Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hpurcell1659 (talk | contribs) at 22:00, 6 March 2015 (→‎Feedback on Abertay University article, please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Feedback on Abertay University article, please

Hi - i've been trying to improve the Abertay article and would welcome comments. Thanks. Jonty 16:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpurcell1659 (talkcontribs)

Hi again. I would like to get the boosterism charge removed..and would welcome guidance on where refs verification is required. Within the history section, I cited the main source in the introduction. Do I have to repeat this throughout the history section? Or does this general ref suffice!Jonty 22:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Image requested for the memorial plaque on Sir Andrew Halliday's tomb at Saint Michael's in Dumfries, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland

Aloha! I have been working on the Andrew Halliday (physician) article. I understand from a source at Leeds University (right now it is not connecting) that the memorial plaque on his tomb has some interesting information. Since I live on the opposite side of the globe in Hawaiʻi (incidentally, I am a sixteenth Scottish), I am hoping to find a Doonhamer or the like who might be willing to seek out Sir Andrew Halliday's tomb & take a picture of the memorial plaque. His tomb is located at Saint Michael's in Dumfries, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland. Mahalo! Peaceray (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back with the Summary for the gravestone of Sir Andrew Halliday , & it is back up & viewable now. Peaceray (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Scottish input is desperately needed on here just now.--MacRùsgail (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Shetland, Orkney and the Isles

I know we have an article specifically on the Lerwick Declaration, but in the light of recent news reports like this, this, and this, do we need a wider new article on moves for greater autonomy and/or referenda in those isles? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the article Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. I was coming on here to see if there was anyone else who would be interested in helping. JASpencer (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edits on census stats at Roman Catholicism in Scotland

An editor has been adding their own interpretation of Scottish census stats, or putting a different spin on interpretations given in sources, at Roman Catholicism in Scotland. Some of their personal interpretations may have a level of validity (though often they do not) but seem to be aimed at pushing a POV and when neither stated or implied in the sources are OR or SYNTH. Their understanding of the subject also seems somewhat lacking, for instance confusing actual church membership with simply noting religious affiliation on a census form. Their mode of expression is often in need of copyediting or rephrasing. Some other eyes on the article would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I've only just noticed that an edit conflict resulted in re-insertion of the dubious text, which I have now amended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 08/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ui Church - St Columba's Chapel. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Scotland experts: The above old Afc submission has some information that could be added to the Burns' Cottage article. Should the resulting larger article be named "Burns' Cottage" or "Robert Burns Birthplace Museum"? The draft can be made into a redirect to retain attribution. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 27/04

Articles for creation/The Island Queen. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA article being reassessed: Carnoustie

Carnoustie was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in Sept 2008. The article has been tagged with sourcing concerns since Dec 2009. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria for the WP:Lead, the size and focus, the prose, and sourcing. The main contributor has been notified, though is not able to do any work at the moment. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is now being informed as the article may be delisted. See Talk:Carnoustie/GA2 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone recognize this tower?

This tower in Manchester, New Hampshire, USA, is described as being a copy of a "famous Scottish lookout tower". It was built in 1888 by Frederick Smyth, who toured Scotland and England in the 1880s. Does anyone here have suggestions as to what tower it might be a copy of? (I didn't spot any obvious candidates in the relevant Commons image category.) Magic♪piano 13:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like a generic pastiche than a specific copy. To further muddy the waters this 1906 source calls the inspiration England rather than Scotland, although our transatlantic cousins are never great at telling the difference. The pebble construction calls to mind the flint buildings of southern England, but you get small lookout towers all over the place. If anything, round ones are more Irish, the Scots tended to go more for square buildings. Le Deluge (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat reminiscent of various follies which occur throughout Britain - it doesn't on the face of it have a particularly 'Scottish' feel about it. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that none of the sources I've been able to track down are at all specific, I was dubious about it being an actual copy (rather than a pastiche or Yankee re-imagining of something seen somewhere in Britain), but thought I'd ask. I doubt very much Mr. Smyth took measurements... Thanks for your comments. Magic♪piano 20:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Europe may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaflet For Wikiproject Scotland At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional counties advocacy edits?

