Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland

WT:SCO

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

This Talk page is for discussing the core work of the WikiProject, ie. our drive to improve the quality of our key Scotland-related articles, focussing on Wikipedia 1.0 and beyond.

Hello from Edinburgh - wikimeets, recentchangescamp, and OSM

I really should have popped on here a while back and said "Hi!"

Generally I am far, far more active on Wikinews but, with Wikimedia UK discussing the possibility of a Wikimedian in Residence with Museums Galleries Scotland, time to make myself known.

First, current and upcoming events that might interest some here:

The National Museum's Admiral Cochrane, the Real Master and Commander exhibit is open now, ending Feb 19.
Until Feb 26. 2012, the National War Museum (Edinburgh Castle) is running the Humanity in War exhibit - 150 years of war in photographs from the ICRC collection.
Dec 14. An OpenStreetMap social meet at the Guildford Arms in Edinburgh. Wikimedians will be made most welcome, I believe they're responsible for the Toolserver map of Wikipedia articles. A quick browse suggests there's quite a few Scotland articles not geo-located onto it.
Dec 14. Lecture at the National Museum, A Global History of the Scottish People given by professor Tom Devine (non-free, book via NMS).
From February, the National Museum is running a Fascinating Mummies exhibit; the displays will include items on-loan from the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, NL.
The National War Museum at Edinburgh Castle is to run an exhibition, Reconstructing Lives, looking at loss of limbs during wartime and the development of prosthetics.
From March, the National Museum will run See Scotland by Train showing off their collection of Scottish railway posters.
From April, the National Museum of Costume will run Off the Peg: Fashion from the ’40s and ’50s.

Yes, most of this is in Edinburgh but, I should relatively easily get pressers for events, exhibitions, and openings elsewhere in the country. If you know of events that fall under the GLAM umbrella, are prepared to make a commitment to get content from them, and perhaps need help with travel costs or research material, Wikimedia UK has a GLAM budget from which microgrants can be dispensed.

The content issue brings me onto a general question: Is there anyone in the East Central Scotland/Edinburgh area who is a pretty good photographer and might be interested in tagging along to press previews and openings? For both the reopening of the National Museum of Scotland, and that of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, I'd nothing but a crappy phone camera (which is now no more). The second of these got me the material from the gallery that others have used to get the SNPG up as a DYK today.

Other points of possible interest:

Wikimedia Deutschland have about a dozen photographers who would be very interested in visiting Scotland, and giving help to photography groups on contributing to Wikimedia (plus tips 'n' tricks on the craft).
Wiki Loves Monuments would love to target Scotland — this would require someone in Scotland to deal with a fair amount of the on-the-ground coordination.
The National Archives of Scotland have a massive collection of, largely uncatalogued, photographs from Leith's shipbuilding days. There is a good opportunity to arrange content donations if volunteers can help with identification and cataloguing. Some of these photographs go back to when glass plates were used.
It has been suggested that a RecentChanges Camp be run in Scotland late spring next year (See http://recentchangescamp.org/wiki/Main_Page). These generally go beyond the Wikimedia community, bringing in Wikia, WikiHow, and other "Web 2.0" groups. --Brian McNeil /^talk 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to me, many may be unfamiliar with the acronym GLAM (WP:GLAM - Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums). --Brian McNeil /^talk 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimeets

Lastly, I'd really like to see more regular WikiMeets because of the planned hire of a Wikimedian in Residence for Scotland. And, see higher attendance. Spring/Summer next year should see a push for more Scottish Wikimedians to work with cultural institutions in the country.

Part of this will involve reaching out to local history societies to recruit, possibly running editing workshops, and general efforts to improve the breadth and depth of coverage on Scottish topics. Such need not be restricted to English Wikipedia as there is a large immigrant component to the Scottish population which could help by improving articles in other languages.

