Talk:Cunninghamhead, Perceton and Annick Lodge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Scotland
 Cunninghamhead, Perceton and Annick Lodge 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.
Scotland Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:

This is a great page, but I notice that a lot of the references are 'personal communication'. Is this actually accepted as a legitimate source of information?? Dreamer84 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Removal of irrelevant information

I have moved a lot of the information on this page to seperate pages at Drybridge, Cunninghamhead Castle, Perceton and Auchenharvie Castle. Although this article is very informative, a lot of it is completely pointless and has very tedious links to Cunninghamhead at best (like the gallery of photos of Dalgarven Mill). It's also rather long so I'm trying to split it up where appropriate. I think that just because someone from Cunninghamhead owned a building or piece of land in Ayrshire for a certain amount of time doesn't mean the entire history of said building or piece of land should be documented in this article! - Dreamer84 00:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The point of this article

Okay, a decision really needs to be made about this article. Received a message about it from a concerned user who I entirely agree with. It seems to have lost it's original focus and is now seemingly a bunch of loosely connected things stuck together. The information is great, and I appreciate the amount of effor that's gone into this page, it's just that most of it could easily be split up into half a dozen much more manageable articles. This article should be about Cunninghamhead, and generally Cunninghamhead only. Annick Lodge could easily get it's own article. The information on the 'Lands of Perceton' is on the Perceton article and doesn't need to be here as well. 'Personal communication' as far as I know isn't a valid former of reference and should really be removed. There really is virtually nothing here about the actual village of Cunninghamhead. Thoughts anyone whos reading? I'd prefer discussion so something can be worked out rather than editing wars! - Dreamer84 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of excellent information in this article, however I do not think it should have replaced the previous Cunninghamhead article. I propose that it is broken down into a number of smaller articles namely:-
  • Overview Article of the Ancient Lands of Cunninghame
  • The Lands of Perceton
  • Annick Lodge and Estate
  • The various farms and how they link - a map would be helpful to put this into context.
  • The various mills
The Darien Affair should be included (or at least linked to) the Darién scheme.
Coal Mining, Railways and other Industries could be incorporated into the article about Cunninghamhead railway station
The challenge here is to enusre that the correct references are located with the correct articles. As a starter, I suggest that the REDIRECT is removed and an article specifically about Cunninghamhead is written that is linked from this article. Stewart 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The Dalgarven Mill photographs were a mistake. I 'copy and change' a lot to save all the typing and forgot to put in the new gallery for Cunninghamhead.
This is a local history article and what may be tedious to one person is quite fascinating to another. Can you moderate your language so as not to offend 'local historians' - many of whom have made contributions.
The point of the article is to start from the ancient history of the area of Cunninghame - in this context the change from a land owning minority to the present day does not deserve any social criticism of the structure of the article.
I thought that Wikipedia had a system of discussion before wholesale chopping up by one contributor. Isn't it vandalism otherwise.
Local history has an inevitable oral aspect to it. Personal communication means 'oral history' collected and recorded. Does Wiki have a formal way of doing this? Rosser1954
Rosser, your claim that I haven't been trying to discuss this is unfair, as you can see I left the first message on this page nearly three weeks ago, I have been attempting to discuss things but had no replies. I left another message here (the above one) when I created a couple of seperate pages for Auchenharvie Castle etc, but again, there were no replies, and instead most of my edits were reverted without discussion. This is what lead me to having to take a so called 'tactless' attitude to get attention (and obviously it worked!). I have mentioned more than once that this is a great page and that a lot of work has gone into this page, I merely think it would be better split up into different pages for easier reading.
The 'oral history' sounds like original research and is sadly forbidden by Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research for more information. It might not be though, you'd really need to give more information on who the people giving the information are. Also see Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith before implying that I'm vandalising.
It's not my intention to cause offense, this is nothing personal against anyone and I'm sorry if that's how you've taken it. --Dreamer84 14:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of info here, unfortunately it does seem a bit overwhelming with the sheer amount. Douglasnicol 19:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An aside

Since there seems to be some ardent local historians round about here, can anyone tell me when the last coal mines closed in the Cunninghamehead and the modern Bourtreehill area. The reason I ask is that the main article on Dreghorn mentions that coal mines closed around the late 70's to early 80's. Bourtreehill and Broomlands were built near the site of many old mines, and the area near Standalane was also originally part of the building plan for Bourtreehill, but due to heavy mine workings there, it was deemed unsafe. Douglasnicol 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Cunninghamhead article