This may be a false alarm but I have spotted what may be signs of a new crop of "traditional counties" advocacy edits by a newish editor, User:Zacwill16. I probably will not have time to check this out, certainly not immediately, so if someone else could and act accordingly or call off the alarm as appropriate (and notify the user that they are being discussed perhaps?) I'd be most grateful. Gotta go... Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A look at some of the most recent edits, to Dull, Perth and Kinross, Sutherland and The Burryman would appear to confirm this suspicion but the user's edit history points to the likelihood of much more. This kind of thing was last discussed here I think but is there something the editor could be pointed towards regarding policy or consensus and hopefully nip any POV-pushing campaign in the bud? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Some of you may be interested in expanding Thomas Affleck (planter)'s page. A Scottish immigrant to the US from Dumfries, he became a prominent plantation owner in Texas, nurseryman, author, etc. I wonder if any of you could find out more about his Scottish ancestry (did he come from an esteemed family in Scotland?); a portrait would also be great. Anyway, I just thought I would mention this here in case anyone is interested. Please only do add more info with inlined references.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Newspaper Archive

Hey All, just wanted to let everyone know, that we have about 15 more slots available for access to British Newspaper Archive through WP:The Wikipedia Library. If you would like access, apply at WP:BNA. Sadads (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons uploads of interest from National Library of Scotland

Hi all,

Just wanted to flag up the content that has recently been uploaded to commons as part of the National Library of Scotland's collaboration with Wikimedia UK. Three batches totalling about 250 images have been released. The photos include images of the construction of the Forth Bridge, the Tay Bridge disaster, and early 19th century sketches of locations around Scotland from John Claude Nattes and James Fittler's Scotia Depicta.

Hopefully some of this content will be of interest or of use to this project!

Cheers, ACrockford (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, a further 200 images including posters and photographs from the Weir Collection of material relating to late 19th century theatre in Edinburgh and Glasgow have now been uploaded as well, and more content will follow soon. Will keep this talk page updated if that's alright. ACrockford (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Corryvreckan in the Minch?

