Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Scotland (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Enthusiastic, prolific editor, but...[edit]

There is an enthusiastic, prolific and good faith editor making numerous edits to Scotland related articles, largely or all marked as WP:MINOR but rarely actually so. Many are questionable and I have tackled them on one major aspect at their talk page but they have not been receptive and the dialogue has taken a somewhat obscure and bizarre turn. Another example is their major revisions at the Dunoon article, which seem to be of varying quality and notability. From their talk page they have already been contacted about problematic aspects of this article but are carrying on with major edits to it. They clearly appear to be of good faith but overall their edits seem to be of poor quality and their profilic actions unintentionally damaging. I'm unlikely to be in a position to do much about it currently so some scrutiny of their edits, any necessary remedial action and assistance in communicating the problematic nature of aspects of their editing would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Another enthusiastic and forthright editor has been making good faith but rather erratic edits to some Scotland-related articles (some good, some misconceived) and their talk pages edits show some fundamental misconceptions. These would benefit from some oversight and assistance for the editor, with their edits and understanding. The editor has not been very positively receptive to comments thus far. The articles I’ve had a look at are Scottish people and its talk page and Scottish national identity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ai. I just think that statements should be referenced, is all. I have attempted a couple of times to talk to @Mutt Lunker: but he just reverted an edit to put back the questioned statement and told me I didn't seem to know much ;) It's true that if the Republic of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom I don't know about it ;) but the sources I am looking at say otherwise and this is what we call biting the newbies. Except I am not a newbie and I still want to see a reference ;) Anyway, Hi, y'all, just passing through but I had to "(look) an' laughs at a' that" :) "He's but a coof for a' that," lol is what I say. I am actually usually not in Scottish topics, but if I do edit some text over here into an error, just show me a reference senor, no need to go through the portal to talk to me ;) I am actually quite easy to talk to. Extensive annotation on the talk page, if anyone wants to look at what I did. Elinruby (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Neither the article, myself nor anyone else involved are saying that the Republic of Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and there is no ambiguity about this in the article or talk pages. I have tried to explain to you but can't see the source of your continued confusion about this so am at a loss. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I too am uncertain why this is hard. You had a section entitled "United Kingdom" in the section you had a poorly-constructed sentence that said that there were Scottish people in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as the Republic of Ireland and especially Ulster, where bla bla something about the planters. Or something very like that. The other parts of the United Kingdom bit is true; the part about Ulster is true afaik. I am not at all confused; just trying to point out that while there may well be people of Scottish descent in the Republic of Ireland -- in fact there most likely *are* -- the Republic of Ireland is however not part of the United Kingdom. That is all. If you remove the Republic of Ireland from the section it no longer implies otherwise. I suggest putting Ireland someplace else, or putting it in its own section. The fact that I am trying to edit your prose does not imply that I am confused.Elinruby (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Elinruby is referring to the Scottish people article here, I believe. Per the talk page, you keeping misquoting the article and arguing against your misquote: it says "other parts of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland" not "such as the Republic of Ireland". I'm not going to engage in a never-ending argument about whether the moon is made of green cheese: the article does not say that it is.
Also per your "you had" and "your prose", you seem to be under the impression that I wrote the article in its entirety. I have made edits to the article but not contributed significantly to its overall substance and certainly did not write the sections you are focussing on. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dunoon needs some help[edit]

The aforementioned enthusiastic but inexperienced editor has put a massive amount of work into Dunoon, but it now needs some help from editors more experienced in writing about Scottish settlemennts. Perhaps someone here would like to give it a go? The lead section reads like a tourist information leaflet, there's probably far too much detail of only-local interest (names of GP practices?), etc. And there's no real history of the town, just a bit about the castle. Someone with access to good sources could make a great difference. PamD 10:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As there are two editors mentioned in this thread and I've just posted re the other one, I'll just clarify that this thread regards @Springchickensoup:, who is at the moment making copious enthusiastic but potentially problematic edits to a variety of articles. @Drchriswilliams: is on the case but may appreciate a hand with giving the user some guidance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This editor ceased activities for a while but is now highly active once again, clearly still enthusiastic but again often making poor quality or problematic edits. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Auto-archiving talk pages with the effect of blanking crtical current threads[edit]

