Talk:Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scotland article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

Scotland has been listed as a good article on a country under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

Scotland has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Scotland is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article is part of WikiProject Countries, an attempt to formulate a template for country articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Infobox country 2 Robert Louis Stevenson-Kailyard??? 3 Food and drink 4 Expanded articles 5 Images 6 Section intros? 7 good work 8 Europe 9 Auto Peer Review 10 The dab header 11 "The proportionally large amount of military bases in Scotland, when compared to other parts of the UK" 12 Latin 13 Gaps 14 Size (again) 15 Royal burgh status 16 Nation 17 Health 18 Language 19 S or Z 20 Wha daur meddle wi me 21 Lede section problems 22 Politics 23 Border country, a hive of scum and villainy 24 Proposed re-draft of Scotland: Geography sub-section 25 "A-Class" and delisting GA 26 Scotland article: Proposed Policy WDMWU1 27 £1 bank notes 28 Good article Review this article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status 29 Continuing Improvements? 30 Continuing Improvements II - The Culture Section

[edit] Infobox country

I've made a first pass at using the standard {{Infobox Country}} in this article following the subst'ing and TfD of {{Scotland infobox}}: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Scotland infobox. But that's me out of time and destined to cook dinner... Can someone fix up anything I've missed (HDI jumps out). Thanks/wangi 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"in response to Wangi's request for assistance on Talk: why don't we just "subst" the infobox before it is deleted?"

Because it's a horrid guddle ;) My edit to use the std infobox is 90% there, and it's much better than a user seeing a massive block of rubbish when they try to edit the article. Thanks/wangi 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fairy nuff! I was just trying to save ourselves from re-inventing the wheel, but if wheel invention is your forté, then I humbly offer myself as lab assistant :) --Mais oui! 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the code for the infobox as the template infobox country doesn't work for Scotland. For example the size of the coat of arms is off, and some required fields just cannot be applied to Scotland. I will see what I can do in the interim. --Bob 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Really the only stand-out fields are the "rank" ones, the idea that the coat of arms is off is a personal call (looks fine to me). I think the page using the standard template is nearly there, plus it is a lot easier on editors to be faced with that rather than a big splodge of esoteric rubbish! Thanks/wangi 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I too would prefer it if we could use/adapt the std infobox, but I just cannot suss out how to do that; and I agree Bob that the arms are far too big (and I have tried fixing that in the sandbox, and I cannot). --Mais oui! 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me a couple of minutes and I will come back with a better template for use in constituent country articles. --Bob 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that a good compromise? --Bob 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for that, thanks for the quick work! /wangi 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So here's a concern: when I go to edit the top intro of the article, I see all this code which I don't understand. That's my reason for liking the use of templates. So until a template with a wider scope works for us, why don't we just create {{Infobox Scotland}} ? Canæn 19:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because single use templates are frowned upon by those up high, and the old {{Infobox Scotland}} has just been deleted. --Bob 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Louis Stevenson-Kailyard???

In the media section Robert Louis Stevenson has been coupled with J. M. Barrie in the 'kailyard' tradition. This is just plain wrong; I cannot be any more direct than that. Kailyard is a literary dead end. Stevenson may have written some historical romance-not among his best fiction-but this no more puts him in the kailyard bracket than Sir Walter Scott. How 'kailyard' is the Beach at Falesa? The point about Stevenson is that he is one of the most significant of Scottish writers, influencing men as diverse as Henry James and Jorge Luis Borges. Rcpaterson 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my field, but surely Macpherson and Scott had huge international influence, inspiring the birth of Romanticism and the historical novel respectively? We seem to be suggesting a bit of a kailyard mentality here by not mentioning them.. dave souza, talk 07:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would guess that this is just the usual vandalism/cluelessness. Kailyard literature is a very specific genre within Scottish literature as a whole and only three or four late nineteenth century writers (of whom Barrie is the most famous) did any work in it. I doubt that it's worth mentioning at all in an overview article such as this one. Scott, Stevenson, Barrie (and I suppose Macpherson) were much more important. In fact if we are talking international influence I would say that there's a good case for mentioning Conan Doyle, Buchan and Macdonald Fraser too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Food and drink

I just attempted to remove the food and drink section - the revert failed (don't know why) but I assumed the summary was there so I added another saying "whoops..." which didn't explain what I was doing. Anyway it was a quite surreal section only three lines long explaining that Scotland has Flakes, Double Deckers, puddings that aren't desserts and "different sausages" and I just didn't think it was appropriate. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was nonsense! Thanks/wangi 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

However, every encyclopedia article, in a print encyclopedia, always makes mention of the Food and Drink of a nation. Whiskey should be mentioned somewhere on the page, and I'm rather confident that we could whip up a decent Food & Drink section (perhaps under Culture?, what with Oatcakes, Haggis, Kippers, Oatmeal, and... more Whiskey? Tea, too. Speak up, ye natives o the land. Canæn 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, with time, even create a full article, Food and Drink in Scotland. Canæn 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There already is an article: Scottish cuisine. Though it is currently very brief, and lacking any mention of a number of the foods you mention. No mention of haggis, or whisky (without an E). Could also add Scotch pie, Scotch eggs, cranachan, bannock, shortbread, Scottish beer, Irn-Bru and of course the deep-fried Mars bar. It could do with a lot of expansion, I'll add a bit more to it soon. --Vclaw 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's nifty. Thanks for pointing it out! It does break the standard of "X in Scotland," which can be confusing. There is a difference between Scottish cuisine and Cuisine in Scotland, for not all Scots live in Scotland. But wonderful, we have an article! Canæn 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put something in about fish. yerkschmerk

No need to ask permition. If you think something needs added or reworded then edit. That's what the wiki in wikipedia means.Rincewind42 05:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded articles

So it looks to me, that Religion in Scotland and Language in Scotland are two logical articles to be created, being the only two sections in the current article which don't have "main article" links. I'm a bit surprised that there isn't already a Religion in Scotland article, actually. An article detailing the current situation of various Languages in Scotland (Gaelic, Scots, Scottish English, Highland English, along with maybe details of various regional dialects and peculiarities, plus some history on the whole lot) seems as though it could also make up a decent article. I'm not sure I have the knowledge/resources to start such articles, but just throwing the idea out there. Canæn 22:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created the Language in Scotland article, with my limited knowledge. The page is split into Celtic and Germanic languages, and I guess you'll find out the rest. It needs loads of expansion, as well as the need to be added to numerous categories. Canæn 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hiya folks, here again with another orientation question. Are nearly all the images in the article on the right, in a neat little row, for a reason? I've noticed that the image in the Law section, has stayed to the left, since I moved it some months ago. I'm a big fan of varying which side of the article images are on; it adds style, and just seems to make the article look better. More professional, like a real encyclopedia, which we're aspiring to be. If anyone has any strong objections, I'd love to discuss the matter, though it is somewhat trivial. Canæn 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section intros?

