider rewriting it with simply crime stats to show whether or not it is in fact improving. Lines like "Although you'll see it being worn everywhere by the locals, don't be tempted to wear any piece of Old Firm" need to be completely removed.... referring to the reader directly as "you" with advice? I dont think so. BBnet3000 (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you not agree the advice is good though, on what / where not to go, put an example up here on what you plan to change and we can work to improve the section.(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC))

Whether or not the advice is good, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a tourist's handbook. It's telling the reader what to do rather than giving information. What other city has this on it? The section is entitled "Crime" but there is no real information about crime. I'd suggest putting in actual crime statistics and information instead of commands to make it into an actual Wikipedia article. (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why have it in the article at all then? If you could make an attempt at a different style of section then put it up here and i am sure quite a few editors will have their say one way or other. If you give me a few days i will have a go myself(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/glasgow-is-britains-murder-capital-as-knife-crime-spirals-737329.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.192.211.152 (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is from 2003 ... good for historical reference, but need a much more current article to make statements about current status. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel this section should be included on the main article as it is well documented that Glasgow has a one if the highest crime rates in Western Europe. It should not be removed just because just it is deemed negative imformation and someone might not want to see it on the main page. Zerograv (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

See: Talk:Glasgow/GA1

Local Rivalries?

Should there not be at least something about Glasgow's famous rivalry with Edinburgh? I would suggest that it is culturally relevant as many people who live in Glasgow (and those like myself who used to live there) still have some sort of "resentment" toward Edinburgh and its inhabitants or a sense of what could be described as local patriotism to Glasgow. Further argument for the cultural importance is found in the fact that this traditional rivalry has been parodied in television shows such as Chewin' the Fat and is mentioned by many famous Scottish comedians including, but not limited to, Billy Connelly and Frankie Boyle. Outside of comedy, the rivalry can be seen between football fans as well as on many web forums which shows modern cultural relevance.

There was a news story recently which was discussing the abandonment of the Glasgow Airport rail link which was proposed for the 2014 Commonwealth Games. I can't proclaim to be an expert on this particular area, however from my understanding, many people felt that this was a slight by Edinburgh on Glasgow and a show of bias to the extent that this view was broadcast on the BBC news as the story occurred. Indeed, that was the feeling of many of my friends from Glasgow and the surrounding area. This surely shows that, though historic in its basis, the rivalry has enough bearing on this article to be included.

Your views?

iMarc89 (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think saying that glasgow has a rivalry with edinburgh will add anything that would improve this article at all. On comparison with other articles (this can get peoples back up but anyway) like Liverpool it does not state any rivalry with Manchester although one does exist and like wise.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Crime section dispute

What is the beef with the section now? I thought it had been tidied up to a standard that was agreed upon(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

It was written as a sensationalistic hit-piece. It selectively depicted only the issues that would present Glasgow in the worst light, and used a distinctly nNPOV tone. For instance, it compared Glasgow's murder rate to London and Manchester, claiming that that made Glasgow "one of the most dangerous cities in Europe", yet failed to mention that Glasgow overall violent crime rate is much lower than either of those cities. It also compared Glasgow crime rate to the rest of Scotland, which is of little relevance as large cities almost always have higher crime rates than national averages; a more valid comparision would be other cities of equivalent size. Most of its claims were unsourced or unsupported by the source provided, and a number were parently absurd (Bishopbriggs listed as a particularly 'notorious' area when a) it's not even part of the city and b) is an affluent middle-class suburb). The section was unredeemable in the form it existed. Barryob made the correct decision in ditching it.FrFintonStack (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

firstly the section that was there before (which was more of a tourist go / dont go informative essay) actualy made sense to include but there was a major beef with that because it showed areas of the city that were not 'perfect'.

I have been informed over experience of wikipedia that both sides of an argument / debate within an article should be shown both good and bad. Per head of population glasgow has one of the highest murder rates and knife crime in europe, fact. The facts were sourced if you had bothered to look at them and have been mentioned on numerous occasions on scottish television. The original section i believe was to try and show that only certain places were 'dangerous' particularly at night. Bishopbriggs is within the glasgow district, i.e. it still has a glasgow postcode, and yes parts are an affluent middle class suburb, but parts are degenerative council estates. Simply removing content that does not meet peoples pov is kind of pushing the issue a bit. The section that was there originaly was meant to be cropped / tidied up not simply deleted.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

The murder rate claims were sourced: most others were not. However, as I have said, the murder rate claims were presented in such a manner as to violate WP:NPOV, and were not placed in an appropriate context. It's nothing to do with removing information that does not meet people's POV. It is to do with removing information that does not meet Wikipedia's clear policies on inclusion. If anyone wishes to include information of this type, it needs to be supported by sources which meet WP:V and WP:RS; the fact that it's been mentioned on TV is relevant only if you can provide a specific reference to a specific programme and broadcast date. This borne in mind, the nature of Bishopbriggs isn't particualry relevant without a source: still, this article is about Glasgow, not Greater Glasgow or the Glasgow Postcode Area (which covers much of Western and Central Scotland), and I still maintain that it's preposterous to mention Bishopbriggs ahead of probably 80% of districts in the Great Glasgow area. Find a reliable source stating otherwise and it can go back in. The same applies to all other claims.FrFintonStack (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

i still say the original section worked best and that it was only meant to be trimmed down, but i dont really care either way but it does get to me when certain articles react differently to similar arguments(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

why glaswegian not glasgowan?

