Talk:Scotland

info box

I intended to place the Scottish parliament as legislator above the Prime Minister of the UK in the infobox as I'm damned sure that the Scottish parliament takes rather more precedent than the UK PM when it is an article on Scotland. Sadly, no matter how much I tried I found it impossible to do so. I'm going to presume that everyone can see that it is commonsense to do so and would ask if anyone knows how to do this. Carson101 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Best to leave it as is. The legislatures of Wales & Northern Ireland are placed after the UK Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really, this is an encylopedia, the UK parliament is the primary legislature for all of the UK. The Scotland Act (1998) which created the Scottish Parliament was originated within the Houses of Commons and it's legislative authority is legally derived from that Act. Notwithstanding that, the UK Parliament maintains control over most aspects of taxation, social security, defence and foreign policy. It is POV to suggest otherwise. Joseph1990 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Scots invented football?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Scottish aristocrats have alredy in the 15th century played football under well defined rules, the research found the Museum of Scottish football, according to the daily The Times. Until now it was believed that the earliest forms of football before the game for the 19th century in England was introduced clear rules, reduced to a brutal battle many players around the ball. 78.2.56.67 (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to support the claim that the Scots invented football, such as It's official - Scotland invented football and Scots invented beautiful game. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Much as we might like the irony of Scotland inventing football since forms of the game have been played in Europe at least since the 12th century, it is a difficult claim. I guess it revolves around the issue of what is an organised game and since we don't seem to have the rules that is a difficult point to prove. Newspapers and other sources often dig up this kind of issue, especially during times like a world cup, but they are probably best treated as unreliable for this kind of thing. A reliable source would be something like a history of football or games that covers the medieval era.--SabreBD (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How about Vocabula first published in 1636? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean as a set of codified rules? It might be possible to find a source that says that I guess. However, I don't think there is much a case for "inventing football" as such.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'inventor' of football. Anyone can think of kicking a circular object around, it has probably been done for thousands of years. However the modern game of Association football was invented in England, that is a certifiable fact.Ben200 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Renewed prosperity as our cities were bombed?

In the first and second world war section the last paragraph starts with, ""The Second World War brought renewed prosperity—as well as bombing of cities by the Luftwaffe."". I may be missing something and there is a book reference at the end of the paragraph. It is perhaps my fault that maybe I'm not reading it properly but that sentence does not appear to make sense. Does war and bombing by the Luftwaffe = prosperity? Anyone else puzzled by that sentence? Carson101 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be something like: "The Second World War brought renewed prosperity, despite extensive bombing of cities by the Luftwaffe."--SabreBD (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled as to how a world war would bring prosperity to the country, unless perhaps it was the manufacturing capacity rising that contributed to it in some way. Carson101 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep that is exactly what happened.--SabreBD (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