So the Demographics section has an introduction, however Neither the History nor Culture sections does (these being the only three sections of the article with sub-sections). I'm making another request here, for there to be one for each of these sections. I'll try my hand at the Culture one, though it'd be much better for one of our wonderous Historians to take a try at the History section. Always open to discussion. Canæn 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I modified the culture intro as I found it a little redundant. ie. The culture of Scotland is the national culture of Scotland. Of course the culture of Scotland is the culture of Scotland. Hope you don't mind. I tried to give a lead to what was already there without using speculation or weasel wording (horrible terminology, but I hope you don't take it personally). --Bob 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just stole that bit from the main sub article, so no offence taken. Thank you! Canæn 20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good work

i can see a lot of effort has gone in to this page A++ guys great page, came to see if there was any thing i could add, i was wrong lol. Mr Roboto 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Europe

OK, Scotland is in Europe. But North-West Europe, Northern Europe or Western Europe?; each term is ambiguous and not clearly defined, legally, geographically, politically or otherwise. Can we please be certain before we put it in the opening sentence as it is actually POV. 86.133.72.79 16:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

--I see the edit history has changed, and thus mentions of Europe have been removed by other editors too. Please be mindful of the various terms for the portions of Europe however. Many thanks, 86.133.72.79 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a geographical description rather than a POV as the article on NorthWest Europe shows. Please see the above discussion about the introduction before reverting again. Thanks Globaltraveller 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this? The Marshall Plan states that the UK is in Western Europe, whereas the United Nations Statistics Division places Scotland in Northern Europe [1]... can you see where I'm going with this? Please understand also I have the article's interests at heart here, I like to think I'm not one of these chronic vandals! 86.133.72.79 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I can't see where you're going with this, to be honest and to be honest I think its a bit of a bizarre argument. It's not political, or about the politics of Europe it isn't about the EU, or the Marshall plan, it is about points on a compass. We haven't invented a new political entity, it is just that it is more geographically accurate to place Scotland in the NW portion of Europe, just as it is to place Greece in the SE portion of Europe. That's all and FWIW I cannot for the life of me see how it debases the article. Globaltraveller 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with the word, 86.133. It is just a geographical descriptive to allow those who don't specifically know where Scotland is to get an easy picture in their mind (North EU - is that Scotland or Finland - West EU - is that Scotland or Spain - North West EU - ah, ok, so centred in and around the northern Atlantic, Ireland, UK, Benelux area). Any complaints about the term would be best placed at the actual article talk page itself. Frankly I am not opposed to unlinking the word, because the article is of relatively poor standard, "North-West Europe is not a well defined term" is never the best way to start an encyclopedic entry. SFC9394 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've delinked the word as per above Globaltraveller 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But really, perhaps I didn't make my intentions clear enough... I'm not intending to insult or undermine the article here; I'm actually trying to improve the integrity of the article by a couple of small suggestions!... Yes Scotland is in the direction of NW Europe, but I was challenging the bold use of it, as varying (POV?) references that state it is otherwise. Hope it helps somewhat, however. 86.133.72.79 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are worrying unduly! WP:POV can't really be applied to basic facts. Some sources might say N Europe, some might say W Europe, and some might say NW Europe. Using one over the other 2 isn't POV in this case - we are simply better defining it's location than just broadly saying "North Europe". The issue doesn't have some vast historic baggage, controversy or "issues" attached to it (simple one to look at there would be is Israel a Middle Eastern or European country?) - Word usage in a case like that can lead down POV roads - but we have pretty open and shut case here. Scotland is in the continent of Europe (leave any political EU baggage aside - it is irrelevant to Scotland’s location), and is in the NW quadrant. SFC9394 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on you guys, Scotland must gotta be a Northern Europe territory,, we can correctly mention Iceland to as a North Western Territory.--Walter Humala 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The word territory can't really be applied to Europe as a continent. All the word NW defines is that if you stood in the "middle" of Europe (I am guessing in and around Hungary somewhere) then you can split the continent into four quadrants. Scotland, the UK, Iceland etc are all in the NW quadrant. SFC9394 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! I can't believe the placing of Scotland in Europe could be so controversial, I didn't realise directions could constitute a POV! We've got continental drift to blame for this discussion! So some official sources put us in northern Europe, others in western Europe, surely NW is a combination of the two? Globaltraveller 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Scotland is in the direction of NW Europe (from the centre of Europe), but does it (at a serious academic level) lie within a legally defined, and broadly agreed consensus that is a well known division of Europe? Furthermore, is it inline with Wikipedia:Verifiability-the cornerstone of our Encyclopedia? Mentions of Europe can actually be very controvertial as Europe is a socio-ethno-political construct, rather than a geological continent.

I'm certainly happy with opening sentence as it stands (with the division delinked); it seems a reasonable compromise to me (although others certainly have a right to challenge it on the same basis). There's no harm in challenging any statements in an article; as it should ultimately lead to the improvement of the content, it's part of Critical thinking and if we want this article to be the authority on Scotland, we should continue to do so. 86.133.72.79 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Do the Atlas Mountains which divide Europe and Asia not indicate that the two lands collided at one point? Regardless, we're not linking anything but Europe in that section. We're just saying that Scotland is not in the mediteranean, I think. Canæn 08:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean Ural mountains.137.138.46.155 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.^[1]
• Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[2]
• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.^[3]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.^[4]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • it is claimed
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[5]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 31 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dab header

I have reverted the article to include "This article is about the country. For other uses, see Scotland (disambiguation)" rather than the version Deeds-123 (talk • contribs) had added: "For an explanation of terms such as Scottish, Great Britain, British, United Kingdom and Scotland, see British Isles (terminology). For other uses, see Scotland (disambiguation)".

The disambiguation header is there to redirect viewers who have ended up at the wrong page. Somebody is not going to type in "Scotland" (or follow a link) expecting to get to an article about Britain the British Isles.