I've been invited to "fuck off moron" in regard to a frankly bizarre debate on the talk page of the Blue men of the Minch article, hingeing on a simple matter of geography. The article is a featured article candidate and contains a significant contradiction which would prove embarrassing when featured on the main page. The debate regards the assertion in the lede that the men are "localised to the Minch, unknown in other parts of Scotland" yet discusses prominently their presence at Corryvreckan, the best part of 100 miles from the Minch. A major contributor to the article is proving aggressively impervious to debate on this point, apparently sufficiently convinced in their belief about the geography that they have refused the invitation to even simply check it at Wikipedia's article on Corryvreckan and the one on the Minch and the map therein. Does (contrary to any documentation I have seen) a definition of the Minch in fact extend as far south as Jura and Scarba (or is Corryvreckan not in fact between these islands)? In that case the Minch or Corryvreckan articles are in serious need of attention. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever the dispute, it is unacceptable for an editor to make personal insults like that. The editor concerned could be pointed towards reading WP:NPA.
I've had a quick look over the article and it looks to me like it is conflating two mythologies from different geographical locations, the "blue men of the Minch" and the "storm kelpies of Corrievreckan". Since the article in question is about the blue men, I would suggest that material about the storm kelpies should probably be removed, unless a reliable source demonstrates a link between the two, or if such a link can be demonstrated it should clearly be explained in the article. --Deskford (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, agree entirely. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's Malleus... He has a particular style of interaction that can be a bit direct, but is a prolific content editor. If you can, try to not take it personally. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! I hadn't realised who Eric was. That maybe explains things, but doesn't excuse them. I've left a comment over at Talk:Blue men of the Minch calling for calm. I hope it will be heeded. --Deskford (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can not take it personally in the sense that there’s clearly no basis for the insults but it’s impossible to be constructive with an editor who will only engage on personal rather than factual terms. If this is typical of elements of the content they produce, and the manner they deal with queries on it, that they are prolific is more of a concern than any sort of mitigating factor. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you are so concerned about the "typical elements of the content they produce", I suggest you go and spend your time checking through the rest of the articles I have expanded/created - try Pitfour estate, Forglen House, James Smith (architect), Inchdrewer Castle etc etc - I'm afraid they bare no resemblance to Hanklyn-Janklin but I hadn't realised that was the high standard being aimed for by this project. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking with the ad hominem I see rather than prepared to address the matter at hand. Corryvreckan in relation to the Blue Men? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested, go and check everything else I've worked on if it is such a concern to you - or perhaps you need to canvass for a bit more support first? Oh and by the way, FAs are not automatically included as TFAs. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, lets stick with the specific queries I have raised re this one article as you seem intent on diverting attention from them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally "they" above = "the editor" singular, i.e. Eric. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How extraordinary - if, as you claim, that is the case, how come your comment starting "Sticking with ..." doesn't make that clarification? Or do you just backtrack whenever it suits you? SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely mystified as to what triggered all the mud-slinging – probably a fair bit of misinterpretation and misunderstanding – but the article has now been protected for four days, so I hope this will give people a chance to cool off and think of a constructive way forwards. --Deskford (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This lazy tagging, only two days after the FA star was added. Discuss on the talk page, fine, but don't deface a brand new FA like that. Eric Corbett 19:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, Eric is simply a quite dreadful Wiki-dragon (sub-species uncertain) and if I were in more jocular mood I'd say that the opening description to the (now sadly sidelined) Nuckelavee FAC sounds suspiciously like he is editing an article about himself. On no account is he to be fed and the best medicine is to ignore him until, as he usually does, he calms down and re-commences his excellent work. Ben MacDui 19:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, from now on that's how I'll picture Eric – presumably this is a cousin of the creature that in Shetland is called a njuggle or njugal? Well, I've seen enough drama for one day. I'm off for an evening swim in the Minch. --Deskford (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put this as simply as I can for the hard of understanding. You work your bollocks off for a few weeks, you put yourself through the stress of an FAC for another few weeks, and then two or three days later some twat comes along and defaces your article over some minor issue or other. If you think that's acceptable then you and I have nothing more to say to each other. Eric Corbett 17:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of Scots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Scots -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish pioneer in Southern California

Your attention is called to a new article, Daniel Freeman (Los Angeles County), in which Scotlander Daniel Freeman, ostensibly a "Sir" of some sort, is mentioned and a link is made to Crathes_Castle. If you would like to link to this article or make comments about its relation to Scotland, please do so on the Talk Page over there. Thank you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland portal

[Copying this here from the portal talk page in hope of reaching a wider audience.] Is this portal still being maintained? Selected article & quotes are both currently redlinked. Additionally the news has not been updated since February. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banff and Macduff

The page Banff and Macduff has been nominated for WP:PROD deletion. In principle I am in agreement that we don't need this article, but there is a problem. At one point this single article covered both towns in detail, and I was responsible for separating it into articles for each town. Unfortunately I did it by copy-and-paste – I was fairly new to Wikipedia at the time and didn't appreciate the importance of preserving editing histories – which means that if this article is deleted we will lose the early history. I think this would cause us licensing problems. Is there a way of clearing up this mess? Many apologies for causing it! --Deskford (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:CPMV. Ben MacDui 18:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. PamD (talk · contribs) has come up with what seems like a good solution. --Deskford (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MSPs' Websites

Most of the MSPs' articles that I've checked so far contain out-dated links to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/membersPages/. Current links for all MSP's can be found at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/current-msps.aspx. I'm going through fixing them but if anyone wants to help that would be appreciated.GideonF (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelpie geography

Glen Keltney near Schiehallion same spot as Lochan near Aberfeldy?

