Talk:Scotland/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 16 |

Archive 17

| Archive 18 →

Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71

An identical discussion doubting the "country" likeness has been opened by the same anonymous 122.105.217.71 for talk:Wales#It is not a Country, talk:England#It is not a Country, talk:Northern Ireland#It is not a Country as well as talk:Scotland#It is not a Country. The focus has been on the "definition" according to the wiki article and has sparked extended debate. As the law of the UK clearly states these regions are countries I would strongly suggest to close it here, as no argument on Wikipedia is going to change UK law. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the law of the UK doesn't state anything of the sort. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't feed the Trolls would be my advice. Rab-k (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarify, Trolls? GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia:What is a troll? helps. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I'm a troll? 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what you do Arnoutf (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me one example of me doing that. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:GOODFAITH is going out of the window here. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. This question will be opened again and again as IMHO many people outside the UK and espeshially outside Europe regard the UK to be the country and that Scotland is an administrative subdivision of that country. So when the articles states Scotland to be a country it clashes with their general impression or education. Naturally some of those will ask if a mistake has been made. It is also natural that most of the contributors to this article are Scottish and it is my impression that most of them do regard Scotland to be a country. It is then natural for them to be a bit offended when someone suggests otherwise. In this situation it is impotant to assume good faith. Inge (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree with calling people trolls unless there is a cast iron reason (and I didn't see one here, so I didn't partake in this strand of discussion), I think there has to be some realism as well here. The contribs are a bit OTT on the mass talk postings, and some comments are just a short circuit on the entire point of a talk page. The editor has a bee in their bonnet about something - fair enough - there are ways of dealing with that that doesn't spread to posting identical text to the talk pages of half a dozen articles just to make your point - that is just WP:POINT. If reality "clashes with their general impression or education" then there isn't much that can be done other than politely point the editor in the right direction as to why that impression is wrong. That was done in this case, multiple times by multiple editors in a polite fashion - and the answer coming back was "no you are wrong". There isn't really anywhere left to go after that in terms of a constructive discussion. SFC9394 (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How am i disrupting wikipedia? 122.105.216.1 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow my lead IP address editor. Don't bother anymore; simply leave this article alone. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you have said, SFC9394. I would just like to point out if I may (and hope it will be taken as contructive) that your formulation "If reality "clashes with their general impression or education" ..." is coloured by a certain POV. It illustrates the point that this question is fundamental. It even makes communicating more difficult. Generally speaking: From a non-scottish or non-UK POV "the reality" is that Scotland is one of the subnational entities of the UK (like a county or province). How the UK decides to administer its subnational entities makes no difference. For instance the Norwegian county of Hordaland is the land of the Hords like Scotland is the land of the Scots. It also used to be a kingdom but was incorporated into the new state of Norway hundreds of years ago. Through the centuries Hordaland survived as an administrative unit with court districts, church districs and a governor. Distinct customs, culture, music, dialects and traditional clothing are present. In the 20th century the Norwegian central government decided to devolve some powers to Hordaland and a representative assembly was elected and a county government governs on devolved issues based on it. However Hordaland is never regarded as a country. Now most Norwegians do know that there is a difference between Hordaland and Scotland so I don't think Norwegians will be the ones to protest here. The situation is perhaps more similar to that of the German bundesländer or the Spanish autonomous regions. So would an average scot/brit describe say Cantabria as a country or as a part of Spain? Since this will be a recurring problem I am just trying to bring in a perspective so this issue can be better understood by both sides. Inge (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

New additions to history section

The history section has just about doubled in size recently with the addition of largely unreferenced content on early modern Scotland, "Union of Crowns", etc. It goes into far too much detail for this article, and is more fitting for History of Scotland article. I say restore the earlier stable version, or at least trim the new material into good size and add cite tags. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment Deacon. I thought the same but as nobody jumped in, (as I expected they would to be honest), I tweaked it a little to include wiki-links. Personally, I too didn't have any difficulty with what was there before, but I agree the current version needs a trim. Any volunteers?Rab-k (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The 17th Century section was QED. The Treaty of Union section stills needs citations that I don't have to hand. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Give me one example of me doing that. 122.105.216.1 (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the motto into Scots