Please get consensus for any changes, we do not want to continue this edit war. Thanks/wangi 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with. Globaltraveller 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's bad enough having it on the UK article- people are not stupid. Astrotrain 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this is not the correct forum for discussing the UK article, I agree. That dab header on the UK article is an absolute eyesore, and, even worse, the article it points readers to is utterly appalling. Dab headers are for WP:Disambiguation, nothing else. They are not a repository for "See also" links. --Mais oui! 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The proportionally large amount of military bases in Scotland, when compared to other parts of the UK"

I believe this is incorrect. Using the figures given by the reference [2] I've worked out the ratio of MOD land to total land area for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These are 1.46%, 1.76%, 1.10% and 0.23% respectively. As for number of bases, I doubt there are more in Scotland. To take the RAF for example, there are many more bases in England. [3] Therefore it is wrong to say "large amount of military bases in Scotland, when compared to other parts of the UK". Mark83 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that the sentence is predicated on the assumption of population ie from the article Scotland has 31% of the UK's defence estate, despite having 9% of its population, ergo it is disproportionate to population (which is true) and probably what sentence was referring to. Globaltraveller 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin

Sorry, my computer keeps saving my changes when I am half-way through my edit summary - no idea whether I'm hitting some speed-key by mistake. Anyway, I wanted to say that Latin is not in use in Scotland as a language and therefore should not be under the languages-of-Scotland section. Scots law does use Latin tags, but no more than English law, and there is no reason to highlight these more than technical loan-words in any other field. What might be worth mentioning, though, is that the number of minority languages is growing. A report in the Herald last week said that over 50 languages are used in the playground of Shawlands Academy. --Doric Loon 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're like me it's hitting the return or enter keys. The question is, how do they pronounce the school name in 50 languages? A Liverpudlian pal from Thurso was going with a Glasgwegian chum on the blue train to visit that area, and was warned to watch out for the station name and be quick to head for the doors, but they had to rush as he didn't react to the station signs having been looking for ones that said "Shulns". ...dave souza, talk 21:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaps

I am the only one to notice the gaps in the history section of this article. It seems to jump from the 1370s to 1603- 300 years which include, among other things, the Scottish Reformation- although admittedly it's included in the Religion section. --Slackbuie 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, as I never tire of pointing out, but no-one ever responds, the History section is way too long as it is: that is what we have numerous subarticles for, esp. re. history. It is my opinion that we will never get this article up to FA status while it is miles over the length recommendation, with the key "culprit" being the History section (although Politics could do with a decent trim too). I do not feel sufficiently qualified to trim the History section myself, but the problem is that none of our numerous historians seems to want to tackle it. Summarising many hundreds of years of history into a few paragraphs is extremely hard, but we can do it well, I feel certain. (But I agree with your point: in many ways the pre-Union of the Crowns Stuart era is really the key period when Scotland became Scotland: it would be nice to give a tiny flavour of that to readers here on the main article.) --Mais oui! 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How long should the history section be? It is the tendency of the wiki to expand rather than contract. People feel comfortable adding new information or correcting existing information. It takes a strong conviction to delete sections and cut them out. Someone may feel more at ease making the cut if there was a consensus that the history section should be X many words. Then someone can work on the wording to meet that target. Rincewind42 10:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at shortening the history section. The waffle about the glaciation (as per pear review recommendations) and the bit at the end about post WWII industrial decline got the chop along with much of the wars of Independence. Also the new Parliament of 1998 is historical, but it's not yet history. I also added some missing periods that were neglected so as to make a comprehensive article. (the 16th C and 18th C were woefully poorly covered). The passage is still to heavy on the 13th/14th C. Overall I think I added as much as I cut. Swings and roundabouts, eh! Rincewind42 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size (again)

Leaving history aside, at 67kb this is a huge article and more text and images have been added to it (which is fair enough) but it is on top of an already big article. Apart from the history section what areas still need to be cut down or summarised a bit better? I notice, for example, in the peer review the view was that the Gallery of Images was largely redundant. Bottom line is, I think this is an excellent article and SHOULD absolutely be FA status (it would be a travesty if it didn't get there, soon). What do we still need to do (apart from cutting down some sections) to get there? Globaltraveller 10:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the feedback from the Wangi-requested Peer review was first class, but... we largely ignored it!?! It has been on my vast "to-do" list ever since to go back to it, and go through it line by line, implementing what those guys say. Needless to say: I ain't done it.

I think we could lick this article into shape for a shot at FA within a matter of days, if we all agree on the goal, and an outline plan for getting there. But I am slightly concerned that not everyone is on board for this effort, because:

1. we all, myself included, ignored the peer review recommendations! That was a very poor indicator. (proviso: there were some minor exceptions, eg. Globaltraveller referenced the "790 islands" bit and others)
2. every single time I have mentioned the fundamental size issue I have been ignored (up till now) or else contradicted (especially about the History bit, which seems to be a bit of a sacred cow)

So what is the story people? Do we really want to do this thing?

(I hate to see the Gallery of images go, but if it is a hindrance to FA: let's cut it for now, but keep the idea for possible future use, once the whole article has been cut back.) --Mais oui! 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should, I just hope others think so too ;-). I think the article is about 70/80% of the way there, as it stands I'll have a go at finding citations for things and standardising references anyway, but it needs lots of folk in their areas of expertise to help out! Come on people!!!! Globaltraveller 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG! This article is getting worse!!! We were so near to FA status, but in the last month we have gone only backwards. The article is now at a laughable 75kB. --Mais oui! 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick ideas:

• • Etymology can be split to its own article and a summary made.
  • History needs Mediaeval section reduced and balance to 19th and 20th C history, each subsection should link to its own main article.
  • Politics - needs to be summarised a lot more
  • Military - given undue attention, needs to be summarised more
  • Education - summarise more
  • Transport - again, summarise more
  • National symbols - could well move this completely to its own article?

/wangi 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that every one of your suggestions sounds eminently reasonable and sensible. The main reason that we have all these subsidiary articles ("Politics of ..."; "Economy of ...", "Transport of ..." etc.) is so that we can shuffle off all the detail to them, so that we do not overburden this main article.

Regarding your comment - "... balance to 19th and 20th C history" - I agree. In its coverage of Scottish history I consider that Wikipedia falls into an extremely common historiographical trap: we concentrate far too much on "old" history, and almost ignore "recent" history. There is a wealth of excellent, citable, academic material on Scotland in the 19th and 20th centuries, and yet our coverage of those topics is almost non-existent. Eg. witness the frankly embarrassing redlink: Scotland in the Modern Era, from Template:History of Scotland. --Mais oui! 21:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal burgh status

I believe it is still possible to apply for and get a royal burgh coat of arms. Wick Community Council (full title Royal Burgh of Wick Community Council) has such a coat of arms. Royal burgh status is very similar to city status (but, perhaps, at a lower ranking). However, burghs as defined by legislation for local government purposes were in deed abolished in 1975. Laurel Bush 15:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

