Talk:Montrose, Angus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject UK geography (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Scotland (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The Montrose page needs some updating etc, anyone fancy doing it?

Good Article Status[edit]

This article is in a pretty shoddy condition, hence it has been given rated C class, but with a little tweaking could make Good Article status. The main problems include the excessive amount of promotional material that has been added to the article and the undue weight that has been given to relatively trivial and unencyclopedic subjects. I've made a start on improving the article, no doubt some of it will prove unpopular, but bear with me. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've posted on the page a list of sources which could be used to develop the History section as well as a population table. Luconst 12:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Gaelic Names[edit]

It makes no sense to include the gaelic names at the top of the page. The language is not used in the east coast of Scotland and, although a mention somewhere in the article might be valuable, including it at the top gives it undue prominence. It is in practice no different to putting a French translation of Montrose as the second word in the article!Uvghifds (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a similar argument a few years back with regards to another east coast town, but backed down for the sake of consistency with other articles. Montrose doesn't really get the levels of traffic to test the consensus, but if we are to change it for this article, we will have to do the same for all other towns outside of the Gàidhealtachd. A useful test would be to try it on Edinburgh. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly think that it is worth making this change. There might be other arguments for the Edinburgh article containing the gaelic, it being the capital - so I can possibly see sense in leaving it for the moment. Uvghifds (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm a bit brusque but no. This issue has been debated again, again and again and the outcome was always the same. As long as a Gaelic place name is proven to exist, it is perfectly acceptable to add this to the lead. This does not constitue undue prominence and equating that with a French form is ludicrous, French was never an indigenous language in Scotland. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Following edits on Brechin, Arbroath and Forfar (which I've undone), this is beginning to fall into the classicl pattern of the occasional anti-Gaelic crusader we get. Ho-hum, just when things had been quiet on that front. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Instead of describing the change as a crusade - could you please explain why gaelic names should be kept in non-gaelic parts of Scotland at the very top of the article when they bear no relevance to the town in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvghifds (talkcontribs) 21:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I dont see how having the gaelic name in the lead detracts from the article at all. It has historical significance and is relevant to the page, just because it is no longer referred to by the gaelic name does not detract from the argument of keeping it.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
These places never spoke gaelic, and so it has little historical relevance to the article as I see it. A mention somewhere in the body of the article might be worthwhile, but under the present arrangement the gaelic has very high undue prominence.Uvghifds (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Typical. Another expert on the history of Gaelic who knows nothing about it. Bar the far southwest of Scotland ALL of it was Gaelic speaking at one point. I'm not here to educate you. Consult a library. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I am in no position to disagree with your historical knowledge - but this hasn't been the case for a long time and is certainly not today - so I again repeat my belief that it does not belong at the very top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvghifds (talkcontribs) 21:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look around a bit more before you launch into a crusade. Having alternate indigenous names in the lead is common practice across Wikipedia, including Scotland. May I suggest a better use of your time might be ADDING information, rather than removing it? Perhaps you could spend some time referencing all those made-up looking Scots place names on those pages. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of the relevance, but there were 81 Gaelic speakers living in Montrose in 2001 as recorded in the census (the level of fluency is not recorded). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like there has been a mini 'edit war' on the Forfar article today over the same issue. Can I suggest two things - firstly that we acknowledge there are two sides to this story. Secondly, that we try and come up with a better way to put this information into the article. My thoughts are that leave the info box be - but move the gaelic name from being the second word in the article to part of the history, possibly with a date (I don't know when though) describing the settlement moving from gaelic speaking to english (via scots dialects). This might better reflect the relevance of the information and keep everyone happy. Thoughts plese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvghifds (talkcontribs) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Neither Forfar nor Montrose are in particularly good shape as articles in any case and need a fair bit of work. The articles for three other Angus towns have made Good Article standard: Carnoustie, Arbroath and Monifieth. Neither Carnoustie nor Monifieth have the gaelic form in the lead, but both include it in the infobox.
I'm rather ambivalent about the inclusion of the gaelic in the lead in any of these articles, but at the very least the gaelic form must be present in the infobox and in a toponymy section. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Responding there. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone Montrose born and bread, this statement is an absolute nonsense "However the etymology is more often attributed to the gaelic words Monadh (meaning moor) and Rois or Ros (meaning peninsula or promontory)". It has only recently started to be attributed to a Gaelic name - and this trends ties in closely with when Gaelic lobbyists got Scotrail to start adding Gaelic names to every station in Scotland no matter how nonsensical that Gaelic name may be. Gaelic words which sound like the name of a town or station are being used to rewrite the history of dozens of places across eastern and southern Scotland which have no Gaelic history. Nothing against Gaelic - am all for it's preservation - but not at the expense of the true history and not at the expense of other Scots languages. North East Scotland's language and dialect are Germanic in origin not Celtic. At the very least, the article should read "the etymology is also attributed". "More often" implies it is the predominant theory which it simply is not. (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)