UK legislature

I assume that, since this is an encyclopedia, that facts are important. I had added the UK legislature to the infobox so that it reads "Legislature: Scottish Parliament, UK Parliament". Can't see anything wrong with that. How bizarre it was that an editor simply undone by edit. I have undone his. Just thought I would write this onto the talk page. Joseph1990 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The UK legislation is already there in the info box. You need to make a case for any change here and read 'WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 23:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not within the infox. Scotland is a constituent part of the UK, it's legislature is the UK Parliament as well as the Scottish Parliament. How in any way is that not factual or contentious?Joseph1990 (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The info box makes it clear its a devolved government and in the context of the article I think its enough as it is. Also the template seems not to support "legislature2" However its not a major issue, so see what other editors think and abide by the consensus. --Snowded ^TALK 23:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why have the Scottish Parliament as it's legislature as you say yourself that it is obvious that it is devolved government. This is when Wikipedia breaks down, when facts are negotiable. Scotland, as a constituent part of the UK, which sends Members of Parliament to participate within the House of Commons, has as it's legislature the UK Parliament. It is completely bizarre of you to say firstly, that it is already within the infobox, secondly that it is a contentious statement that Scotland's legislature is also the UK Parliament and should paradoxicaly be left from it. If members of the flat earth society went to an article describing the physical features of the Earth and contested that the Earth was round, would you say "We must remove all references to the Earth being spherical since it is a contested statement." Plainly not.Joseph1990 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also i'll add this. I see on your Userpage that you are Welsh and are interested in Welsh articles. It would seem that it is the consensus to include the UK Parliament as it is on the Welsh wikipedia article also. Why have you removed the reference to the UK Parliament in the Scottish article but not the Welsh article? Joseph1990 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the British monarch, British Prime Minister & the British Parliament doesn't belong in this article's infobox 'nor' the infoboxes of Northern Ireland, England & Wales. No more so, then the Canadian monarch, Canadian Prime Minister & Canadian Parliament belongs in the 13 Canadian provinces & territories articles infoboxes (I note that Elizabeth II is in the Canadian provinces & territories articles infoboxes, however). GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well after reading the prior archived talk pages the consensus is that the Prime Minister does indeed belong within the infobox. However that is not what this discussion is about, we are talking about a reference to the UK Parliament within the infobox, the Canadian province of Alberta includes the Canadian Parliament. Why this is such a huge issue here is warped and nonsensical and just shows that their is a tremendous amount of POV pushing here. Joseph1990 (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Alberta infobox includes the Canadian Parliament 'only' in the form of showing Alberta's seats in that Parliament. I'd have no probs with that kinda setup here & at N.Ireland, England & Wales. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You all do a lot of excellent work to keep Wikipedia going, it wouldn't be as excellent as it is without you people. What is frankly, bizarre, is that something factually accurate and innocuous as having UK Parliament within the legislature section of the infobox prompts this whole discussion, it is ludicrous. I respect the fact that if someone was making a clearly controversial and disputable edit then that would warrant such discussion, but I can't see how it could be and to argue otherwise is not encyclopedic and is not I think NPOV. Joseph1990 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend having the UK Parliament shown, but only in the manner of showing how many seats Scotland has in that Parliament (i.e. the Alberta example). GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Scotland not the UK, there UK Parliament should not be included just as we don't include the EU Parliament. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What a piece of flawed logic; are you to say that the Parliament of the UK to not preside over Scottish law and governance? Can we please have some notice for the incredible ludicrousness this brings up. There's an elephant in the room watching Braveheart. --George2001hi (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The logic is really not that complex and you might find it helpful to your case to assume that the issue has been discussed before and that editors acting in good faith have reached some form of consensus rather than launching into ad hominem remarks. There are many parts of the world with legislatures at state/region/province etc. level and (as I recall the discussions) most of them don't also add information about the sovereign state/meta-state as readers will generally assume that such bodies also have a role. The UK may be unusual in that devolved government is relatively new in some constituent countries and largely poorly understood in the one that has no such assembly. I just looked up three "state" articles (Bavaria, Georgia and Western Australia) and could see no obvious references to federal/national etc. premiers or parliaments. I am by no means familiar with this issue internationally but if you can provide evidence that this is not in fact the norm elsewhere that might be persuasive. Ben MacDui 22:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I had no intention nor any direction, for that matter, of causing offence; but I do feel that nationalism is quite centralised in this article (e.g., the last paragraph of the lead). On to the matter, the comparison of Scotland to the states of the U.S., Germany and Australia is in fact flawed because of the fact that the UK isn't a federation nor has a written constitution to reaffirm its regions' level of independency without some legal controversy. The examples have absolute law and no questions are left because of explicitness of the possible acts of government. This ambiguity amongst the definite superiority and order of the assembly/parliaments of the U.K. is a full-enough reason to add the proposed. --George2001hi (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That paragraph strikes me as being a reasonably neutral summary of the facts, but you are welcome to suggest improvements. What is that you think is not explicit enough about the Scotland Act 1998? I am not aware of any obvious ambiguities. What may be different is the potential instability of the relationship between the UK and its constituent countries, not the lack of a written constitution at UK level. Ben MacDui 11:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Map.