I listed the community councils I could find, that use Royal burgh in their title in Royal burgh. Lord Lyon has allowed some of them to rematriculate the arms of the former royal burgh, sometimes with heraldic "differences", and always with one important change: the addition of the community council coronet in place of the old royal burgh mural crown. Lanark had the mural crown added to the shield for good measure. I have no idea if anyone can approve or dissaprove of a community council including "royal burgh" in its name. Lozleader 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just reading the entry on the arms of the Royal Burgh of Lanark Community Council in Urquhart's Scottish Civic Heraldry 2 (2001), it states that "the burghal coronet was included at the special request of the community council, as a reminder that Lanark had been a royal burgh." note tense. Some community councils use the royal burgh tag, some don't bother: For instance Dornoch Area Community Council, Dingwall Community Council, Forres Community Council, Forfar Community Council, all include former royal burghs, all received rematriculation of roal burgh arms. Lozleader 19:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the website of Scottish Borders Council talks about the "creation of Burgesses and Honorary Burgesses of former Royal Burghs and Burghs" [4] which would imply that some rights of the burgh charters passed to the new councils in 1975/96

The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 talks about "former burghs" [5] as does this order made in 2006 [6] The area councils administer "Common Good Funds" relating to "former burghs" [7] [8] [9] The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland mentions "former royal burghs" [10] [11] North Ayrshire council talk about the "former royal burgh of Irvine" [12], Highland Council about the "former royal burgh of Fortrose and Rosemarkie" [13], and Dumfries and Galloway refer to Sanquhar as a "former royal burgh" Lozleader 20:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Does look like former royal burgh is generally appropriate (but I guess some community councils might tend to disagree). Laurel Bush 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

Just noticed that there is a "City of Brechin and District Community Council": Brechin, however, does not have official city status. This seems to suggest that a community council can itself whatever it wants, and the use of "royal burgh" or "city" in its title does not imply any such status Lozleader 10:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is someone changed the rules. Perth, Elgin and Brechin used to be known as Cities. But quite recently, there was a review and the definition made tighter. In the past, there was no official recognition of what was and was not a city. It was a customary title. So recently, many places that were know as Cities were no longer officially recognised as such. Though they still carry the title in their names, they don't have the status in officialdom. A comparison might be taken with the hereditary piers who were removed form the house of lords a few years back. They do no have the authority and power of Lords any more, but they still can use the name Lord and you still have to call them Sir. Rincewind42 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for this claim? The change in custom that you describe as "recent" in actuality happened many decades ago for the case of England and Wales. Morwen - Talk 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well since we are talking history, "many decades ago," is recent. Especially when talking about cities like Perth that claim City status from time immorial (i.e. Perth was a city before Scotland was a country). But if you want one example of very recent, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/01/15950/15135

Each time the local government bounderies change, Cities have to re-apply. So the abolition of the district councils would mark one point, and the abolition of the Regions to form Local Council areas would be another time of review. The City status in the United Kingdom page has some more information. Including some interesting points about Glasgow and Edinburgh. They are royal burghs, but "city status has never been formally granted". I don't have a referance for that, only the other wiki page. It's a difficult one to research, you can't proove "never".Rincewind42 11:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nation

Surely the Scottish are a nation, whereas Scotland is a country (or whatever division is deemed appropriate in this instance - division, constituent part etc). Jhamez84 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Schools of Scotland by Anthony J. C. Kerr - 1962 - Page 7

"...fought to ensure that Scotland should endure for all time as a Nation and not..."

Scotland: The Story of a Nation By Magnus Magnusson - Title page, Page 2 and others e.g.

"Edinburgh Castle, at the heart of what became the nation of Scotland..."

There are numerous other examples of the nation of Scotland rather than the Scottish Nation. So in common use, Scotland is a nation. --unsigned

No, not surely. Every defenition of Nation I've ever read is sure to include a mention of a homeland. Yes, the Scottish people are an integral part of the Nation, but the Nation of Scotland, the Scottish Nation, are one and the same, and Scotland is not simply the land which the Scottish occupy. Canæn 01:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely the problem with everyday definitions and why a place like Wikipedia is so important. The concept of "nation" came to be because France and ( at the time) England had a culturally distinct population of people that resided within a definite territory and had a sense of identity. This concept did not exist before ( Rome, Athens, etc were not "nations".This gave birth to the "nation-state"- a non-technical non-legal term used to describe every state, of which very few qualify.

So based on the last two comments, did the Scottish nation cease to exist once it was subsumed with the UK? NO. Nor will the Scottish nation ease to exist if Scotland (as a territory) does. The national identity resides in the people, not the territory. There are plenty of national groups that are "homeless" and do not have a legal terriroty ( Kurds, Saami, etc.)Gary Joseph 03:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

RTFQ - The question is the first post was not asking whither or not there is or was a "Scottish nation" or "Scotland the nation". It's a question of format of words not a question of existance. In the first sentence of the article, "Scotland is a Nation..." should technically be "The Scottish are a nation..." or "The Scots are a nation...".

Scotland is the noun and Scottish and Scots are the adjectives. However it is common, as shown with the referances above, to use Scotland in place of Scottish when talking about the nation. So Scotland, Scottish, Scots; any of these forms would be accepted.Rincewind42 08:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First, my response dealt with format, not existence. I only used that to show the invalidity of the current format (which you deemed acceptable. Secondly, my response was directed to Canaen's comments. So screw you. Respectfully...Gary Joseph 01:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Rincewind42 is right - as someone who is unlucky enough to be an Anglo-Scot, I naturally recognise the divine stateship of these two destinct regions/countries. Scotland exists just as England does (...of course). What I'm more concerned about is the Scottish looking rather foolish in global terms when the opening line is (rightly or wrongly) inaccurate. No other country based article (I can find) adopts this method of calling their soil as their nation.

As for the quotes, referring to Scotland directly as a nation is just as inaccurate. The word nation means the people who occupy the land.[14]

Just to make it absolutely clear here, my motivations are to improve the article as a definitive encyclopedia article on Scotland, so it is absolutely watertight. I'm not challenging whether Scotland exists or not or all that kind of non-sense. So with respect, can this line be changed? Jhamez84 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

scotland is not as country though so what do you suggest we call it?

[edit] Health

Given the fact that Scotland is considered "The sick man" of Europe and leads the continent (and often the world) in various different cancers, heart conditions and debilitating illnesses - isn't that at least worth some kind of mention?

Yes, it is probably notable enough to merit a brief mention here in the main article, although I am pretty sure that it derves a more comprehensive treatment in one of the sub-articles. Hard to know where though? No country has a "Health in foo" subarticle (as far as I am aware), but several do have a "Healthcare in foo". We probably ought to start up our Healthcare in Scotland article pretty soon anyway. Only obvious alternative is the Demographics of Scotland article, which has a Social problems section. Feel free to add some sourced material to that section, re. health stats, and a brief mention in this main article (please apply WP:CITE); or, if you are feeling dead keen, please start up the full Healthcare in Scotland article! Cheers. --Mais oui! 14:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Why do you need a consitutition in order to have an official language? Surely the monarchy can declare anything "official"? Malathos 17:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I argree. The line "Since the United Kingdom lacks a codified constitution, there is no official language." is nonsence. The UK does have a constitution - it's metioned three times in the politial section of this page. Also it is codified. It is the enitre acts of parliarment writen over hundereds of years form the codification of our constitution. What the UK lacks is a single document that can be pointed at as "The Constitution"; but that does not mean there is no constitution or codified or otherwise.