I intend to try for another Edinburgh meetup in mid-to-late February can people let me know if they prefer midweek evenings, weekend afternoons, a pub meet, or a library/café? I know not everyone is in the Central belt – or even in Scotland – but as the most densely-populated area of the country it should be possible to get at least half-a-dozen people to skip VDU tanning for an hour or four. --Brian McNeil /^talk 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland Question

Hey guys, I have a question on the Royal Standard of Scotland, I was wondering if someone could help out. Beyond495 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just write your question, then someone who's interested might answer. Emerson 07 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frightened Rabbit

I was wondering if we could get the article Frightened Rabbit under this wikiproject, as the article is about a Scottish band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akihironihongo (talk • contribs) 03:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates - Scottish independence referendum, 2014

Following the SG announcement yesterday, I have nominated our Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article for the wee ITN box on the Main page. Nomination discussion here:

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Scottish_independence_referendum.2C_2014

Mais oui! (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for Scotland in the High Middle Ages

I have nominated Scotland in the High Middle Ages for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Scottish Television

WP:WikiProject Scottish Television is fairly inactive. Would it be good to merge it here as a taskforce? (WP:WikiProject Scotland/Television) I note that similar taskforces exist for USA and Canada. An alternate idea would be to merge it as a taskforce to WP:WikiProject British TV.

Please discuss at WT:WikiProject Scottish Television.

70.24.249.190 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Scotland in Britain

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Scotland in Britain has been re-listed, due to very poor response rate. Feel free to chip in. This is an important topic area for our WikiProject, and will become much bigger in the coming years. So, we may as well get in to the swing of things. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Scotland will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Scotland's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retiral of User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish

One of our most experienced and valued members has left the project. I cannot find any reason published on-wiki, so if anyone knows why, please tell us. He is far from alone in abandoning the project. I have been here for years, and I notice that the number of serious contributors has declined steeply. User:Deacon of Pndapetzim is another sorely missed Scottish Wikipedian. I suspect that the years of dealing with blatant trolls who get away with daylight murder just gets on your nerves after a sustained period. Mind you, even the blatant troll numbers seem to be down. I know of only a handful of really problematic cases left, that the Admins will get wise to if they have any sense (sometimes I start to wonder). When I first came to Wikipedia the Scotland-related content was mind-bogglingly poor and stunningly incomplete. I reckon only about 5% of our articles had been created by 2005, and even now I reckon that we have only come up to approx 15%-20% coverage of encyclopaedic Scottish topics. We have an absolute mountain of article creation ahead of us just to get to the 50% coverage level of Scotland-related encyclopaedic topics. And most of the articles that do exist are still Stub n Start quality, and I doubt we will ever see more than a tiny fraction at B-level or above within my lifetime. At the current rate, it will be 2100 before we have half-respectable coverage and quality of Scottish encyclopaedic topics. And by then, will Wikipedia even exist? I think that I may well have answered my own question! ;) All the very best Catfish and Deacon! You have served your country well. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me echo that — if you're still around to read this Catfish and Deacon, thanks for all your hard work and best wishes in whatever you turn your attentions to next. As for the rest of us, I think it's important to remember that there will always be trolls, vandals, self-promotionalists and axe-grinders — that's just human nature. We just have to deal with them as calmly and efficiently as we can, without letting this take up so much of our time and energy that we lose the will to develop the quality coverage of Scottish topics that is our real reason for being here. I for one have a long list of things that I have intended to work on but never yet found the time. One day, perhaps! Keep up the good work, everyone! --Deskford (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Catfish and Deacon 100% agree. On the other hand, while vaulting ambition is a fine thing, just how far we are into the mountain of topics is another thing entirely. I agree that we are only part of the way towards coverage of every conceivable topic, but (for example) Britannica's '68 hard copy has about half a page on the Hebrides, which does not even mention the Clearances by name. We must have about 1,000 articles about or related to these rocky isles so let's also celebrate what we have already achieved. Ben Mac Dui 20:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh>, That is depressing. My own output has dropped somewhat over the years but I wouldn't consider retiring. I really hope that Jim and the Deacon will continue to provide the occasional contribution. We need contributors of their quality. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My ears are burning.