Following the discussion above where the general view is this article is too long, and given that instead of being trimmed down even MORE stuff has been added to this page in the past week, I am now going to start trimming down the page. I have created a new Cunninghamhead article, replacing the redirect to here with an extremely basic stub article about the village itself. Until we figure out exactly what should go where, I'm going to carry out the following 'moves', based on suggestions above:

--Dreamer84 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I've now done all of the above. I also moved some information to the new Cunninghamhead article for some background, moved information on the Annick Water to Annick Water, and I also renamed The Lands of Cunninghamhead to Cunninghamhead Estate for better distinction. It'll all need to be gone over with a fine comb to make sure everything flows in their new pages. The information on Bourtreehill Estate could very easily be combined with the information on Bourtreehill House in my opinion. Just need a new name for this article, though that depends what's going to happen to the farm sections. Should they have their own page too? Any thoughts on where to go from here? Or disagreements with what I've done so far? --Dreamer84 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What a Mess

Anyone interested in local history now has a bewildering collection of part articles and would have to be very patient and very lucky to get the full picture. Why did it matter if the article was big? Does anyone ever read all of an article? You dip in and read what you want, someone else will read other sections. I have tried to improve the titles, put in essential links, etc. Some are now stubs - what an irony! Why do people interested in railways want to cut up someone elses local history article? Pick up a history book and have a look - they don't bits going off a tangents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs)

Rosser, if I want to, for example find out information on Annick Lodge, I would expect to find it on a page called 'Annick Lodge', not buried on a page about Cunninghamhead! See Wikipedia:Article size for information on the size of articles. IMO other pages such as Corsehill, Lainshaw, Robertland and Dunlop are all far too long as well but an admin or someone be the judge of that, I'm not going near them with a bargepole after the hassle this one is causing! To my knowledge this is an encyclopedia, not an essay database, not a history book (and its not a dictionary, so your list of definitions doesn't belong here either), and Cunninghamhead should have its own encyclopedic article called 'Cunninghamhead' that explains what the village is, just like every other town/village in North Ayrshire already has, and doesn't go into the depths and history of every single farm in the surrounding area: that can be saved for another page, i.e. this one, once it gets cleaned up a bit, the one thing I do agree on is its a mess right now :).
From your writings I understand Crossroads to be an early name for Cunninghamhead, so it doesn't need to be in the title as it's explained in the article as part of the background of Cunninghamhead (but if it isn't then it should have its own page and be made clearer). And I'm not just interested in railways but the history of North Ayrshire too since I have lived here my whole life. I have tried to offer various discussions above to try and reach some middle ground over the articles. --Dreamer84 20:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Photographs

Any idea why these photographs are not downloading? Rooser1954 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

It's because the wiki-links are case-sensitive, the files you uploaded end .JPG whereas the links were looking for .jpg. I've fixed the links for you. --Dreamer84 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dreamer. That never happened before. Rosser

[edit] Barony of Roberton

I find this article interesting, despite the chronic lack of sources. As a Roberton, and being descended from the Robertons, I do find fault with this article and will happily provide sources if all are willing for ammenmdents.

The lands of Roberton and Earnock were given to Robert the Fleming, who was also known as Robert, brother of Lambin OR Robertus de Villa Robertii( Black, Surnames of Scotland 1967) . This happened sometime during the reign of Malcolom IV ( 1153- 1165).

Sources include

  • ( You can also view the article on earnock)


  • Beverage, A., nd. Clydesdale: Descriptive, Historical and Romantic p 50;
  • Nesbitt, A., nd. "System of heraldry Vol II p 153
  • Hamilton Advertiser 7th August 1943

Currently the article reads

"Thorntoun was part of the Barony of Robertoun and first belonged to a branch of the Montgomeries, descended from Murthhaw, who is mentioned in the Ragman's Roll of 1296."

According to the Ragman Roll of 1296

I'm going to change the line to read "Thornton first belonged to a branch of the Montgomeries, descended from Murthhaw, who is mentioned in the Ragman's Roll of 1296. It is part of the Barony of Roberton. "


Proberton 05:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RETRACTION

I made a mistake. Barony of Robertoun mentioned in this article is quite different to the one I ASSUMED it to be. My Robertons/Robertouns of that Ilk, are in Lanarkshire. I am now completely obsessed with finding out if the Robertouns of Lanarkshire and the Barony of Robertoun in Ayrshire are related!

Mea Culpa, Proberton 07:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)