A better sentance would be "The Scottish Parliarment has not set and official language for the country." But that's a bit woolly as the Parliarment hasn't done alot of things. Better just state that "There is no official language." We don't need to concoct a reason why, it's just a fact that there is no official language. There doesn't have to be a reason. Rincewind42 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that the United Kingdom does not have an official language and lacks a codified constitution precisley because there is no "The Constitution" document in which it is formally codified. English is clearly the dominant language in de facto terms, however. Benarty 08:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The is not complaint over "[In the UK...]there is no official language." that is true. There is a minor nit pick about "the United Kingdom lacks a codified constitution" should realy be "the United Kingdom lacks single a codified constitution document". Ther is a big no way hosey about the word "Since". The word since is wrong. One is not dependant on the other.

Lastly, who cares about the UK, lets cut the line and start with "Scotland has three officially recognised languages: English, Scottish Gaelic and Scots. De facto English is the main language, and almost all Scots speak Scottish Standard English." The bit about the UK is only trivia on the Scotland page. Rincewind42 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The UK is highly relevant in this context, because Scotland is only a devolved part of a larger sovereign state. Although many would prefer that were not the case this basic constitutional fact has to be acknowledged throughout this wikipedia entry if a NPOV is to be achieved. It was the UK that signed on to the EU's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages after all because only EU member states can do that not constitutional regions like Scotland, Flanders and Wallonia etc. Benarty 01:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S or Z

There is repeated reversions of the spellings of the words "recognised" and "Civilisation". Is the general consensus that English English or Scottish English is the language of this page and not American English or other dilates? Hense the spelling should be with a S not a Z. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rincewind42 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 4 November 2006.

There is a general consensus that English English should be applied to any articles which deal with European topics. However, you will find that Americanisation of spellings is fairly common throughout Wikipedia, probably more due to ignorance than malice. In Europe we are very familiar with US spellings, but it would seem that many, many American readers simply are not aware that other parts of the planet do things differently. Eg. you will not find random IP addresses changing "ize" to "ise" in US-related articles!

In articles about English-speaking countries other than England itself (eg. Scotland, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, Jamaica etc) it is accepted that vocab, grammer etc of the standard national variants of the English language may be used. Thus we can use "outwith" in Scottish articles if we like, because it is an accepted element of Scottish Standard English, but we need to maintain an academic tone, so slang should be avoided.

(Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.) --Mais oui! 11:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wha daur meddle wi me

(Originally posted at Talk:Mais oui!)

This is not the motto of Scotland. It is the motto of the Black Watch Regiment. I cite your own source.

'It is perhaps inevitable that during the last three centuries of bludgeoning Britain's foes the Black Watch has... ...Their motto is Nemo me impune lacessit - which translates as, "touch me not with impunity," or more commonly, "wha daur meddle wi' me".', [The Daily Telegraph, 25 October 2004]

More research needs to be done.

Besides, the Scots translation should be on the [Scots Language version of Wikipedia], not the English language version. We don't have the Gaelic translation of the Latin either. The Scots language version gives a slightly different translation too: "Naebodie chaws me wi impunity" which would be closer to the Latin. Though not referenced. Rincewind42 12:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... you really are splitting hairs there!!! The Black Watch uses the motto of Scotland and Scotland uses the motto of the Black Watch: they are identical, inseperable and one and the very same thing!

I thoroughly agree when you say "more research needs to be done", however there is zero doubt that "Wha daur meddle wi me" is the standard traditional rendition in Scots (there does not appear to be a single traditional standard rendition in either Gaelic or English - just modern translations, which vary quite a bit, as translations of any phrase/expression tend to do). Google gives 513 exact hits, and 1490 general hits.

Incidentally, you cannot cite Wikipedia (of any language edition) as a source, per WP:CITE. Lots and lots of things "should be on" the Scots language edition of Wikipedia, as I am absolutely certain that User:Derek Ross and User:Mendor will confirm! - but that is a different issue. :) --Mais oui! 12:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did not cite Wikipedia as the source to an fact in an article. I pointed to a Wikipedia page as a source of additional information. There is a big difference. Citing other wiki pages as sources of addition information of the same or related topics is encouraged and commonplace.

While it might be obvious to you or I, being Native Scots, that the Black Watch and Scotland are very closely connected; It is not, however, obvious to a non expert. So the reference you cited is not valid.

Here is one source that backs up the use of "Wha daur..." as a "freely translated" Motto of Scotland.

Memoirs of Sir Robert Strange, Knt., Engraver ... and of His Brother-in-law, Andrew Lumisden ... - by James Dennistoun - Published 1855 - See page Page 269: 'The old heraldic motto which Scotland inscribed around her prickly thistle, — “Nemo me impune lacessit,” which has been freely translated, “Wha daur meddle wi' me ?”.'

Many other references to the phrase are in connection to an old Borders poem which is contemporary with the above.

Wha daur meddle wi' me?

And wha daur meddle wi' me?

My name is Little Jock Elleot.

And wha daur meddle wi' me?

As for sources of the alternative translation - there are non that I have found. I must, however, muddy the water still further as I did find reference to yet another variation of the motto translation into Scots tongue.

British Phænogamous Botany; by William Baxter 1843 on page says that 'The motto used by the Knights of the thistle, or of St. Andrew, is particularly appropriate to their floral badge, Nemo me impune lacessit; " No one touches me with impunity;" or in plain Scots, "Ye maunt meddle wi' me." See The Nat. Poetical Companion, p.p. 64 & 272.'

But the correct translation into Scots is irrelevant on the English language page. This page should have the motto, in Latin, since that is the motto. Next it should follow with a translation into English for the English language version of wikipedia. Rincewind42 14:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"'Ye maunt meddle wi' me." Should that perhaps be Ye maunna meddle wi me? 84.135.222.194 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the English Wikipedia should first and foremost have English translations on it. In fact take a look at Talk:Doric dialect (Scotland) for a case where I remonstrate with someone who thinks otherwise. However I think that there s a slight case for adding the Scots translation here based on the fact that English-speakers may come across it in English language publications. It's a similar case to Auld Lang Syne in that it may not be English but it is part of the common culture of the English-speaking world and so deserves mention in an English-language encyclopedia. Having said that it's just a slight case and I don't feel like pressing it against all odds, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you unwilling to "do or die" Derek?