Why is shown where Scotland is in Europe? This creates the erroneous impression that Scotland is independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The last time I visited Scotland it was in the continent of Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that Edinburgh is in Europe too, but we don't have a map at Edinburgh showing its location in Europe, do we? GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland which obviates the need to display it on a European map.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Scotland is within the United Kingdom, which obviates the need to display it on a European map. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the little map in the bottom right corner, that I'm complaining about. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Much discussed in March 2008 (as you may recall, GoodDay, as a participant in that same discussion). As I said then "The geographical role is paramount, but the deficiencies of the alternative options are clear in their privileging of the UK political Union over visible context for Scotland's other trading and political links over the centuries, such as Ireland, Norway, France, Veere, Gdansk". AllyD (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I complaing about the little green insert map. I've no probs with the big map, indeed I was one of its main proponents. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The diddy little World map? Agreed - it's pointless. Leaky Caldron 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Its GoodDay's latest little campaign - raising it on other articles in parallel. Suggest its ignored --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, please ignore Snowded. He's merely trying to get me banned from these articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've edited with you both. Both reasonably. Leaky Caldron 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggest the discussion takes place in one place rather than four articles. I have responded to GoodDay's sudden change of position after a provocative opening in the talk page of Wales --Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree to centralizing this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. The map is fine as it is - Scotland acts and reacts on the European/International stage at a level that is decoupled from its sovereign status (e.g. sporting activities). Honestly, if this is the most pressing thing people can find time to argue about then wikipedia is finished. SFC9394 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the inserted World map, that's gotta be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"that's gotta be deleted" Really? Who Says? Isn't the point of consensus that people listen to all sides before deciding on what's "gotta" be done? SFC9394 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that's why I didn't delete it. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What's up GoodDay, are you bored? Thought you'd go stir things up somewhere? One is supposed to assume good faith, but I'm struggling to believe that you are back here in order to improve the article. Rather, I suspect you're simply trying to goad a few of the weel kent faces here into a pointless political argument, until such time as you head off into the sunset, vowing never to return. You've got form for doing this kind of thing, therefore please stop trying to disrupt what is a stable article for your own amusement and go watch T.V. or something. Endrick Shellycoat 11:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't breach AGF & please don't comment on the contributor. I legitimately brought up my concerns about the inserted World map. My concerns are that it gives the impression that Scotland is a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Please don't breach AGF" ? Your previous for this type of behaviour has exhausted the supply of GF on the part of this contributor, and as for your supposed concern re. the map; not worthy of comment. Endrick Shellycoat 09:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't comment on contributor. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic... The map is perfect - it shows where Scotland is in the UK, in Europe, and in the world. You can't get more encyclopedic than that.
» Cooper Kid (Blether · Contreebs) 01:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The big map is fine. My concern is the little inserted 'green' World map. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

When are the Admins going to get a grip on the increasingly tedious GoodDay campaigns? We understand that he doesn't want Quebec to be independent, but this must be one of the daftest WP:POINT campaigns ever conducted on Wikipedia. He has shown, repeatedly, that he knows absolutely zilch about the United Kingdom and its constitution, and yet he has plagued countless UK-related articles. I consider his to be a test case: Wikipedia must deal with this rogue account. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please AGF & don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER would be the place to go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Plese AGF. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER would indeed be the best place to go if GoodDay's pattern of editing appears to be disruptive. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 02:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose my proposal for deletion of the inserted World map? GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion. It's perhaps not the most aesthetically pleasing map, but it doesn't imply sovereignty. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 02:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been 'bout 8 days & there's no consensus for my proposed deletion of the inserted World Map. The proposal is withdrawn. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to get everything off your chest now about the things you don't agree with on this article and the other UK country articles. That way the users who come here to disagree with you on a regular basis won't have to waste their time having to put you right every time you have a bee in your bonnet. Maybe you should ask the question, does this article in any way put forward the idea that Scotland is an independent country? When, as I suspect, the consensus is that it does not, then maybe you will no longer have to waste your own time repeatedly asking the same or similar questions. Carson101 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No consensus was reached on deleting the inserted World map, from this constituent country's article. PS: Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm commenting on your contributions to this article talk page, as well you know. Now, is there anything else in this article that you believe makes it appear that Scotland is an independent country? I'm sure other editors would like to clear it up in one go. Carson101 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't comment on the contributor. The World map deletion proposal was defeated, time to move on. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You have already said that and I have told you I'm commenting on your contribution to this article talk page. I take it you won't be answering my question? Carson101 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've concerns with the infobox & the intro of this article & those of England, Wales & Northern Ireland. But, I'm not going to raise them 'today'. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Shame.Carson101 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he'll return once he has amassed all the evidence from reliable sources to back up his "concerns". Until then, we can sleep easily, knowing that personal opinions carry no weight here, and can safely be ignored. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop saying that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, that's why I make those requests. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:NPA and WP:AGF, just as I am with WP:DGF, WP:WL and WP:GAME. Thank you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3 Saints?

Curious as to why in the infobox under 'Patron Saint we have three listed, only one of which has a ref. I vaguely recall an earlier discussion but should we not stick to that saint which, according to legend, King Angus appointed following his victory over Athelstane? Whilst the others are significant, they're not the only saints associated with the country: St Blane, St Mungo, St Serf, St Ninian, St Ernan, etc. Endrick Shellycoat 15:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall now show my ignorance in this matter. I have never heard of the other saints being lauded today as patron saints of Scotland. If I'm wrong then you may slap me with a trout, but seeing as St Andrew is the only one with a reference would it not be right to only include him? Carson101 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think St Andrew on his own would be more accurate. Endrick Shellycoat 16:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

St Margaret and St Columba are patron saints of Scotland, as per the Catholic church. The others, while associated with Scotland, are not patron saints (St Serf is, however, patron saint of Orkney). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Every day a school day... would you be good enough to stick a couple of refs alongside the links in the infobox? Cheers Endrick Shellycoat 16:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (PS I thought St Magnus was Orkney's own.)

