Talk:Scotland

Audio Track Doesn’t Say “Scotland”

Yeah, I'm really confused isn't the audio track in the header of this article, supposed to be a pronunciation guide for the word "Scotland"? But for some reason it says "Uhvupa". Am I missing something or do we need to re-record it? DSQ (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The audio is for "Alba", not "Scotland". JaggedHamster (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it? Because that's not how you pronounce the word Alba, that would be "Al-ah-ba" or "Al-ah-pa".

Even if it was the correct pronunciation, which it definitely is not, the audio file link should not be next to the word "Scotland" surely? It should be moved to be next to the word Alba.

Because the file is in the header multiple non English Wikipedia pages used this audio file as an example of how to say the word Scotland. That's how I discovered it by finding it on the Japanese language Wikipedia page スコットランド. DSQ (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It does sound like it's supposed to say Alba, but it is a shocking rendition. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay it’s good to know it’s not just me! Would anyone be opposed to my changing it? DSQ (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. I definitely wasn't claiming it was a good pronunciation of Alba, just explaining the confusion. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither the sound file nor the IPA seem to be present in the current version, presumbaly swept away in the to-ing and fro-ing of the last few weeks.

If I understand that your intention is to produce a new sound file of the pronunciation of Alba, how is your Gaelic? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

...had missed from the above that you're aware it's not as someone uninformed might render it from English language spelling conventions. Out of idle curiosity I did a web search for pronunciation examples and there are some shockers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Hi,

Much work has been done by myself and other users to improve this article, and I have nominated it for a geography and places good article as I believe the article to be unto the standard of a good article since the last review which delisted the article in 2019. At a review of the articles good status in January 2019, it was flagged about the lack of guidance in following the "well written" criteria of a good article, it was noted in the review ; A good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world"

Fails in the first sentence - "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." Apart from the ugly grammar it should be noted that other country articles do notbegin, eg:

• Aruba is a country that is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Aruba is a 33-kilometre (21 mi)-long island of the Lesser Antilles in the southern Caribbean Sea, 27 km (17 mi) north of the Paraguaná Peninsula, Falcón State, Venezuela.)
• Denmark is a state that is part of the European Union. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: The Kingdom of Denmark, commonly known as Denmark, is a country in the Scandinavian region of northern Europe.)
• Hong Kong is a state that is part of the People's Republic of China. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a territory located on China's south coast on the Pearl River Delta, bordering Guangdong province to the north and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south.)

It further explained: Note that the Scotland article comes under the auspices of WikiProject:Countries, which states explicitly that "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like".

I therefore changed this in order to reflect the pending changes to bring the article back up to good article status, by re-wording the lead to read "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe which is part of the United Kingdom...." but see this has been reverted by another user. What is everyone's thoughts on this change? Goodreg3 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current wording of the lead paragraph. It states that Scotland is part of the UK, primarily located on Great Britain, borders England to the south-west, and is surrounded by seas on its other sides. We could explicitly state that it's in north-west Europe – I'm not against the idea – but I would also expect the current information to give the average reader a good idea of Scotland's location.

To add some further examples:

• England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.
• Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.
• Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland that is variously described as a country, province or region.
• Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain, designated as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy.
• The Faroe or Faeroe Islands are an archipelago in the North Atlantic Ocean and an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
• Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is an autonomous region of Italy, located in the northern part of the country.