Personally it seems pretty clear cut that it should be included, for the same reasons that the Gaelic name Alba is given in the intro. Although I am almost entitled to copyright the "pressing it against all odds"-methodology here at Wikipedia, I am going through a sustained phase of "couldn't give a toss", so I advise that we just use common sense. --Mais oui! 20:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Scots version should be included. See [15] if you want further independent verification (from Australia). This states "In Latin this is ‘Nemo me impune lacessit’ which translates as ‘No one attacks me with impunity’. The Scots have a stronger way of putting it ‘Wha daur meddle wi me’..." whilst also noting that it is the motto of the Order of the Thistle too. Arguing that a well-known Scots phrase should only appear on a specialist Scots language site is akin to arguing that 'deja vu' belongs in a French dictionary or that quotations from Chaucer should be limited to the forthcoming medieval saxon language wikipedia. Ben MacDui 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Do or Die ? I think I'm already "done". That Yoghurt's not as good for you as it's cracked up to be, <grin>. Derek Ross | Talk 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A yoghurt's a yogurt for a' that.<grin> Ben MacDui 12:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Linguistically Scots is English so there shouldn't be any problem including it in an English Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect. 84.135.222.194 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Linguistically, Scots is a distinct Germanic language which grew out of Middle English, and resembles Danish more closely than it does English. Canæn 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that Scots is more closely related to English and Frisian than it is to any of the North Germanic languages, although as a student of Swedish (and to a far lesser extent Danish and Norwegian) I never cease to be amazed at the common vocabulary, and even expressions, verb conjugation, pronunciation etc., with Scots - I come across new examples frequently. Ages ago I started compiling a word/expressions list, but I found too many examples that I couldn't keep up. From what I have learnt, it does appear that Norwegian is the NG lang with most common vocab with Scots, followed by Danish, then Swedish. This of course should not surprise students of history. It seems to be a common misinterpretation that we inherited words like bairn from the vikings, but I strongly suspect that it comes from an older common Germanic root. Eg, how on earth could we have inherited the word kirk from the pagan vikings, when we were converted centuries before they even arrived? Far more likely that they took that word from us, or we both took it from the Germans. (Kirk actually derives from the Greek κυριακόν, but variants of kirk are used in nearly all Germanic languages.) One word that the Swedes definitely got from us is pläd, from the Scots plaid. --Mais oui! 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I say Danish, because somewhere there's a research paper some student put together, which compared English, Scots, and Danish. He came to that conclusion; I've never actually studied any of the north Germanic languages myself. I'll see if I can find that link; you might be interested in it. Canæn 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this isn't it, but it does make similar comparisons vocabulary-wise. Canæn 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the sentence In the North of Europe there is a family of languages all of which bear certain resemblances to one another. English is closest, if you decided that Scots not part of English. Such "Danish" influence can be found in northern varieties of English (Northumbria, Yorkshire, Cumbria) are they now no longer English?

84.135.245.188 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention that "Wha daur meddle wi me" is not a direct translation into Scots. It's what's used, but it's not a direct translation. A direct translation would be that used on the Scots wikipedia, "Naebodie chaws me wi impunity." "Who dare meddle with me?" would be the english version of "Wha daur meddle wi me." Anyway, I hope most of you knew that, just pointin' it out. Canæn 19:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well at least Canaen gets it. "Wha daur meddle wi me." might be the popular rendition, but it's not the translation. Anyone reading Latin would spot difference. Where as the English is a actual translation. I've found quite allot about the phrase "Wha daur meddle wi me." If I have time someday I'll do a quick article on it, though I'm no expert in heraldry.

Broadly, with the current wording using rendered in Scots as apposed to the previous, translated, I can live with it. I'd prefer the English translation went before the rendition. Not cause of any Angelic tendencies, but because it is a translation of the actual Latin. I also think we should find a better reference. The current one points to a page about the Blackwatch who's motto is the same as the Scottish motto. But it is not, as Mais oui! thinks obvious that the link exists. Why would an outsider assume the Blackwatch's Motto to be also the Motto of Scotland. The reference need to state Scotland, not imply Scotland. Rincewind42 15:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lede section problems

I've nothing factually against the current lead section. However, it's not really up to mustard. Problems that were highlighted in the Peer review still exist. The text is trying to be overly detailed and precise. Trying to prove the facts in the lead rather. The lead is supposed to be a summery of the rest of the article. It's not supposed to contain more detail than the article. At the same time it must be comprehensive, covering all the topics.

For example, the first paragraph deals mainly with Geography. The country is defined as "It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest." That seems rather precise and detailed for a summery. I checked the Geography section, it's says "Scotland lies between the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea." This is a much more general statement than the lead. Things are back to front. I'd suggest a simplification for the lead to say just "Surrounded by sea on three sides, Scotland shares it's Southern land boundary with England." The precise details of which seas are were should be left to the detailed Geography section.

I pick only one example, but the general theme of too much detail and lack of comprehensive coverage continues throughout the rest of the section. Some work needs done here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rincewind42 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 November 2006.

I think there could be a few minor amendments to the lead section, as it is, I don't think the problems are anywhere near as significant as you suggest. There are a few weasel words in it, that need to be dealt with - "approximately" and "consist of a large sector....) Largely the lead section is stable, and has taken a long time to get that way, it covers elements of history, geography, demographics, etymology and culture, as the peer review suggests it should and the over emphasis on the Military aspects has been dealt with. With respect to your criticism of the Geography paragraph being too specific - I don't think it is compared to the Geography section, which goes into more detail than the lead. If you look at the lead sections of the Libya and Australia pages (both Featured Articles) they seem fairly comprehensive in defining the countries and their boundaries and no/more or less so than we have on this article. Thanks Globaltraveller 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

This section points to Politics of Scotland as the main article which in turn refers the reader to Scottish Parliament, so, is there not scope for reducing the size of the Politics section in this article? (I'm not volunteering to re-write it, mind you!)--Billreid 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the oposite. Why should Politics of Scotland equate only to the Scottish Pariarment. An article on or section on Politics should be comprehensive and cover Scotlands representation in the UK and also EU parliaments. It would also make some metion of the local government level and community councils. There is currently too much emphasis on just one area of politics. Rincewind42 13:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the two links above take you to all of the information that the Politics section covers in the Scotland article (including the local goverment information) --Billreid 15:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Border country, a hive of scum and villainy

Border country currently contains the line "This made the Borders into a hive of thieves, outlaws, robbers, cattle plunderers, and the like." - 201.51.221.66 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed re-draft of Scotland: Geography sub-section