My retiral was perhaps a little premature, but it allowed me to concentrate on real life for a while. I may continue to contribute in a slightly reduced capacity, probably concentrating more on content rather than admin activities.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all have to remember that real life is important too.... Good to see you back around! --Deskford (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Ben Mac Dui 19:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust

User:Daicaregos

Although not primarily active on Scottish topics, Daicaregos was a sturdy member of the "Sane Flank", especially during the vicious, coordinated attacks on the main Scotland article. Without him, I suspect the "Nutter Flank" will get away with more nonsense. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Eilt and Loch Eil

Are they the same? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are definitely two separate lochs, though they are fairly close geographically. Loch Eil is a sea-loch, extending west from Loch Linnhe at Fort William. Whereas Loch Eilt is a freshwater loch, between Glenfinnan and Lochailort, about 15 km west of the end of Loch Eil. See the OS maps: Loch Eil NN0177 or Loch Eilt NM8182. Though maybe there is some connection with their similar names - maybe they were once thought to be the same loch? --Vclaw (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictish Mithraism

We're not sure what to make of this, and could use some eyes on it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Scottish National Party MPs

There is a discussion at Talk:List of Scottish National Party MPs#Merging about merging some lists. Comments welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mock chop

Truth of fiction? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mock chop? They exist, certainly... it's ground meat (pork?) that's reshaped into a pork chop shape, coated in batter and deep fried. They're sold in chip shops in Scotland. They're quite fatty and probably not very good for you. A similar product is the "King Rib". Notable? I'd imagine there are mentions in reliable sources somewhere... might have to look off-line. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for articles on Orkney Movement and Shetland Movement?

Just finished up an article on the Manx nationalist group Fo Halloo, and decided to see if any of the other smaller bits of the UK had similar movements. Turns out there is/was both a Orkney Movement and a Shetland Movement that pushed for greater autonomy. Given the interest in Scottish secession these days, anyone else interested in these smaller nationalist groups? Worth having an article on? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Orkney and Shetland Movement. Ben Mac Dui 08:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we redirect the two separate items to the coalition article, or is their validity to also having articles on the separate elements? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time and access to the sources that would satisfy WP:ORG, there is no reason not to create them. Otherwise, there is no reason not to create them as redirects - and in the latter case you could still add relevant categories. I don't know a great deal about either of them - although I have Grønneberg's Island Futures somewhere that may mention the latter. Ben Mac Dui 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project page - Articles section

This is kept up-to-date on a very ad hoc basis. User:JL-Bot provides an automated service but:

On a dry run in a Sandbox a notable feature is that many FAs don't have the Scotland banner, but rather one of the sub-projects - Medieval History, Islands etc. It would not be too onerous to put the banners up, but of course the system only works automatically if the correct banner is in use.
It will also generate DYKs but the list is quite large, even given the above.
The "Wikipedia:Version 1.0" etc stuff seems historic rather than current and could probably go.

I'll bodge something together but comments welcome. Ben Mac Dui 18:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now done, with DYK's transcluded into a collapsed section. There were any number of errors on the old list that hopefully the bot will now correct automatically. There are a few glitches under discussion at User talk:JL-Bot if you are curious. One feature of this exercise was the existence of the (to me) hitherto unsuspected Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Royalty.

Ditched "Possible candidates for featured article status". With over 100 GAs the concept seems unnecessary. Ben Mac Dui 22:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further features are available inc. featured pictures etc that I will add in later. Ben Mac Dui 22:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perth: what is it right now?

Within minutes of the announcement that Perth was to become a city as part of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, an editing frenzy began, with every reference to Perth as a "town" changed to read "city". Now today another editor has been changing some of them back to "town" on the grounds that the change hasn't yet occurred. I can't find from any of the news reports an indication of when exactly the change in status comes in. Is it actually at the time of the jubilee itself, i.e. not until June? Clearly to have editors changing things back and forth is not productive, and leaves articles in an inconsistent state, but I'm not sure what is the proper thing to do. Any thoughts or clarifications, anybody? --Deskford (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HighBeam

The newspaper (and other stuff) archive Highbeam are generously offering up to 1000 free accounts for their service to Wikipedians with more than 1000 edits to their name - sign up by Easter Monday at Wikipedia:HighBeam.Le Deluge (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic Wars

Clearly the inclusion in Category:Military history of Germany is havers but are these edits, classifying the Battle of Raith as part of the Germanic Wars correct? Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh images

I've started taking snaps around Edinburgh, and uploading them to Commons. (Simply check my Commons contributions).

