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 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)

Sorry, I would help if I could, but I wasn't around in 1975. Andrewmc123 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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))

Removal of GA and lots of help needed!

I've gone throught the bottom half of the article and done the following:

• moved information into daugter articles
• put tags on where citations are needed
• removed a lot of wordy, weasley language
• other minor changes for clarity and style

I've been doing this for hours now, and it's still only half done. I cannot fathom how this article ever got GA, so I've removed that. I'll do my best to keep coming back to help with the fixes but I've not even finished identifying the problems so pls, a little help? Please don't be offended at the GA removal. Glasgow is great, but the article isn't.Alun 09:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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