It just doesn't make sence if you know the entemology of the term please email me at jamesmitchell29486@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.165.254 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is 'mince' 'mince' and no 'mance'... it just is! Lol!

The word Glaswegian is formed (probably originally as a jocular neologism) on the pattern of Norwegian, and given that the ancient wandering natives of Norway were the belligerent and irascible Norsemen, it isn't hard to see the tenor of the implied joke. What the source might be I'm unable to say, though word strikes me as the kind of thing that might have been produced by journalists of the 1930s. I daresay research might turn up something.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Media

In this section the following: "Glasgow is home to the Scottish national media." is wrong. National can't be used in this context. This should be changed to "Scottish regional media". 212.219.249.5 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

so your saying that scotland is not a country and there is no STV(scottish television)(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Scotland is a nation not a region, England is not a region why would Scotland be. West midlands is an example of a region. National means for a nation eg national galleries of scotland, and the quote is even explicit in saying Scottish national. Where would you say the Scottish national media is based? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.170 (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above; Scotland is, without a doubt, a nation and NOT a region. We have our own news, our own national TV channels BBC ALBA and STV and even more national radio stations. We make our own laws and we have a government exclusive to Scotland as a nation. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sport

THIS: "The world's first international football match was held in 1872 at the West of Scotland Cricket Club's Hamilton Crescent ground in the Partick area of the city. The match, between Scotland and England finished 0–0."

is wrong because you can't have an international match inside a country. It needs to be deleted. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

so your saying that there was no scotland at that time?(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

International literally means between nations, not between countries. There is no disputing that Scotland and England are different nations even if you do dispute that they are different countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.170 (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Scots?

Is states that the Scots for Glasgow is "Glesga"... this possibly may be the case in Scots areas (Glasgow istelf hasn't been a majorly Scots speaking area for a long time), but I was raised with 'Glasgow' (Glaz-goh) in Standard English and 'Glesca' (Gless-kah) in Dialect, and that it's normally non-natives that use Gelsga, Glasgae, GlaSSgow etc.92.5.18.125 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and the IPA given for the standard English is in an English Received Pronunciation accent and not anything approaching a local one. 92.5.18.125 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Change it if you like but I think it's much better limiting the 'Scots' names to one (if even that). And I just looked at the IPA and I'm pretty sure it's correct. Johnhousefriday (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The IPA is correct if you happen to be Prince Charles, not if you have a Scottish accent.92.5.18.125 (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert but in Scots IPA, but I think it would be closer to /gʰlazgo:/ or in dialect /gʰlɛska:/

http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_chairt_for_Scots#Consonant_chairt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Symbols_and_sounds

92.5.18.125 (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just show the spelling and let people pronounce it however the hell they like(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

The IPA is correct. It is a relative system, meaning it accommodates differences in acents. The page to which the IPA links gives examples of words using those combinations of sounds. If you still think it's wrong then you're obviously not saying those words properly either. Johnhousefriday (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

John. No IPA is not correct for a Scottish accent and IPA is a anything but a relative system... just look at the IPA entry here and you will see IPA symbols are DESIGNED to map to absolute physical constellations of mouth, tongue etc.

I just find it rather ridiculous that there isn't a proper entry showing how it is pronounced locally, but instead rendered in the dialect of the English Uppler Classes.

Monkey: perhaps we could do the same for Milngavie... since English spelling and further still the orthography (spelling...)of place names isn't always self-evident, it makes sense to have some sort of guide... of course, a decent recording of a local saying it would also help blind users. But I suspect it was a weak attempt at being facetious?

92.8.147.86 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh and the REASONS for the given IPA being wrong- rather than teh catchall of it being RP- is the Scots would have flat long vowels not the the dipthongised ones of the RP as given in the page entry, and then there is the aspiration of the initial G and arguably the L too which occurs locally, but not in RP...