I wouldn't say there's a firm consensus over what exactly the lead sentence should include. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The firm consensus you seek over what exactly the lead sentence should include is determined under the auspices of WikiProject:Countries, which states explicitly that "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like", which I had mentioned above. Indeed, I would advocate for the location of all countries including that of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be included in their lead paragraphs, as this is geographically where they are located. Saying that Scotland is primarily located on the island of Great Britain is not really explaining where it is, it is explaining it is located on the island of Great Britain, in which users would then need to navigate to the British Isles article to find out geographically where the British Isles is located in the world. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "but I would also expect the current information to give the average reader a good idea of Scotland's location", isn't this exactly what adding the fact that Scotland is "located in northwest Europe and is part of the United Kingdom..." is about? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, your examples of Catalonia and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol are not countries, they are regions. Scotland, and indeed, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, are countries and not regions, therefore, they fall under the auspices of WikiProject Countries and the template example of the lead section. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Scotland's location is described in relation to the UK, Great Britain, England, the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Irish Sea. That's a good description of its location, in my opinion. Scotland is an autonomous region of the UK in a similar way to Catalonia within Spain and Trentino-Alto within Italy, they're fair comparisons. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree on that one, it does not set out in plain English where exactly in the world Scotland is located. Also, you are wrong on that one, Scotland is not legally referred to as an autonomous region of the UK, nor is England or Wales, or even Northern Ireland, despite its complexity. See this example from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, (https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20080909013512/http:/www.number10.gov.uk/Page823), who they themselves refer to as all four as countries, not autonomous regions. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, regardless of your own personal beliefs as to whether Scotland is a country or autonomous region of the UK, it still falls under the auspices of WikiProject Countries whereas Catalonia does not, and as such, the article should be following the agreed guidance and templates on such matters. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Scotland is a country and an autonomous region, which is why it's appropriate to compare it to similar autonomous regions. I disagree with your interpretation of the WikiProject Countries guidance, but I'm not opposed to adding an explicit mention of Scotland's position within Europe. The best thing to do is to wait and see if a consensus develops. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It's status as a country is much stronger than its status as an autonomous region. Catalonia, never having been an independent country like Scotland, has always been a region of Spain and as such has always commonly been referred to as such. You don't hear many people referring to Scotland, Wales, England or even Northern Ireland as a "region of the UK". You might disagree with my reference to the guidance over at WikiProject Countries, but the fact remains that is indeed the agreed set guidance set out for articles which are under the Countries WikiProject area. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I will await the result of impending consensus. You know, sometimes being part of the Wikipedia community infuriates me and makes me feel physically sick. Here we are omitting the simple fact that Scotland is located in northwest Europe, all because it is part of the United Kingdom and located on the British Isles. We are completely ignoring the fact that this is clearly where Scotland is located, and for what? Just because England and Wales doesn't mention the fact that they are in northwest Europe either? The inclusion of geographical location of Scotland in terms of the world map will greatly increase its chance of being re-granted good article status, but instead, we are reverting the inclusion of the mention of Scotland being located in NW Europe in order to keep it consistent with the England and Wales article. It's a sad day, really... Goodreg3 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't oppose to adding Scotland's position in Europe if that's the consensus, I just don't think it's essential to the lead. You could add it now and I wouldn't object. At the same time, I do think the current format works well, as it contextualises Scotland within the UK before moving on to its wider location.

My understanding of WP:WPCTEMPLATE is that country leads should contain all of the information mentioned in the guideline, not that the lead must rigidly follow the order in which they are listed or the example format. It does state at the top of the guideline: "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." A.D.Hope (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current wording. DankJae 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'll specifiy further, fine with "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." It then goes to state it is the northern part of Great Britain in the next sentence so stating its location. But mainly this lead has to be consistent with Wales and England. This lead has been stable. A wider discussion is needed if changed for consistency with other articles, with me only open to following the format of Northern Ireland if required. Plus Wales and England have these leads and are good articles, so did not negatively impact them. DankJae 23:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In this case, it was found to have negatively impacted Scotland's good article status, that is the point. This was not my point of view, but the view point of the reviewer back in 2019 when the article was delisted. Honestly, I don't have any issues with the current lead either, but it does not acknowledge Scotland's geographical location in the world which is surely mandatory for location related articles. Yes, it is also consistent with the Wales and England articles (not sure it necessary "has" to be consistent, but hey...), but does that mean we should not be beginning a separate discussion on those articles to include geographical location to benefit readers? As, IMO, merely stating that Scotland is a part of the British Isles is not specifying where precisely it is located in layman's terms, rather, it is only indicating that it is part of an island. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, not sure what you are suggesting re Northern Ireland, but wished to express my strong disapproval of any suggestion to change either the leads in England, Scotland or Wales to similar wording of the Northern Ireland article such as "part of the United Kingdom, variously described as...". Clearly, Northern Ireland is a more complex issue, and for that reason, is not commonly referred to as a country in the way that England, Wales and Scotland is. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Referring to the "located on" bit, obviously not the "variously described". DankJae 02:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What about?

Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, mainly located on the northern part of the island of Great Britain, in north-western Europe.

This would have to ideally be carried to Wales and England. As, well, it would be less likely to be stable if not as people will try and make it consistent either side.

My main concern is the switching around from stating it is part of the UK first to that it is a European country first, considering many of those that wish Scotland be disassociated with the UK want to emphasise it as a European country rather than part of the UK. But as it remains part of the UK for now, it is best for that to be stated first, until the constitutional situation changes. DankJae 03:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. The most important international characteristic should come first, which is that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the four countries that comprise the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. If desired northwestern or western Europe can be mentioned later in the lead, after Scotland's position in Great Britain or the British Isles. We don't normally or at any rate shouldn't omit inbetween geographies. In any case there's a graphic showing Scotland's position in Europe in the infobox, which for many may well be more informative than a written description. Rupples (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to the proposed lead sentence, likewise, I have no objection to retaining the status quo. I do, however, feel that this is being overcomplicated and it really should not matter whether it reads Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that is part of the United Kingdom or Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, mainly located on the northern part of the island of Great Britain, in north-western Europe. Both give prominence to the fact that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and that hasn't been disputed either by my edit including the geographical location before the fact that Scotland is a country part of the United Kingdom. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Still prioritisation can display a order of preference or what is the most important aspect, the first can give the impression "Scotland is a European country that, secondly, is part of the UK", while the second states "Scotland is a UK country, secondly, on an island in Europe". If readers see "country in Europe" first, akin to Republic of Ireland or Belgium, then they'll associate it with those, and as primarily a "European country", which is not entirely correct for now. DankJae 22:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead reversion to stable version

Just to be clear, my last reversion to the lead paragraph is intended to return it to a stable state while discussion is ongoing rather than to impose my own preferences. I have no intention of getting into an edit war, as I hope my engagement with the discussion here demonstrates. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I also intend not to engage in an edit war, but merely trying to gain some consensus here amongst contributors and readers alike in order to move forward and have the article in the strongest position going forward for resubmission as a good article. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course. I didn't think you were engaging in an edit war, I just wanted to explain my last edit and give you a chance to object to it if you wanted. I totally understand you wanting to get the article in good shape for the GA review, and I admire you for taking on a topic as big as Scotland! A.D.Hope (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A note that this reversion of an adjustment to the lead was not an endorsement of the preceding version, containing as it did the edits under discussion above. I agree with the reversion to the stable version before this edit, in terms of allowing discussion to take place but also because the changes made an unwieldy sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Naturally. Will await the result of any constructive consensus. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The longstanding status quo for the lead? should remain, as it was the result of a hard-fought consensus (I was a part of those old discussions) both 'here' & at the intros to England, Wales & Scotland. Furthermore, the British prime minister should not be included in the infobox of this page 'or' the infoboxes at England, Wales & Northern Ireland. PS - For example: We don't include the US president in the infoboxes of US states. Nor do we include the Canadian prime minister in the infoboxes of Canadian provinces & territories. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to vote in favour of retaining the current status quo of the lead sentence to establish some much needed stability on the article. Also, in agreement with the points re British Prime Minister being included on the page for the exact same reasons you have mentioned. A quick search has not found the US President mentioned or photograph included of in articles such as California and Florida, and similarly, the Canadian PM is not included in articles such as Nova Scotia or Quebec. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless it's been changed since GoodDay made their comment, the infobox doesn't mention the British prime minister. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No it does not, but there was attempts made a few days ago to include Sunak in the Government and politics section alongside the Monarch and First Minister which I will always insist is not relevant on an article about a country with its own level of devolved government, just in the same way I mentioned above that articles such as Quebec, Queensland and New South Wales do not feature the PM of their respective sovereign states. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunak's more relevant than Shona Robison, though... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the lead that was there had been agreed by consensus.

lead with changes

Scotland (Scots: Scotland; Scottish Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers the northern part of the island of Great Britain. Scotland shares a land border with England to the south and is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, the North Sea to the north-east and east, and the Irish Sea to the south. Edinburgh is the capital and Glasgow is the largest of the cities of Scotland.