Do you think it would be appropriate for Catfish Jim to slap me with the trout? You learn something new every day, thank goodness. Carson101 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but it would be appropriate for Kentigern to lamp you with a salmon with a gold ring in its belly. Endrick Shellycoat 16:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've put in references for the three from the Saints database at catholic.org (which should be sufficiently reliable for these purposes). I'm no expert on these things, so I've asked User:Deacon of Pndapetzim if he can clarify the matter at all. No trout slapping from me. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. I've never really had the taste for trout. Carson101 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pedant, but the ref for Margaret doesn't actually state she is a "patron Saint of Scotland". A contributor to the page even states "Indeed, quite an interesting saint. The article was somewhat lacking in that it did not reveal what she was patron of, but other than that minor ommitance, quite nicely written and informative. " An alternative reference might be:

"A panegyric on saint Margaret, queen and patroness of Scotland. By James Augustine Stothert, Margaret (st, consort of Malcolm iii, king of Scotland)" At Google Books.

That book states on pg 15 "A walk of a few minutes would bring us to the spot, where she murmered her last prayer on earth; whence she passed to her new office of patroness and friend of her adopted country, in heaven". But an additonal official source would be beneficial.Endrick Shellycoat 19:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two links from the same site in that ref... one (list of patronages) states that she's patron saint of Scotland. Not the best, I agree. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See also here for another candidate or two. I doubt that there is an "official" way to authenticate a patron saint, it is simply custom and practice. By extension if St Foo is one's patron in the 6th century, nobody is going to go about demoting him/her when a better qualified candidate comes along. My sense of this is that Andrew, who gains rank through having a bank holiday in his honour and his low golfing handicap, should be in the infobox, with a short note explaining that there are others, including perhaps my favourite, St John. Ben MacDui 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew with a [Note] mentioning the other 4, with the SQPN reference, would suffice I think. Endrick Shellycoat 21:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Some references for the saints: [1], [2] --Bob247 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a sensible proposal. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IIRC it was Deacon of Pndapetzim who added the other two, so would be nice to get some input from him. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should wait and hear his opinion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The current references are from Catholic online, which I think is an unreliable source considering that the bulk of the text at these references are from Wikipedia, making it a circular reference. --Bob247 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'd say that the Vatican refs take care of Andrew and Margaret, but as for the others? Endrick Shellycoat 01:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

NewAdvent, states that Columba is patron of two Scottish dioceses, Argyle and the Isles, and Dunkeld, not of Scotland [3]. No mention of Ninian [4] or Kentigern [5] or the others being named patrons of Scotland, although there is no official list. Also, many saints are named patrons of places that they lived in or were born in, therefore it is entirely plausible that there are many saints attributed to Scotland, including Ninian, Serf, Columba etc. --Bob247 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly some ambiguity about Columba's status. He has certainly been regarded by some as having been a patron saint of Scotland at a particular moment in history (see for example even the title of this: Smith, John (1798), The life of St. Columba: the apostle and patron saint of the ancient Scots and Picts, Edinburgh: Mundell & Sons ), but appears to have been venerated particularly by the Dalriadan Gaels and Fortriuan Picts, with the southern Picts taking on Andrew as Patron, under the influence of the Northumbrian Church. If anyone has access to it, I would imagine the following would give as good an answer as anything: Clancy, Thomas Owen (1997), "Columba, Adomnán and the cult of saints in Scotland", Innes Review 48: 1-26 