I have created a proposed revision for the Geography sub-section of the Scotland page at User:Ben MacDui/Scotland/Geography redraft. Constructive comments are welcome on the associated Talk page. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A-Class" and delisting GA

I'm sorry, this article is not an A class. The citations are diabolical. "The North British Review. By Allan Freer: Page 119. Scotland Under Her Early Kings: a history of the kingdom to the close of the thirteenth century. By Eben William Robertson: Page 286." Is this some new citation system I haven't heard about? What am I supposed to look up? The history section too is completely beyond help. The funniest thing is, someone cited "The Spottiswoode Miscellany: a collection of original papers and tracts, illustrative chiefly of the Civic and Ecclesiastical history of Scotland. By James Maidment - 1844: Page 444 to 445." What I find hard to believe is not so much that someone would cite a 17th century clerical source reprinted in the early 19th century about the obscure events of the 10th century, but that such a work was apparently easier to get hold of than a modern recent modern historiographical monograph. That aside, almost every sentence of the first two paragraphs of the medieval section constitutes complete nonsense. The second and fourth sentences of paragraph three are likewise highly dubious. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, on GA, the article fails abysmally with regard to Wikipedia:What is a good article?, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), and 5. In particular, the history and etymology sections are full of nonsense. The article has a lot in it which is good otherwise, so I'm not going to delist it immediately. However, if its other problems aren't fixed, it has to be delisted as a GA. One might even suggest that the article's inherent lack of stability should keep it away from GA categorization entirely. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree. My specific comments on the geography section are available at the above-mentioned location. I am not an historian, but the imbalances in this section are surely obvious to the most casual of readers. I can see that attempting to steward a busy page which attracts unhelpful attention is likely to be a wearisome task, but surly other such pages must have similar problems without the same end result - or are we simply a nation of anarchists? Forgive me if I am being naive, but is it impossible to imagine a general consensus around the number and size of headings and having a few committed volunteers who would patrol the sections? Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before (see above) and the history and etymology sections were shown to let the article down, even then. I agree they are worse now, than they were. Could we not go back to the original situation such as here a few months ago when the history and etymology sections were at the stage they had been for some considerable time up to that point - and work from there? That I think removes this unnecessary tagging nonsense that we now have. There was a drive to try and improve this article, but there was absolutely no interest, which is ashame because the article seems to have regressed. It needs people to look into specific sections to try and improve them. We need people to look at the history section to try and make it more concise, probably the same with the National Symbols section and politics section. I've been trying to do the same with the Economy section (see User:Globaltraveller/Economy_of_Scotland. Any improvement in an article of such varied scope like this needs a structure and it needs volunteers. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that both the history and etymology sections were completely rewritten (badly) by a newbie about a month ago. Like a lot of other recent (within last month) changes to this article they ought to be comprehensively restored. Sorry, but I have had real life commitments and Wikipedia has been on the backburner. We should just comprehensively restore the long-standing pre-newbified versions. --Mais oui! 20:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK – encouraged by Angus McLellan’s boldness I will attempt to upload the new geography section asap (not tonight). I might attempt to incorporate Climate in it and call it “Geography and Natural History” or something along those lines. This will lose a little, but not much text in terms of size (excluding references). I’d be happy to have a go at patrolling this section and preventing it getting larger. If Globaltraveller can do the same for Economy, then that is at least a start. Suggestion for some rules of engagement:

• edits which do not provide references or edit comments zapped on sight.

• edits which make the text significantly larger removed with a request to discuss the matter on the Talk page, indicating which text the editor would like to be replaced to allow the new text.

If anyone can provide an estimate of how much text should ideally go as a gross percentage for each section I’d be happy to see what adjustments can be made (to the Geography section).

However if there are going to be systematic reversions I will wait a few days before doing so. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm all in favour. Incremental changes aren't getting anywhere, and the drafts you and Globaltraveller have prepared are already a huge improvement. I know Mais oui! has some ideas on size, perhaps a bit too ambitious as slimming programmes go, but it's not as if large articles can't be featured. Featured articles don't need to be perfect, there's a chance to fix things during the review. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The geography etc. re-draft is complete. Apologies if language and religion are uncomfortable sharing with shinty and haggis, but I suspect the only way to keep coherence is to have fewer larger sections patrolled by volunteers. More asap on this front. The changes added 2kb, although I suspect a fair chunk of that was references. Nonetheless I will resist the the temptation to add a picture of a golden eagle or similar. I will also resist the urge to start 'fixing' elsewhere. I am neglecting the islands. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a slimmed down economy section. I'm a bit concerned about image placing, so I got rid of one of the two images in the Education section, and one in the Economy section. But I'm not really sure. There's lots still to do. Help!!! Anyone? Thanks Globaltraveller 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It's now 73kb and falling. Is there any reason not to go with Mais Oui!'s suggestion re the history section revert? Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely none from me, but reverting back probably will raise the article size back up again, which is not a problem, if it is :something that is going to be worked on and reduced. Another problem I have is the Culture section, it's too big, far too big. The :culture section on the Australia article includes sport and is tiny in comparison. Do we really need a section on cuisine and :media? Do we really need a section on Transport? The India, Australia, Canada and Libya are featured, and are the :best country articles on Wikipedia, their size and scope is something we should be using as a template? Globaltraveller 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada has a wonderful 'See also' section which I lack the skill to create but this might solve a lot of problems. I was considering creating a simple 'See also' heading and moving Transport there. However, I now see Transport in Scotland has such a 'see also' section based on Template:Scottish topics. Is there any reason not to use this? Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

History reverted per Mais oui!'s suggestion. 72kb and falling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben MacDui (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Continues below:- Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland article: Proposed Policy WDMWU1

I will attempt to keep the geography section clear of additions and vandalism per the above discussion – embellished below – and I encourage volunteers to come forward to do likewise elsewhere and/or to assist with one or more geography sub-sections.

Proposed Policy

Many Scottish Wikipedians believe that this article has become too long and unwieldy. Minor edits which improve punctuation, syntax, accuracy and references are welcome in this section/article. If you wish to add new material please refer the matter to the Talk page.

Edits which increase the length of the article may be reverted unless suitable discussion of the proposed new content has taken place on the Talk page that reaches agreement as to which text is to be replaced to allow the new text.

Edits which do not provide references or edit comments are likely to be reverted without warning or explanation. <ends>.