Information I have removed can be found in the infobox and / or the geography section where more detail is provided. The changes I am suggesting would make the article lead more succinct and easy to read.

although I agree with having important information the article, the current lead looks cluttered and too long as per MOS:LEADLENGTH. It looks like everything is being crammed into the lead which is suppose to be short and to the point.ChefBear01 (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

GA ready?

The article currently has a citation needed tag and at least one permanent dead link tag. In addition, the article seems quite unstable: 5 reverts in a row just 2 days ago. Beyond that, the sourcing is weak: refs 313–321, barring one, are not well formatted at all. A lot of the refs are just glorified bare urls. Linking is inconsistent in the refs. There's GOV.UK but www.gov.scot. There are a few refs which lead to blogs. The article cites Spotify, as a primary source too. There's BBC News and BBC but Bbc.co.uk and also Bbc.co.uk. Some refs have whacking long quotes but some don't. Some have publisher locations and some don't. Some have archive urls, most don't. Some books are cited with sfns, some aren't, some have the page range inside the refs and some have it outside.

Beyond the referencing, some of the article choices are strange. Why have the DFM in the IB when UK doesn't have their DPM? The first sentence in the body isn't referenced, or if it is it isn't clear how. The first two sentences of Prehistory are not cited. The term "first minister" is linked six times throughout the article and is variably written as "first minister" "first minister of Scotland" and "First Minister", and when used in front of a name can be "the first minister, John Smith" or "First Minister John Smith". When working with dates, sometimes commas are used after them ("in Marchanuary, that" and "in Febrember this") and sometimes they aren't. There's plain old Charles III but also King Alexander III. Scottish National Party is linked twice, given the initialism "SNP" on its second mention but not on its first. MOS:JOB is inconsistently applied. The sentence "the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced the following day that as a result a new independence referendum was "highly likely"" has no reason for being there. There's both "healthcare" and "health care". The statement "founded in 1413, the University of St. Andrews is the oldest in Scotland and one of the oldest worldwide" is unreferenced. The name of the university is also written as both "St. Andrews" and "St Andrews". It's also linked twice. In general, there are a lot of issues with MOS:OVERLINK. Most of the captions giving facts are not cited. The article uses "Parliament of the United Kingdom", "UK Parliament" and "British Parliament". I could go on.

To the GA nominator, I'd suggest that you pull the nomination for now and work on the article more extensively, otherwise it is extremely likely the nomination will fail. WP:GA?'s immediate failures would almost certainly rule this one out. I'll flag up things needing references. I would also like to see this article as a GA, but at the moment it doesn't seem like it will be any time soon, and definitely not in its current form. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Tim, thank you for your advice. I will begin undertaking work on some of the areas you have identified. Thank you. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Goodreg3 - Thanks. Just keep in mind the list isn't exhaustive. I'd also recommend putting the article up at WP:Peer review before any prospective GA nomination: will smooth out any bumps in the track before it's ready to be looked at under a microscope. Additionally, have a look at the list of country GAs here and see how well it holds up in comparison (layout, formatting, contents, style): especially Wales, last reviewed in 2020 which is fairly recent and is the most similar article to this one. Have a look at WP:RSPSS too, which has a good list of sources to build the article on. Cheers — Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It would appear that my recent efforts have been in vain, as all have been reverted by Mutt Lunker. He either clearly does not want to see this article progress, he believes he can do better himself or alternatively he has another problem which I would ask for him to share publicly on this talk page. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

IMHO it's not GA ready. The page should not have Category:Countries in Europe, added on to it. Scotland isn't an independent country & the content of the Category-in-question, should be limited in sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

??? Country...... Countries of the United Kingdom. Moxy- 03:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Category is meant for independent countries & should be changed to Category:Sovereign states in Europe. That's why List of sovereign states was moved from List of countries, all those years ago. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree the cat could be changed.... seems you're arguing it wasn't a country. It's to bad our cat system is so unorganized and completely unstable. Moxy- 04:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A lot of category pages with 'countries' in their titles, should be changed to 'sovereign states'. Due the multiple meaning of the term 'country'. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sweeping and inattentive changes