I'm hoping these will help encourage a few people to do a little digging and put together at least some start-class articles about parts of Edinburgh, or find them useful in fleshing out other articles.

My online time is limited, only from libraries at the moment, so I'll just be snapping away and getting pics up to - hopefully - see use.

Anyone looking will note that in a number of cases, the images are taken with a view to being stitched together into larger panorama-type images. --Brian McNeil /^talk 10:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expanding the streets/places covered on Commons slowly: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Brian_McNeil

If anyone wants to start articles relying on this, please do. I'm hoping to get permission to take photos inside all of Edinburgh's libraries and work to get stub/start-class articles on all of them. --Brian McNeil /^talk 16:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unionism

Category:Unionism, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Unionism (British Isles). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template for deletion?

Please see:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:House_of_Stewart_.28Scotland.29

Mais oui! (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historic buildings in Scotland

I started a pilot for the lists of historic buildings in Scotland, see Talk:List of listed buildings in Tibbermore#First list. Some feedback would be nice. Multichill (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by a new user about Renfrewshire

Could somebody who is more well-versed with Scottish local government elections and sources than I am check out the edits by AnnBrown1960 (talk · contribs)? I think the edits were in good faith, but the set of edits to Renfrewshire Council election, 2012 messed up the formatting, among other things. Graham87 04:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also cross-posted this message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Graham87 04:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP and Rodney Pattisson

I have labelled the 3 Rodney Pattisson entries at our Scottish Olympic medallists article with the {{dubious}} template. Please see Talk:Scottish Sports Hall of Fame. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of new "list" articles covering the country's listed buildings

A bot has been set to work creating literally hundreds of new list articles covering every listed building in the country. Fine. Great in fact. But it doesn't need a genius to spot the fatal flaw in, eg, this "list":

List of listed buildings in Cathcart, East Renfrewshire

--Mais oui! (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, hopefully will be extended to England and Wales.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from sure that we need hundreds more unwatched perma-stubs, the content of which may have some notability but for which the topic itself is rather obscure. We have ever more readers, at best the editorship is stagnant and we are groaning under the weight of articles. I wonder how many under the purview of this project alone are unwatched and collecting uncited half-truths. I am tempted to suggest creating a bot to Prod them all just to see what happens. Ben Mac Dui 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot should be stopped until it purpose has been agreed. The example above has two blatant errors in it (I have noted those on the talk page). Am considering a request for deletion, may do it later on. Had a look at Category:Lists of listed buildings in East Renfrewshire. The North Ayrshire town of Beith is also listed in this cat. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 19:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems for the smaller council areas, you could just have a single list. It looks like there is only about 100 listed buildings in East Renfrewshire, which would be fine on a single page. Though larger council areas/cities would still need split in some way. I think civil parishes are a reasonable subdivision for this, it is what Historic Scotland use for the official list. Though it is true that parish boundaries don't always match the modern council areas, or the common names of villages/suburbs etc. The lists need to clearly state what they are referring to. --Vclaw (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the civil parishes approach. Civil parishes were abolished a long time ago now, and it is very odd that HS are still using them. They are reasonably logical for most rural areas, but are worse than useless for the big cities.

I just wish that the bot owner had actually consulted us before going ahead with this immense undertaking. We just do not have enough active, motivated, knowledgable and competent Scottish editors to go through hundreds of ne articles, renaming most, turning redlinks blue, wikifying and merging. The thought of some poor bugger having to do England, which is probably 10 times bigger (!!), just makes you wonder at the vast opportunity cost to the entire project.--Mais oui! (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Historic Scotland are using the burgh boundaries for the towns/cities which had that status. They are using civil parishes for the areas outwith the burghs. And it looks like they are not using any subdivisions within the burghs, so you don't have any proper way of splitting up the list for the big cities (eg see List of listed buildings in Glasgow).