Discussion seems to have died out somewhat. Can I propose that Andrew and Margaret be mentioned in the info-box, with supporting refs, and the remainder be removed? Endrick Shellycoat 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm heading to the library tomorrow and will pick up the reference I mentioned. Can we hold off until then? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs, whenever suits. Endrick Shellycoat 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick flick through the paper and it doesn't appear to explicitly name Columba as "Patron saint of Scotland", although it is implicit that he was regarded as such through to the high middle ages. However, Guiley, Rosemary (2001), The Encyclopedia of Saints, New York: Visionary Living Inc., http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ABkgU0GOBbcC&pg=PA79  names him as Patron saint of Scotland. Do we regard this as reliable? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that book is a reliable source. The authors is well known as an expert on werewolves, vampires and witchcraft, and, for what it is worth, it is a self-published book. However, I have found this: Scottish geographical magazine, Volume 3; Volume 1887 By Scottish Geographical Society. Reliable? I have no idea.--Bob247 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have no objection to Columba being removed... he can always be reinserted if a reliable source can be found. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. I only kicked this off as there was an absence of references where Margaret and Columba were concerned; personally I'm happy irrespective of who appears as long as good references support their inclusion.Endrick Shellycoat 03:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Per the above, I think the solution is not to "remove" saints as to keep the one or perhaps two key ones in the infobox with a note indicating the status of the others. Ben MacDui 19:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternated pic

The picture in the Romans sections has been moved to the left by an established editor. It is now the only picture that does not follow the pattern of alternation. Is there some reason for this that I cannot see on my display?--SabreBD (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Scotland population cartogram.

I propose to put File:Scotland population cartogram.png in the Scotland#Demography because my cartogram illustrates very well first paragraphs about where how many people live. Allegedly there is no room for a additional graphics so I propose to exchange Edinburgh picture, which one illustrates only that Edinburgh is a city, for my cartogram. Pawcio (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Might it be better to replace the clan map - which seems to bear no relationship to the text at all?--SabreBD (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Ben MacDui 08:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's far more informative. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for delay. The Clan and Lowland families map bear no relationship to the text at all but it is about whole Scotland contrary to the Edinburgh picture. Pawcio (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree about the clan map's irrelevance there. I also appreciate the effort that has gone into the cartogram, but am not so sure that it conveys information in a meaningful way. I can infer places local to me (e.g. Stirling, Fife) but they are not labelled. And in a way it inverts interesting information, by distending to the point of disappearance the places with large area/low population. So I ask: would a simple table of populations and areas convey the niformation more cleanly? AllyD (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with AllyD' sentiment. This type of map is not very user friendly. A table would be far more cleaner. --Bob247 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've add labels for every council - none has disappeared. Here is a ,,simple" table. Using a table you can't estimate what part of population live in the Central Belt or estimate that in Glasgow City live nearly as many people as in Falkirk, West Lothian and North Lanarkshire together. You can't estimate - you have to calculate. That is why a picture is worth thousand words. Pawcio (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Aberdeen City 1-Aberdeenshire, 2-Angus, 3-Argyll and Bute, 4-Clackmannanshire, 5-Dumfries and Galloway, 6-Dundee City, 7-East Ayrshire, 8-East Dunbartonshire, 9-East Lothian, 10-East Renfrewshire, 11-City of Edinburgh, 12-Falkirk, 13-Fife, 14-Glasgow City, 15-Highland, 16-Inverclyde, 17-Midlothian, 18-Moray, 19-North Ayrshire

Just putting this here to see what it would look like in the article, should consensus be to put it there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... would it be possible to replace the labeling with numbers in a larger font size, so it's readable in the thumbnail, and place a legend in the caption? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to label about 20 councils by numbers. Rest is to small to put number readable from a standard 300 px thumbnail. You are free to do it. I can upload a blank map for you. But the caption would be nearly as big as picture, so on the thumb as big as the thumb with the legend in the caption names becoming readable without legend in the caption. Pawcio (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I really like this cartogram and I think its a useful tool for explaining Scotland's demographics. Personally I would be happy for it to repalce the clan map. Even if not used on this page however it almost certainly should be included on both Demography_of_Scotland and Central_Belt Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Agreed. I do however think that here at least that the legend needs to be more brief. "Aberdeen City1-Aberdeenshire, 2-" etc could be relegated to a note easily enough. Ben MacDui 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Music" section

I not the appearance of this long new section, almost entirely devoted to popular music. As ever, the trick is to know what to leave out rather than including anything and everything that springs to mind. It could be replaced with a line or two in the existing intro to the Culture section, but perhaps a sub-section at about a quarter the length of the current version would do. There are various other problems due to expansion of the literature section that also need addressing. I'll have a go in due course - comments and suggestions welcome of course. Ben MacDui 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC) PS No mention of "Donald Where's Your Troosers?"!