I'm alarmed at the rapid and sweeping changes being made in the recent sequence of edits to this article. Very little attention seems to be being paid and inadequate explanations, if any, given. These include a mass removal of apparently pertinent quotes and other substantial and opaque changes in the first, very substantial, edit and a reference added which was a wholesale, verbatim quote of that very section of the Wikipedia article, for goodness sake! It looks like a hasty tick box exercise to make noted deficiencies go away and to remove tags without genuinely addressing the issues behind them. I'm afraid I'm familiar with this style and standard of editing from this user, cf. the manner in which they put the article forward for GA review. There should be credibility in any edits to improve this article and superficial and inaccurate ones such as these will not stand scrutiny, only sending the article in the opposite direction. I am very apprehensive as to the state of this article under such attentions.

I'll note that some of the edits may have been beneficial to the article but, when such a high proportion of edits are evidently detrimental, it should not be for other editors to sort the wheat from the chaff. Also, it's impossible to automatically revert individual edits when multiple conflicting intermediate edits hobble the undo function. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh come off it already.

1 - This is the first time I have nominated an article for GA status, so I am not sure what you are referring to by "the manner in which they put the article forward for GA review".

2 - You never seem to "sort the wheat" of any edits you revert of mine, rather, you revert, leave it and move on. You don't tend to stay around and try to improve the article in any shape or form. I am not saying for one fraction of a second that it is your duty, or the duty of any other, to rectify users edits, however, I would appreciate a little consideration around its a work in progress. I have a firm belief that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, and most users will seek to either help other users or carry out edits to enhance the edits of a user. On the contrary, you appear to just revert, revert and revert. You don't stick around to help, you offer little to no constructive advice, and frankly, the way I see it, you dish out opinions in a way which seems that it is only your opinion which matters, something which does not come across as being very polite or courteous. Not an attack, just as a suggestion of "here is what you could do better", should you choose to accept it. I doubt you will, though. However....

The edits you are alarmed by were intended to address the issues noted above about the state of the references. I intended to set around rectifying this before moving on to the other issues which were raised. In my opinion, the information on the article was not given unreliable sources (albeit apart from the mirror copy of the article, and I admit, that was my hasty mistake, yes). With that, why did you not raise it at the talk page, rather than revert the edits? References were not removed and information was not left unsourced in any instance. The references were not altered in a way which would prevent readers from navigating to reliable sources. Instead, long and unnecessary quotes from books and journals were removed to clean up the reference section. Users are more than capable of navigating to the source and reading it, should they wish. Secondly, a small number of the references on the page were dead links. I removed them, and replaced them with either up to date sources, or archived sources, rather than a link which directed you to a 505: Bad Gateway message. I guess you didn't actually consider this?

There are only two areas which I set out to address tonight and early this morning. Unfortunately, you have restored the article to an earlier state in which it consists of more dead links and sources than there need be. If it is your intention to withhold this article back for whatever reason, and to ensure it does not achieve GA status, then sadly, you appear to be going the right way about it.

At least you acknowledge that some edits of mine were constructive and beneficial to the article. That is something, at least. Goodreg3 (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made a start at checking you latest batch of edits but have only got a small way through them, in around an hour of work. Characteristically, there are already multiple errors and questionable changes. If you insist on editing in such a manner, please can you slow the pace to allow others to find your errors and to clear up after you, making smaller individual edits to allow them to be followed more easily? It really is not considerate to impose this task upon other editors.