Relating to the Kelpie article, the folklorist Katharine Mary Briggs records a story of the kelpie at "Glen Keltney near Schiehallion" in Perthshire in one work, but later records the identical story as a water horse tale that occurs in "a small lochan near Aberfeldy.
I edited on the assumption that she is talking about the same location (call it "Body of Water X"), about 5km from either Schiehallion or Aberfeldy. So feedback on yes or no, if I am resorting to WP:Opinion here, and how to rephrase it to avoid that charge. Talk:Kelpie--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
[reply]

I would appreciate comments at Talk:Kelpie on these geography questions:

  • Folklorist Katharine Mary Briggs's tale of the kelpie at "Glen Keltney near Schiehallion" (in her 1967 work) and her each uisge tale at "a small lochan near Aberfeldy are substantively identical, but for some choices in phrasing the story. I am assuming the same body of water is being referred to, so comments.
  • One tale is localized in Loch na cloinne "lake of the children", which the source says is between Farr, Sutherland and Thurso in Caithness. The aricle adopts the Thurso location, but I suspect Farr might be the better choice. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that? --Hafspajen (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hafspajen: I am deliberately leaving it as an open exercise, a quiz of sorts, without providing my arguments/solutions here, in order to give the geographically minded a chance to make their own inquiries and make assessments from a relatively clean slate.
But if you want to forgo that step, I do go a bit further into argument at either Talk:Kelpie#Glen Keltney and lochan near Aberfeldy identical? or Talk:Kelpie#Loch na Cloinne in Farr or Thurso?, so please go there and respond. (Minor typos fixed on my previous post)--Kiyoweap (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for The Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Scotland for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (warn) @ 09:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this website reliable?

I'm normally quite good in deciding whether a website is reliable before using it as a reference. I just however want other people's opinions on whether I should use this article as a source: Dumfries and Galloway: What's Going On? Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 11:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Sleep Apnea Database deletion discussion

European Sleep Apnea Database is undergoing a deletion discussion, AFD page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Sleep Apnea Database. — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old maps and views of parts of Scotland

As you might have seen in the Signpost this week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. As of Sunday night, over five thousand new maps have been identified, with 26.5% of the target books looked at -- but see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

A part that may specifically interest this project is

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/Scotland

which currently shows pink templated links for 342 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of the world, still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for articles on different places in Scotland.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ScotlandsPeople

Via Wikipedia Library, the online resources of ScotlandsPeople are going to be freely available to approved editors: Wikipedia:ScotlandsPeople Thincat (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stoorworm etymology dispute feedback

Before a DYK appears that states "Did you know that the Stoor worm of Orkney derives its name from Old Norse Storðar-gandr, a kenning for the Midgard Serpent..." I am advocating getting this info pulled from the article. Please leave your considered input at Talk:Stoor worm#Stoorworm etymology dispute feedback. The reliablility, due weight, etc. of this info has been a matter of ongoing dispute, and I apologize for the messy talk page there.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The National

Hi, I've been working on The National over the last few days and plan to put it forward for DYK, so I wondered if anyone has an image we can upload, perhaps of the first edition. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is licensing, but File:Herald (Glasgow) front page.png suggests that some sort of 'fair use' would apply. If you don't have a copy of the newspaper to photograph itself you could upload a screen-grab from the website, which might suffice. Ben MacDui 19:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sadly don't have a copy, and can't see anything other than the masthead on the site. A Google image search presents something promising on the BBC News site, but directs to a different page when clicked. Hopefully someone with a copy will see this thread, or maybe when it goes to DYK. This is Paul (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I bought one today but I see you have an image now. Nice article btw - and I have a picture of the owner of Inchmarnock into the bargain. Ben MacDui 10:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I found one for sale on ebay so got someone to enhance and upload it for me. Really wish I'd kept my first edition of the I now. This is Paul (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, very nice article. Excellent work (still got to buy my first copy ... manyana or ramorra, perhaps?). --Cactus.man 21:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK Infobox