• The selectivity is such as to make this as transient as yesterday's chip papers. Some of the missing: Jimmy Shand, Incredible String Band, Average White Band, Bay City Rollers, Gerry Rafferty, Rezillos, Simple Minds, Big Country, Orange Juice (and Andy Stewart). But we've got Codeine Velvet Club instead. Plenty of undue weight and a list including people who I might be ungenerous enough to think will be lucky to get bookings to open local firework displays in 5 yrs time. Personally I think this content belongs back in Music of Scotland (from whence it came I think). AllyD (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Both sections are problematic. Not least because there are still paragraphs on these subjects in the culture section. There are also particular problems in the music section of balance and chronology (there are far more important musicians missing than those included for example). I have sat and tried to work out how to clean up the music section, but I think it is such a major job that I might as well clean up the main article for the subject first and then post a new summary, but that could take a very long time. The literature section is easier to resolve: this is basically the lead (which I recently rewrote after cleaning up the article), but the edit does not carry over all the necessary sources (which are in the main body of the Scottish Literature article). I think I could construct something that is up to good article standard pretty easily on this sub-section, but again just taking over the lead may be much too long and something more concise may be called for in an article of this nature. So just to be clear here, Ben MacDui if you could let me know if you want to work on all of this, or if you want help with some bits, I will do my best to help.--SabreBD (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the path of least resistance here is to remove the music section in toto, add a phrase after "individual artists in varying styles" something like "including Runrig, Susan Boyle and Texas." or similar and leave you (Sabrebd) to tidy up the literature section if I may. Happy to help. Ben MacDui 10:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC) PS Don't mention Rod Stewart.

Sounds like a plan. I will let you sort out the music (without prejudice to posting something better based on a cleaned up Music of Scotland article) and I will come up with a shorter and sourced version on literature. Did I mention Rod Stewart? I may have mentioned him once but I think I got away with it.--SabreBD (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ben MacDui 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam Smiths The wealth of nations and the foundation of classical economics

I'm currently having a discussion with the user Muleattack on the Scottish inventions and discoveries page over the validity of Adam Smiths the Wealth of Nations. The work was groundbreaking and a publishing first on economics and influenced intellectuals throught the world with his theories. Not only that, books like "On The wealth of Nations books that changed the world" by P. J. O'Rourke Grove Press 2007 states; recognized as the fundamental work of economics, as important to the development of this field as Darwin's The Origin of Species would be for natural history eighty years later. Considering Darwin in included in English inventions and discoveries I think Smiths theories and works should be included in the Scottish inventions and discoveries. Other works like Short Course in International Economics: Understanding the Dynamics of the Global Marketplace by Jeffrey E. Curry p4 world trade press states; Smith was the "founder of classical economics and that the wealth of nations remains a standard text for economics students world wide". The invention of classical economics is attributed to Smith, surly this should be added to the inventions and discoveries page?Uthican (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the issue cannot be successfully resolved at Talk:Scottish inventions and discoveries (and it is only a few hours old at present) a more appropriate place to raise it is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Good luck. Ben MacDui 18:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate images for page

A sequence of adding-removing-adding images is again developing. See most recently Talk:Scotland/Archive_27#Images_yet_again. Personally, I'm with the view that "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." (WP:PERTINENCE) and that squeezing any text between two photos is unhelpful. AllyD (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The relevant rubric is at MOS:IMAGES#Location, which states that we should "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox." This is exactly what the images do and it was quite correct to revert the change that introduced them.--SabreBD (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the overuse of images from Glasgow/Edinburgh and the in appropriate image of Callanish at the foot of the section "Medieval period". There are various other possible issues here and, on the assumption of good faith, I have left a note at User talk:MaybeU1242. Ben MacDui 18:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems we are being visited by sock puppets of User:Pioneersbrog - who may be an alias of a persistent abuser of this and many other articles, Nimbley. Further suspected actions should be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneersbrog. Ben MacDui 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, some of the pictures in the page are a little out dated, there are more, up-to-date images, a lot more HD than the ones in usage, and they look better in the article, but as long as they don't squeeze the text. 90.218.233.98 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

There's been a lot of attempts to remove one referenced chunk of the article text today, mainly coming from one university's IP addresses, and with a pattern of providing no edit summary. Perhaps they can bring their rationale to the Talk page? AllyD (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Vsc12 and associated ip sockpuppet - semi-protection

If the ongoing attempt to circumvent WP:BRD by User:Vsc12 and associated ip address (User talk:84.10.140.247) does not desist, we will seek semi-protection of the article. I have requested that the new User come to Talk to discuss their highly prominent addition to the opening sentence, but they have thus far failed to show up.--Mais oui! (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this may be the thousandth appearance of incurable numpty User:Nimbley6.--Mais oui! (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)