This user has been regularly wiping their own talk page of critical comments; legitimate but it fits with the general uncooperative and unreceptive nature shown. As of yesterday they have been adding ClueBot III to a variety of article talk pages, initially set with a zero age parameter so that it will archive threads of any age, including current ones, many critical of their editing and behaviour. After a few hours, when the bot has effectively blanked the page, the user has returned to add a non-zero parameter to arrest the instant archiving of any future posts and restore some function to the page. (It's a side issue but, if my understanding is correct, the value that they are adding is in hours, so 100 is still inappropriately short). I have reverted a few of their wholesale archivings and set a realistic parameter for the bot (2160 hours/90 days) but there are many I haven't addressed and I have no further time to continue currently. I have posted regarding this on their talk page (but that won't last long as it is set for instant archiving) and have asked them to reverse the earlier wholesale archiving on article talk pages and install a realistic paramater but I am not confident of a positive response. If others could investigate the results on the remaining talk pages affected by the editor's editing yesterday and install a suitable age parameter, I'd be grateful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I've completed checks on the articles affected and altered the archiving age parameter to 90 days in each case. I don't think any further current talk threads had been prematurely archived in these cases. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The advice at WP:ARCHIVE is clear: "Make sure to establish consensus before setting up lowercase sigmabot III or ClueBot III on a talk page other than your user talk page." Springchickensoup has clearly not followed this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I undid a number of Springchickensoup's edits to the talkpagebots, but I've just noticed a problem. For some reason a couple of the talkpages are linking to the archives of Talk:Cowal (for example Talk:Highland games at the moment). I tried fixing the same problem on Talk:Scottish clan, with this edit, but at the moment it is still linking to the Cowal archives.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks BM. Would it be better to revert back to the edits prior to SCS's addition of Cluebot III, i.e. versions prior to 23rd February? I can see a case for having functional auto-archiving at these articles but none of these bot additions were discussed, the motivation for some were blatant obscuring of criticism and if others are not functioning properly in regard to linking and most likely in regard to archiving any future threads, restoring the discussions to the talk page would seem preferable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that. None of the talkpages are all that busy anyway.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a one-off or will apply to all SCS's talk page additions of ClueBot III auto-archiving but this strange bot edit may indicate a significant and wider problem. Although apparently set to archive threads after 2160 hours/90 days, the bot has not only archived a comment that is only a few hours old but has archived its own presence on the talk page (consequently halting future archiving, presumably) plus any links to the article's talk page archives; effectively blanking the page and any record of its past. I've rolled back to the edit prior to the addition of the bot, so this page should be rectified. I don't know if the previous edit's placement above the bot template has somehow instigated the bot's subsequent strange action but if that bot action is replicated on other talk pages, the result could be an effective blanking of all talk pages to which SCS added the bot. Can anyone tell if this is a one-off or likely to apply to all articles subject to SCS's bot archiving additions? If the latter, even more reason to roll back the lot. Yet more mess to assess and unpick... Mutt Lunker (talk)
Yeah, I'm totally in favour of reverting them back.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Excessive navigation templates[edit]

I have encountered further problematic editing patterns today. Springchickensoup is adding a large number of navigation templates to articles about settlements in Argyll and Bute. Many of these templates are unrelated to the articles and I consider them excessive. I began to revert these and explained my reasoning but Springchickensoup is simply reinstating these. I tried raising it on their talk page but I haven't managed to get a constructive response. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

I don't think it has been noted here that there is a related ANI discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge suggestion Bridgeton / Bridgeton Cross[edit]

I have stuck a merge proposal onto Bridgeton, Glasgow suggesting that the Bridgeton Cross article be merged into it. As I have stated in the talk page (here), a lot of the information is duplicated and there seems little point in the most famous landmark of the area having its own article when the main page ('mid importance' in this project) is pretty weak at present and contains images relating to the Cross. Comments welcome either here or on the Talk page. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

420 Collaboration[edit]

Cannabis leaf 2.svg

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.


WikiProject Scotland participants may be particularly interested in the following:
Cannabis in the United Kingdom (Category:Cannabis in the United Kingdom).


For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer (Talk) 04:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent move of Angus[edit]

Could I please ask an uninvolved editor to look over the recent sequence of events around the move of Angus to Angus, Scotland?

  • diff A user proposed the move, initially to Angus City Council.
  • diff After much discussion, the matter was closed as "No Consensus".
  • diff Two of the editors who had been arguing for the move then canvassed the editor who had closed the discussion, asking him to change the outcome in favour of the move.
  • diff The closing editor then changed the outcome and performed the move to Angus, Scotland.

It seems there are a number of problems here. Firstly, once the discussion had been closed as "No Consensus" it should not have been reopened without a formal review. Secondly, involved editors should not have canvassed for a change in outcome. Thirdly, the editor should not have changed the outcome in response to canvassing, though I can understand him feeling under pressure as a relatively new editor. This move has left a number of inconsistencies, broken templates and the like, and we now have the article on the primary topic at Angus, Scotland, even though the category Category:Angus and its subcategories still use the undisambiguated name. It seems to me we should restore the original "No Consensus" close, but I am an involved editor, having expressed opinions in the original discussion. --Deskford (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Edinburgh railway station[edit]

I have initiated a discusssion about this "disambiguation" page, which I think should become a redirect, here. Jellyman (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Scotland.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Scotland, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

James Heappey[edit]

The sitting Conservative MP James Heappey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who is standing for re-election, has been involved in a controversy relating to comments he made at a school during a discussion on Scotland. The affair has been reported in several broadsheets, and has drawn in two party leaders.

The article's coverage of the incident has been repeatedly removed by single-purpose accounts and IPs, and at my request the page is now semi-protected for 2 weeks.

However, it is not being watched by many editors. Please can some members of this project keep an eye on it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Politics of..." vs. stand-alone council articles[edit]

Is there a policy or school of thought concerning information of Scottish councils? I've been editing the pages for Glasgow City Council and Aberdeen City Council but have noticed there aren't separate pages for Edinburgh or Dundee, which is instead covered by their respective "Politics of..." pages (Dundee's for example).

Which in people's opinions is the better style? Personally I think it makes sense to have a separate article for the council as a body to cover current political structure, wards, etc. and keep a "Politics of" for historical background and general political information (such as current MPs/MSPs/MEPs for the area). — MouldyFox (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To add a couple of things, this discussion should also cover articles that appear to cover both geographical areas and its politics, such as East Dunbartonshire.
And if the consensus is for council bodies to have a page separate from geographical areas, I think the template infobox Scotland council area should be reviewed or a modified copy be created to better represent the key points about councils, rather than a collection of general details. (For example, current political composition.) — MouldyFox (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)