After a short discussion here about the use of parishes in Template:Infobox UK place, this led to a discussion aimed at amending the template here. The presenting issue is that adding the parameter ' |civil_parish ' to Scottish places (e.g. Broadford, Skye) results in the infobox showing a link to Civil parishes in England, which is of course both inaccurate and misleading as Civil parishes in Scotland are a quite different beast. EP111 has been very active in adding details such as this to Scottish island places infoboxes of late, which is where I came across the issue. He or she is clearly attempting to sort this out. However, I am not at all convinced that adding civil parishes to the Scottish variant of this template is useful. They have no statutory force and are (I beleive) mainly used by local authorities as a convenient way of gathering statistics. As suggested, community councils are an optional and perhaps better way of dealing with this, but I don't use this infobox and those more familiar with it may wish to comment. (I have various other grumbles about the infobox and am reluctant to get too involved. Ping me if you are curious.) Ben MacDui 16:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole problem started when the separate English, Scottish and Welsh infoboxes were merged into the appalling UK infobox, against the unanimous wishes of Scottish Wikipedians at the time. The idiocy of recruited "voting" on Talk pages in a nutshell. The whole thing is a mess and can only be sorted out by restoring the national infoboxes, which can be properly tailored to the different situations in each country. Won't happen, due to the usual vote-stacking, therefore I won't get involved. Tis simple arithmetic that small countries will always get out-voted by ones which are ten times bigger, irrespective of the strength of the arguments. Accept it and move on.--Mais oui! (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

River Cart Aqueduct

If somebody could add a picture of the River Cart Aqueduct that would be great. It used to be an aqueduct, until it was converted into a railway bridge, but it's still called an aqueduct after 120 years. Google maps link. RandomPerson137 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you search on Commons for White Cart Water you might find something. If not, you could try Geograph. Ben MacDui 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScotWiki meetup in Glasgow, 1 February

The ScotWiki community has been growing pretty quickly and pretty impressively over the last two years! We've got two Wikimedians in Residence based north of the border now, one in Edinburgh and one starting next week in Glasgow. We've had 8 meetups since May 2013, and have launched a ScotWiki mailing list (which everyone is encouraged to join!) with over 60 members. We also hosted an extremely successful EduWiki 2014 conference in Edinburgh at the end of October.

The next meetup will take place in Glasgow at the CCA Saramago cafe, on 1 February from 13:00. It would be really great to see some new (or old!) faces from the WikiProject Scotland if anyone can make it! ACrockford (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015 Art+Feminism event in Dundee

Hi Scotland Wikipedians! I am reaching out to see if anyone would be interested in helping out with editing training for a Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon being organized in Dundee. We would appreciate any assistance in securing at least one experienced Wikipedian in the area, and I'd be happy to put you in touch with the organizers if you are able to help out. If interested, please reply on wiki or by e-mail at thepwnco.wiki@gmail.com. Cheers! -Thepwnco (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Geography Task Force

Stumbled upon Category:Waterfalls of Scotland, through random article. Fairy Loup popped up, and it was a one liner (Fairy Loup is a waterfall in Scotland). Checking all 277 articles in the category and associated sub-categories, most of them are essentially that form. Identified only 19 which currently meet notability guidelines per geographic places.

Having found very little in the way of confirming notability, raised a "trial" Afd on the Fairy Loup article here, prior to putting in a series of bundled Afd nominations to clean up the category. Along comes a demon searcher and the results he achieved convinced me to withdraw the nomination.

To the point! There is a significant amount of work to get through all 277 articles. Is there an active Geography Taskforce who might be interested in picking up the gauntlet?