I can't devote any more time right now, so if someone else can provide scrutiny of this batch, I'd be relieved. I've reached as far as this one, though further scrutiny of the preceding edits would be welcome as I made fairly broad checks of them only . Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not imposing any task upon other editors, so therefore not being inconsiderate. In many cases, the only user who appears to get in a tangle about this is you. Also, not sure I appreciate the need for “scrutiny” as you put it. Am I being watched or something!? Additionally, I find it rather offensive that you assume my edits will contain errors and needing to slow the pace to “clear up after you”. I would say that is inconsiderate in itself. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You know that I've been aware of your tendency to introduce errors, material which fails verification etc. for years now, so why would I assume anything has changed? Very evidently it has not. With many of your edits, they could more be classified as ill-considered, factually inaccurate or low quality, if worthy of remedial action (I have given detailed explanations in edit summaries), but many are straightforward unambiguous errors such as here, here and here? If you believe that to be no imposition, are you advocating that we should not "get in a tangle" and just leave the errors in place, to avoid causing you offence? Do you think it’s okay to maintain such an uneven standard as long as some of your edits are correct? Such a mixed batch of edits actively lowers article quality; not your aim I’d hope. With so much remedial work required whenever you edit, a straight revert is the likeliest way to improve the article.

I’ll note I’m far from alone in making significant amendments to your edits of the last few days, including at other articles, which include the removal of material of questionable pertinence or factual accuracy, and poor referencing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As a participant of WikiProject Scotland, I would perhaps suggest all involved taking a brief pause to build more consensus on the edits to this article on all sides. On the one hand, Goodreg3 it is great that you are trying to improve the article and get it to GA which would be a great achievement but on the other hand, you are making quite significant edits to an article which has raised some legitimate concerns from Matt Lunker. I see that some big sections have been cut and while reducing the size is a necessary step given the current article length, I spotted the 20th century history was edited to go from lengthy detail on Rudolf Hess straight to devolution. It is important therefore that major edits are done carefully, either in the sandbox or previewed before published. Ensuring that key information and references are not lost is vital. As an observer, I would probably say for all parties to have a read of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and consider either discussing major changes here on the talk page (focusing on the content) or consider disengaging from editing for a few weeks. It will be fantastic to see this article get to GA but looking at some of the recent changes, as well as the recent talk page discussions, I would say that there is a risk of an edit war and this can be averted through consensus. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the section to which Coldupnorth has drawn attention, it is vastly deficient, whizzing from Rudolf Hess to rather boosterish text on "Silicon Glen", etc. in just one transitional sentence. So nothing there about post-WWII planning (urban devastation, the New Towns, Tom Johnston and the Hydro-electric schemes, Hunterston-Ravenscraig-Linwood, etc.) The successes and failures of such manageralist projects were important for what came next - and certainly more than 150 words on Hess's crashlanding. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh it must be amazing being so perfect, Mutt. You know, we are humans and humans make mistake. I would also like to point out that we are Wikipedian’s and not academics. Alright, I make mistakes, pretty sure you do it too. It is offensive that you keep trying to make me out to be some clueless idiots who cannot spell, doesn’t give attention to things and conduct edits with no consideration. I could go on. It’s offensive and I’m tired of it frankly. I have been doing my best to help, but it seems to be in vain and a complete waste of my time. So congratulations, you have got what you have clearly been wanting and that is for me to take a step back from editing the article and trying to improve it. Poor referencing? How? I would also like to point out that some of your highlighted edits of mine were attempts to re-word the source to avoid copyright, not intentional mistakes but rather trying to avoid plagiarism. If I had just put it in word for word then that would have been an “error” too I guess. Can’t do right for doing wrong. It’s a shame, Wikipedia, and the Scotland page particularly, appears to have become a very unsupportive community. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If I can be frank with you here Mutt, I do not feel supported by you whatsoever, and would go as far to question to your behaviour and actions towards me. Take from that what you will. I would like to point out Wikipedia:Civility

1 - Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates

2 - Editors are expected to not personally attack or harass other editors. This applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack an editor who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, disruptive to the work of building an encyclopedia, and editors engaging in such behaviour, may be sanctioned, including, but not limited to being blocked.

3 - Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict.

4 - The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness
   1. rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
   2. personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
   3. {| class="wikitable" ! Shortcut:   WP:ICA |} ill-considered accusations of impropriety
   4. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
      

4 - Wikihounding

5 - * Take a real-life check. Disengage by two steps to assess what you're about to say (or have just said). Asking yourself "How would I feel if someone said that to me?" is often not enough; many people can just brush things off. To get a better perspective, ask yourself: "How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who cannot just 'brush it off'?" If you would find that unacceptable, then do not say it. And, if you have already said it, strike the text and apologise.