And there was some consultation, look a couple of sections up on this page. Though not many Scottish editors actually replied to that. And some of the comments seem to have been ignored anyway... --Vclaw (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HS use parish and burgh boundaries as a hangover, because most buildings were listed well before the 1975 government reorganisation. So a building in Cathcart parish could still be in East Renfrewshire, and moving the page to List of listed buildings in Clarkston, East Renfrewshire is only a partial solution. I would support upmerging of all the lists into one list for East Renfrewshire, fine. But that isnt going to work for say, Perth and Kinross. Let alone Edinburgh. Also all the new articles say "parish", when many, such as Dalkeith, should say "burgh", even though that doesn't have any real meaning. And who is going to go through all these articles and make links to the relevant building articles (which aren't always titled in the same way as the listing? We have well over 1,000 articles on listed buildings.

Above all, why does Wikipedia need such lists? This content is freely available from the Historic Scotland website, where it is regularly updated and accessible in a far more user-freindly format. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Lorimer (jurist)

Please take a look at this article and expand on it if you can. I myself am sporadically involved with WP: International Law articles, which brought my attention to Lorimer as he was one of the founding members of the Institut de Droit International. I've taken the liberty of adding this projects banner to the articles talk page. Normally, I don't do that for a WP I don't participate in, but the scope information amphatically stated that any article related to Scotland came under this WP's scope. IMHO (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, no one has Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Article alerts on their Watchlist?

It has become increasingly obvious to me over recent years that nobody really gives a flying f*** about the Scotland-related content here at Wikipedia. We all potter about doing our own little projects, but we just stand back and let ourselves get steamrollered by the immense corp of Scotch-haters out there on Wikipedia. For example, I am now convinced that only one or two of the members of this WikiProject have Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Article alerts on their Watchlists. Admittedly, most of the AFD stuff is yawn-inducing crap, but some really important topics do come up now and again, and would greatly benefit from some well-informed Scottish input. One such case is here at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 13, where a Scotland-related cat is being nominated for deletion based on a demonstrably false Rationale. But no-one here either knows or cares about these constant little attacks, that come in a multitude of forms (that CFD is but one small example). I am profoundly disappointed with how WP:SCO has turned out. I created this WikiProject several years ago in the hope that it would assist the quality, breadth and depth of our coverage. It has failed. --Mais oui! (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually know the page existed... and I've been around a while. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist now. Again, I didn't know it existed, so thanks for pointing it out. If I could bring some particular attention to one alert on that page, the good article reassessment of Picts could do with some additional input. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have 623 pages on my watchlist having recently returned after almost six months wikibreak and I must have removed at least 800 pages on my return. I put quite a lot of effort (indirectly, perhaps) into this project, I mostly review WP:GANs (currently Scots Law, which needs some work done on it, but I have done quite a few Scots ones as well as Scottish transport), I often assessed articles requested on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment before my break, and I do some vandal fighting work but not too much. I'm currently in the top 2,000 users by edit (about 1600th - 1700th) with 27,000+ edits, but there are people out there with 87,000+ edits (87,836 for Mais oui, 228th on the list). I could be more than I currently do, but I don't intend to. I certainly don't regard WP:SCO as a disappointment. There is good work, very much good work gone into it. I suspect that Mais oui needs a break or needs to slow down at bit. Pyrotec (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Article Alerts is on my watchlist, but beyond owning a bike I know little about the sport. As to the wider point, I agree that what has been achieved here is far from disappointing, but there is no doubt that the project has changed. When everything was new, working out how to organise templates, cats and stubs etc. was no doubt an important collaborative effort, but that is all now part of the known landscape. Meanwhile the number of articles is now very large, but the number of active editors isn't. I now spend a significant proportion of my time simply defending articles I have worked hard on from the endless barrage of vandalism, well-meaning but uncited edits, out-of-place comments, duplicated links etc. etc. As has been said, an army of volunteers has proven to be a great way to create an encyclopedia but it may not be the best way to maintain one. Collaboration is (for me) a rare treat rather than an everyday experience - even the Scotland article seems quite stable! Furthermore, getting the Scottish voice heard can be hard work. However, small successes such as James VI aside I haven't seen much activity on this front of late - although I confess I avoid "in popular culture" for the most part. Ben Mac Dui 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to my watchlist. On the other issues raised - well everyone who does give a flying f*** about Scotland content will soon have posted here and it includes quite a lot of the editors I respect on Wikipedia. I can see that keeping things going can seem like a thankless and impossible task in the face of the vandals, drive by personal interest and (most difficult of all) well intentioned but poor editing. I have hopes of getting all the major history articles on Scotland to GA or FA status in the next couple of years and I don't think that is unrealistic. If we can do something along those lines then the project will actually be ahead of England and the UK projects, where a lot of the content frankly sucks. I think the effort to salvage the status of Scotland in the High Middle Ages and Picts were good examples of productive collaboration, so I keep quite a bit of hope for this project.--SabreBD (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually nobody, not everybody. Yeah noone is working on the Outer Hebrides villages I looked at the other day. Very few really care and the lack of contributors improving quality for Scotland is atrocious but its the same for most of the US, especially geography, full of stale articles nobody has added anything significant to since Rambot did his ramming..♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear signs that Wikipedia is entering very troubled waters. It is not the vast number of stale and unwatched articles that worries me most (and the vast number being created every day), but rather the vast number of important stale and unwatched topics. When was the last time a serious, competent, knowlegable editor copy-edited and improved our large number of top-level articles: Geography of, History of, Economy of, Transport in, etc etc etc? There are an awful lot of these top-level and 2nd-level articles which have been stale for 5 years and counting. Who really cares about FA articles about low-importance topics? The creator and 1 or 2 other people. The really important articles are most often deserts. That is what should really concern us. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article being stale and being out-of-date aren't the same thing. The "Geography of ...." could be improved of course, but the subject hasn't altered much of late. I foolishly wrote one or two articles about contemporary topics where the facts do change regularly - but I am not planning to do so again. The effort of keeping them up-to-date and avoiding inappropriate additions is a nuisance. (Also, link rot becomes a serious issue). Besides, in a voluntary environment people contribute what interests them - what can we do? Demonstrate in the streets of Stornoway demanding Lewis-folk rise from their slumbers? In practice, welcoming new editors and hoping they stay around long enough to contribute something worthwhile seems to be our best strategy. Ben Mac Dui 20:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic vandalism of Scotland-related categories