Fair enough if you want to take me to task on this issue, but please at least know enough about UK phonology to do so with some kind of rebuttal. 92.8.147.86 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What i was trying to say to the unregistered user was that different people will pronounce things differently i.e. potato - potato, tomato - tomato, that old line that people thow at you when you question their pronounciation. Milngavie is a different argument that is spelt and said COMPLETELY differently, which SHOULD have some form of guide to how it is pronounced.(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Which addresses NONE of my points. You have actually contradicted what you said earlier (that the IPA given was universal to all speakers). Again, the IPA given reflects how it would be pronounced by an upper-class English person. What has that pronunciation got to do with Glasgow??? At the very least it should be shown how a Scottish person would prnounce it. After all they don't give the Scottish IPA for London 92.8.147.86 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Enlighten me to what the Scottish IPA of London is? Okay how do you intend to improve the article as you seem intent on this rather minor edit of an extremely long article and have no humour what so ever(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm from Milngavie and went to school in Glasgow. If there's a problem with the IPA given, then you can suggest an alternative - anyone can edit Wikipedia! :) Johnhousefriday (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest (glaz-go) rather than (glass-go)(Monkeymanman (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

The fact is, in Standard English pronunciation, you hear both glaz'go and glass'go (and sometimes even glass'ko), although the former is indisputably the correct one; and in Dialect, you hear both glez'ga and gless'ka, and there's not much to argue between them.

PS, Milngavie can simply be rendered by the imitative pronunciation Millguy.

Nuttyskin (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Geo area

We have "Glasgow shown within Glasgow". Can we make it more useful than this? It looks kind of silly. --John (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I'd suggest "Glasgow, and its location in Scotland (inset)". We could also lose the red dot slap bang in the centre of Glasgow... TFOWR 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Images in the infobox?

Surely there must be enough to make a satisfactory collage? It's very disorienting coming here and finding nothing above the map. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

First settlements

I had read in a book that Glasgow had been founded by the Celts (probably Scots, I guess). Are we sure there are no traces of an older city on the same place? It would be surprising that such a large city has no older past. Maybe a roman site (the antonine wall is not far of there I think), or a vicking one ?--Highlandist (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Glasgow wasn't really a large place until after the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that it was just a village surrounding the cathedral and later the university. The cathedral in turn started as a simple church built by Saint Mungo who was a Briton. So the city was founded by Celts, but by the Welsh (British) Celts, not the Scots (Irish) ones. There was nothing there before the 6th century. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Unitary authority"

This phrase has a specific formal meaning in the UK which is appropriate only to English local authorities. The fact that Scottish councils are "unitary" is relevant to the articles dealing with Scottish councils as an overall subject not to individual councils. It has in the past been found to assist incorrect linkage.--MBRZ48 (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Controlling the order of languages in the Infobox

Presently, the Gaelic name of the city displays before the Scots name. Shuffling the order of the entries in the source does not affect the display order. Can somebody explain how this is controlled? I find the documentation of templates opaque, and anyway, in this case I can't even tell which template controls this, let alone how. Hurmata (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think the order should be changed? Anyway, it is controlled by Template:Infobox UK place, so is the same for all articles using that template. If you think this should be changed, then suggest it on that template's talk page. --Vclaw (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be changed because Scots is historically and in the present more significant to the region of Glasgow than Gaelic. Indeed, Gaelic is of little historical significance to this city.

Your advice has troubling implications (about the template, not about you). The template should not force a common sequence. It should allow us to feature Gaelic names in the historically Gaelic parts of Scotland and to feature Scots names in the historically Scots parts. And I'm still ignorant of the rationale behind the ordering (alphabetical, whatever). Hurmata (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah another expert on the history of Gaelic. The ordering is alphabetical AFAIK and Gaelic was spoken in Stratclyde by significant numbers of people within the last 2 generations and was the dominant language further back in history. It also happens to have the highest number of Gaelic speakers concentrated in one are anywhere in Scotland. I'm really getting tired of people who know knothing about the linguistic history of Scotland carping on about this, especially in relation to Scots. I consider it civil not to query the large number of "Scots" place name forms which have been appearing, the vast majority unsourced and unsourcable. You might want to consider extending the same measure of civility to Gaelic speaking Scots. Alphabetical is fine, it's neutral. Anything else would be contentious. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's about time this issue was raised. We do not speak Gaelic here, it has never widely been spoken here. Cumbric had more of an influence, not Gaelic. Lowland culture is seperate from Highland Gaelic culture. I am sick of people just tagging places with random Gaelic translations as if our own culture and heritage are inferior. Joseph1990 (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The map in the infobox is out of date

The M74 motorway now runs through to join the M8 motorway in the centre of Glasgow. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Map was produced by Nilfanion may be drop them a note if you require an update. Keith D (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

NISA

Could anybody please take a photo of the NISA and the velodrome and load it up at Commons? Thank you, --Nicola54 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Map

I propose we change the map from the current one (that states 'Glasgow shown within Glasgow) to the same style as shown on the Edinburgh page. (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)