--Haruth (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The first thing that I notice is that the editor who created all these stubs is banned for abusing multiple accounts, although it's not clear what other accounts he has used. I then notice that he has been discussed on the administrators' noticeboard for creating large numbers of geographical stubs for other parts of the world too, so fast that people suspected him of using some kind of a bot, though again I'm not sure there's evidence to back this up. However, given that these stubs exist, the question is are they worth keeping. We tend to view geographical features as inherently notable, and I suspect that many of the others could be brought up to scratch if they were subjected to the same effort that your test case was. (Cheers to the editor who did the rescue, by the way!) The problem is I think we just don't have enough editors with the time and inclination to do the work required. I don't think any such taskforce exists. --Deskford (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created the original list of Scottish waterfalls, clear in my own head that the majority of falls would never merit their own article - appearance in the listing with a grid ref etc sufficing for WP purposes. I recall querying (to little effect) the editor to whom you refer on another list article where he'd done much the same. However some could doubtless be expanded to advantage but, as you observe, who has the time? cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the editor who bailed out Fairy Loup. I've been looking over these articles as a whole, trying to come up with some organized approach to dealing with them, but it's rough. It's seemingly random which waterfalls have coverage and which don't. If I had my way, any of these which can be legitimately sourced with something interesting to say should be expanded into better-quality stubs. Those which cannot, but which are features of a named watercourse (river, stream, whatever) should be merged to the article for their parent body, and those which aren't able to be referenced and have no valid merge target should be redirected to the master Scottish waterfall list (and have their entry there delinked). One of the biggest barriers to enacting this is the state of articles on Scottish waterways: even some fairly significant tributaries are redlinks, to say nothing of the enormous number of smaller streams in the Highlands. That many of these features (and rivers!) have multiple names – including English and Gaelic toponyms, literal English translations of the Gaelic names, and a wealth of variant spellings – does not make this process any easier, especially for an American editor like myself with minimal knowledge of Scottish geography to begin with! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for the bailout! To give an idea of the number of waterfalls in Scotland, I have a copy of The Waterfalls of Scotland by Louis Stott (1987) which has between a short paragraph and a couple of pages on, he says, 750 waterfalls though he says there are a thousand more that could be "easily distinguished". Looking closer, sometimes he merely has a grid reference. He says he has included everything on the 1:50,000 OS maps, plus all those named in the New Statistical Account, plus some others that have caught his attention. Fairy Loup is not included (not on 1:50,000 map either). Thincat (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable place to start. At some point, a lot of work needs to be done on Scottish rivers, too (badly!) but at least with the waterfalls, we've got a list to work from. For the ones in the book that aren't just coordinates, there's probably better descriptions and coverage than random searching will provide. I'm sure this is easier with better access to local information, too! I added some content to Achness Falls, although I suspect there's more out there. I'm officially giving up on Allalith Linn for a host of reasons: Google Maps suggests that the stream is Allaloth Burn, not Allalith Burn, and at least seems to indicate that Allaloth Linn is the name for a section of the waterway before its confluence with the Burn of Tynet; the multiple conflicting meanings of linn aren't helping. Regardless, I'm having a hard time finding any concrete references to this. Honestly, I don't think I'm going to have the time or resources to tackle these myself, although I'd be happy to lend a hand if others do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stott seems to have given up on Allaloth Linn as well. (The place and the watercourse or waterfall could well be spelt differently and spelling can be various). Also no one has put up a photo on Geograph. I live in that part of Scotland (but I'm English) and to me a linn is a narrow gorge where water rushes through, not necessarily a waterfall. However my Scots dictionary says it's a pool at the base of a fall or the actual fall itself. I've added to Achness Falls – Stott has two short paragraphs split by two pages of photos, hence the 106–109 page range. He organises his book by river/tributary so I'll see how that compares with what WP has. I'm happy to add a bit from time to time (ping me?) but I don't want to take on a major task that I'll never finish. Thincat (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! The glossary in Stott: Linn: Waterfall; strictly the pool below a waterfall; in southern Scotland often the stream as a whole; rarely, a gorge. So it looks like I have been wrong. Thincat (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]