A User has been on a campaign for several years now, quietly removing literally thousands of Scottish categories from their "by country", "in Europe" etc parent cats. I have been trying my best to ignore them, but the rate of vandalism has just increased exponentially in recent months.

My question is what on earth this WikIProject is going to do about it? I have occasionally tried to revert the User citing WP:BRD and official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY, but he just immediatelly reverts, usually with a bogus, terse or downright rude Edit summary.

At no point has the User even attempted to engage in Talk page dialogue, as explicitly required by WP:BRD.

It is several months since I last reverted one of these edits, but I have been considering this issue over the last few weeks, and I think that it is wisest if we discuss this issue collectively before taking action. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some diffs? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, these edits are two-a-penny: there are quite literally thousands of them, so it ought not be too difficult to find at least 10 more diffs with 5 minutes searching. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion on the user's talk page. It appears that it comes down to the definition of "country"... if anything has been done to death on Talk:Scotland it's the establishment of a consensus that Scotland is a country. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have reliable ext refs coming out our ears. A tiny fraction of which are collected here: Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs.--Mais oui! (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Copycat" spree

I have just caught another User on a "copycat" spree, clearly inspired by the diffs I provided above. I request urgent input from other members of this WikiProject, as User:Catfish Jim has not been contributing to Wikipedia since his 25 May intervention. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't feel especially strongly about this sort of thing, although I realise it must be very frustrating if it keeps happening in an ad hoc sort of way. Are you aware of any broad consensus about the subject? I don't mean - can we find any reliable sources that confirm x, y, z are countries, but rather policy/guideline discussion about categories in this context? If not, it might be worth an RfC. Ben Mac Dui 17:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perth move request

Just a heads-up from an Australian editor that someone's requested a page move from Perth, Western Australia to just Perth. I know there have been some heated discussions at Talk:Perth in the past over the primary usage for "Perth", so comment if you like. I ♦A 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Franchitti falgicon and official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY - input requested

There is a discussion underway regarding Dario Franchitti's flagicon and a breach of official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. Please see Talk:2012 Indianapolis 500. Input is requested. --Mais oui! (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]