6 - * Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.

I could go on about how I feel you breach such guidelines. Mutt, I put it to you that you are guilty of each of the above points and would ask you to consider and reflect on this moving forward.

Anyway, best of luck with whatever avenue the articles goes down. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please contemplate how much time and effort it takes to analyse such numerous and sweeping edits, to amend and manually correct them, bit by bit, and to make detailed, explicatory and (largely) matter-of-fact edit summaries, for your, particular benefit. That’s a ton of support, which would be easy to dodge with a straight revert and cursory summary. You always refute it though and more on the basis of hurt feelings than what has had to be addressed in the article. To take your example of typos and spelling mistakes, if I correct them and note this in the edit summary, that’s all one can reasonably do and it is not “trying to make (you) out to be some clueless idiots who cannot spell” to do so.

I’m at a loss to know what sort of “support” you would like instead. The ignoring of flaws introduced to the material? Their correction without explanation in the edit summary because you would perceive it as a personal slight? Yes, we are human, we make mistakes but if they should not be a routine and substantial part of one’s output.

I’m glad to see that you are now making efforts to avoid copyright violations but, when paraphrasing material, the meaning should remain both evident and unchanged. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Goodreg3: is it your goal, to bring this page to GA status? GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is my intention to get the article to GA status, however, I am more inclined now to stop my efforts as it does not seem to be appreciated no matter how hard I try. So to editors who strive for GA status, I wish you all the best of luck. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Goodreg3 - I'm sorry to hear that. Best of luck. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I very much have a feeling that my efforts and contributions, all of which have been in good faith, will not be missed, however. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I can't support this page for GA, as long as the category "countries in Europe" is attached to it. I'm not questioning whether Scotland is a country (and so I'm not calling for changes to the intro), just pointing out that the category is (IMHO) meant for independent countries & should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Clunk. Somewhat of a hobby horse of yours, I recall, and a sidetrack in this thread. If that alone were the issue at hand, we’d be laughing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sticks & stones. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Languages in lead section

This level of detail re languages is rather more than desirable for the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the references are probably superfluous, or if they are not already used in the languages section, better applied there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Although not with languages, I have tried to condense some of the information in parts of the article into more relevant sections i.e recent changes made to move population content and highland clearances from Scottish Enlightenment subsection into population subsection as seems more relevant there. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Scottish page so much more detailed than the England page

Why is this? Is it because Scotland has more history and culture? 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:781E:DBDE:179B:C555 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the England page just needs more contributors. Jump in :) Dgp4004 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm an SNP supporter. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:781E:DBDE:179B:C555 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Very nice. However: Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. Can you please help me remove my first message? Thanks Tim 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:781E:DBDE:179B:C555 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@2A02 - you can just strike it off if you like, or I can do it for you. Just put <strike> at the start of your message and put </strike> at the end of it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Why does England 'not' have a devolved government? Anyways, any editors (with reliable sources) may go ahead & make the England page more detailed. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The England page is an example of a 'Good Article'. It doesn't need to be expanded into detail because it was cut down to avoid over-bloating. It says everything needed and gets straight to the point. This page is the one that needs more work. There's some sections that could be cut-down with information moved into the sub pages. 90.215.134.58 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay:, the short answer to your first question is politics. Devolution was a Labour Party manifesto promise designed to secure Scottish and Welsh support in the face of SNP and PC advances. There was no such demand in England. Furthermore with a Scottish PM and Scottish Chancellor there would be no impetus to permit a conflict between an English Parliament and the national one. Finally because of the population skew, an English Parliament would have far more weight to throw around and so reduce the importance of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't oppose any trimming down of this page. But, good luck to anyone who makes the attempt. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Official languages

The side bar gives a list of four official languages and a source that links to a non existent page.

On the other hand, if you visit the Scottish government website, the only language that has a law proclaiming its officiality seems to be Gaelic:

https://www.gov.scot/policies/languages/

Can anyone find any source for the other three (Scots, English and BSL)?

--77.75.179.1 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)