I am tempted to put part of this as hidden text in the Geography section. This is possibly in breach of umpteen well-meaning policies and guidelines, but may not be necessary. We shall see. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is not for you to decide who can edit unprotected articles. Your proposed policy goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia. Astrotrain 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but edits which don't improve the article (like the anon user(s) who like(s) to add the perhaps-true-but-not-very-worthy-of-inclusion claim that there are more redheads in Scotland than anywhere else) can be removed. Most edits are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Only bold editing is going to get this article to featured quality. That includes being bold in reverting unhelpful additions. Economy doesn't look like there's much fat in it, so do you fancy taking a chainsaw to Education ? It paints a rather flattering picture of early education, perhaps best dealt with by spending less time on it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between reverting an anon who has added something irrelevant, to reverting an established user and leaving a rather rude message on their talk page saying they can only add things to the article if they discuss it here first! Perhaps I could see his point if I made a major edit, but not the adding of one link and a small sentence! Astrotrain 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I understood the idea of Wikipedia was to produce a quality encyclopedia. This requires colloboration rather than anarchy. I am sorry if you, (Astrotrain) felt the message was rude. It was my intention to be clear. If edits are unhelpful they should be removed. There are tens of thousands of facts about Scotland not on this page, and the key question is - what is relevant? Ben MacDui (Talk) 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. And please read the Manual of Style to see how your section should be correctly formatted. --82.26.178.54 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN is irrelevant here; the issue is the article as a whole and no one editor's contributions. There is a consensus that the article should be revised to reach the feature article criteria (as all articles should, ideally). If you feel any part of the article is need of tender loving care, please feel free to change it to meet the MoS guidelines. Anyone can edit, just so long as the edits are for the better. In this case, significantly adding to the length would hardly be an improvement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that declaring some kind of single-article policy is a good idea. The concept of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not create a store of information which is controlled by a few editors. Yes, some things may be irrelevant to this article, but it is quite short-sighted of us to declare that our Geography section could do with no improvement, even to call it perfect. I think that rather wasting our time trying to stop people from adding new material, we should work on what actually needs working on to get this article up to FA status. Yes, it requires more work, but construction is always better than destruction. Well, in most cases, anyway. Canæn 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is suggesting there should be no changes or improvements. The implication is simply that if anyone can suggest any that they would ideally receive some sort of support for making them first. Higher up the page, we have a suggestion that Transport should be removed. It sat there for several days without disapproval, so I removed it. This was then reverted. Is the only way to resolve the situation a childish edit war? If not what? I am suggesting some sort of collective resolve to improve the article which is still little better than a dodgy undergraduate essay at present. This requires a level of committment and a consistency of approach that may be difficult, but surely not impossible to achieve. I notice other articles with signs on the Talk page stating 'please help improve these sections'. Personally, I very much doubt I'd start adding other 'improvements' without having a clear understanding of what the regular editors are trying to achieve. (Continues below.) Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] £1 bank notes

Jersey also issues its own £1 bank notes. Scotland is not unique in this regard -Jon 07/12/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.183.58 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

• Jersey is not a part of the UK and does not use sterling, rather using the Jersey pound Astrotrain 15:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • the Jersey pound is not a separate currency but is an issue of banknotes and coins by the States of Jersey denominated in pound sterling, in a similar way to the banknotes issued in Scotland and Northern Ireland --Bob 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article Review this article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status

Saw some talk above about delisting this article, but didn't see a clear notification of listing.

SEE Good article Review] this article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status.

--Ling.Nut 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing Improvements?

A friend recommended some spectacles and I now see that there is of course a cunningly concealed 'Topics in Scotland' box (see above). I added 'Transport' to it and deleted the article section. 69kb and falling. Does anyone think the 'References' section in its current guise contributes anything of value? If not it is next for the chop. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored Transport section as it is common for this to be in a country section. I would suggest cutting Military as it serves no purpose for a non sovereign entity. Astrotrain 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguably the military section is too wordy, but with the best will in the world Astrotrain, it is hard to interpret the above as anything other than either an extraordinary lack of knowledge of modern Scotland, or a calculated insult. I am beginning to suspect you are a covert SNP activist trying to whip us all into a lather of self-righteous nationalism. Views anyone? - on transport and military I mean, not political affiliations. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Time for a nice cup of tea and a Tunnocks Tea Cake. I'm not any sort of covert activist, but I'm perfectly capable of seeing there's a case to be made for not having a military section. On balance, seeing as Scotland has most of Britian's nuclear bombs, I'd argue for keeping it, but I don't need to accuse people of things in order to make the case. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping both but only with as short an intro paragraph as possible and let the Main article: pointer do its job — Bill Reid | Talk 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I have a Caramel Wafer instead, please ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Broadly I would be in favour of keeping the military and transport sections (less so the Transport section). What needs the most work is the Culture section and all its subsections - it is HUGE, and a major drawback. I would say the media and cuisine sub-sections definitely need the chop, and the rest of the subsections put into one. Globaltraveller 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on Culture needing more improvement than other sections. There's not much there. Canæn 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey boys, guess what? Deleting valid content does not equal improvement. Instead of simply removing good content, why do we not focus our talents on improving our article's content? When was the last time anyone put the article up for FA status? Do we actually need to be cutting down our article? I believe we've all become too focused on how many KB our article is in length. Guess what? Low KB does not equal FA status. Get over it, and lets make the article decent. Canæn 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the problem is that over a few weeks or months up until about the beginning of December the quality of the article had been dropping. It was a Good Article and it is now up for deletion as such. In its state at the time I have no dispute with that. I am not in favour of cutting out information purely for the sake of FA status but in my view there is still a good deal of information in it that is extraneous and I am very happy to support proposed quality improvements. (See for example below). I note that no-one has queried the idea of removing the rump of the 'References', so off with its head. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is still some irrelevant stuff in some of the sections, that doesn't focus on the main points, and the text could be rationalised in a lot of areas, and all of that will help cut the size. Globaltraveller 10:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing Improvements II - The Culture Section

I've made an attempt at trying to reduce the unwieldy culture section into one, along the lines of similar sections on other articles, here: User:Globaltraveller/Sandbox/Culture I did however chop the Cuisine section in my attempts to amalgamate all the other sections. Could people take a look and see what they think? Also in doing that I laid to the side the Religion and Language section. Perhaps they could be fitted in elsewhere in the article? I'd be grateful if people could take a look and see what they think and/or edit bits if they want. Thanks Globaltraveller 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it looks good- although I would suggest continuing to use subheaders to break up the text. Astrotrain 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Hmmm, that's the problem, I don't. I think the subheaders (a) take up too much space and are unsightly in such a short space. I've tried to provide links to the relevant links, in the text, to the sub-articles where possible. I notice most other country articles do this, as opposed to having subheaders. Adding in this Culture section as is, cuts the article down to below 70kB as well Globaltraveller 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • It think its a huge improvement. I have a couple of suggestions re the opening sentence or two and one or two other tweaks, but I won't get a chance to be more specific until the weekend. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)