I know that what remains of modern Scots is highly colloquial, and I'm sure that "Wha daur meddle wi me?" is roughly accurate but it doesn't really carry the gravitas of a motto. It is a liberal translation (it's a question whereas the Latin is clearly a statement) and the English would be "Who dares meddle with me?" which is hardly something you'd write in an engraving. I would suggest something like "Naebody chowe me athoot bein brankt" although my Scots is appalling. Wee Jimmy (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the various discussions in Archive 13. ~~Archives 10-13~~ Thanks. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have actually seen this Scots version used. I think the Gaelic version is more likely to be a simple translation and hence inappropriate. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive navigation

As the volume of archive grows ease of access becomes an issue. The 'archive-nav' templates were not working on nos 8-15 so I have moved the pages to enable them. For future reference the archive page names need to be e.g. "Talk:Scotland/Archive 15" as opposed to "Talk:Scotland/Archive15" i.e there needs to be a space between 'Archive' & '15' etc. I bet you didn't know that. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it was working - now on some of them e.g. Archive 11, the forward link on the {atn} template opens Archive 12 in edit mode. No idea why. A minor glitch. 15 and 16 are using the {archivenav} template that seems to work OK. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Something amiss in Scotland

A conversation about the current maps used to represent the constituent countries has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland. This discussion is hopefully to resolve issues that have been raised and to try to set a standard within the UK. For all those that wish to comment on this, your input is requested. Thank-you :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the point raised before was that Scotland refers to a country that existed before union with England, Wales and Ireland, so there was a logic in having it as an individual country Alastairward (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

However, what Scotland was and is, are two different things. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am about to leave this forum Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland as life demands my attention. If someone else wishes to champion the current concensus, be my guest. Rab-k (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

history

216.236.125.18 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Change map

Following the discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography with the almost unanimously conclusion that the map in the info box for Scotland should give reference to its inclusion in the UK, I would like to call your attention to this issue.

We are advocating this change mainly to warrant consistency with respect to other comparable articles. The current state appears misleading in the sense that readers might interpret the map that Scotland is an independent state, that is because it uses the same style Liuzzo map as many articles on European nations that are sovereign states. The current map further deters consistency within the UK articles, where maps for England, Wales, and NI all tone reference to the UK, which corresponds nicely with wikipedia's practice on almost all sub-national entities.

As there was no sustainable argumentation presented for the current use of the map, we are looking forward to discussing the issue here, and potentially change the map. Tomeasy (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tomeasy for having the decency to class my opinions as unsustainable. IMHO many of the counter arguments I experienced fell easily into that category, however I declined to refer to them as such. I would suggest that before anyone takes the plunge and enters into this discussion they take 10 minutes to go over the arguments on the Something amiss in Scotland page in order to save going over old ground.Rab-k (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and if you ignore Red King, Sarah and Rab, everybody was in agreement. But advocate away, although Wikiprojects have no ownership over articles. Really it's just the usual suspects plus you. Paint me unimpressed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ususal suspects? --Jza84 | Talk 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the sustainable argumentation. It was an inappropriate POV. It reflected my feeling that I had from a discussion with many people arguing for a certain thing with different arguments against one person whose arguments got more and more strange. However, it was the wrong place to put this sentiment.

About Red King and Sarah, they left the discussion early after people had replied to their arguments, so I did not consider them as still opposing. Again, sorry, if was to fast with that.

Now, please abstain from criticizing my biased opening and focus on the matter itself. Tomeasy (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I m not sure if I should take offense of that. I am one of those who believe the map should be changed. Just thought I should mention it in case the owners of this article deem my opinon to be worthy.Inge (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you were making up a list of editors who'd be discomfited by a UK-less map, it would be easy enough: your illustrious self, GoodDay, Astrotrain, UKPhoenix ... the usual suspects. I'm sorry if Inge is disappointed not to make the list. Early days yet!

It's just a convenient shorthand, and not a suggestion that there are nefarious motives or dark conspiracies involved here. Reasonable people can and will disagree. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO the discussion on the UK geography page did not produce a valid reason to change a consensus on this page. As far as I could see, the only argument put forward related to consistency between the pages of the "constituent countries" of the UK. The current map is appropriate for showing the geographic position of Scotland; I can see no reason to change it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The main point behind changing the map is that the proposed map is better. It gives more information to the reader. That is why it has been used on other similar articles. In adittion it is simple logic to treat similar problems the same way. Inge (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The map should be changed. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it should; so, I changed it! --G2bambino (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I admire your courage G2, but I fear the results. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does support boldness, but, really, we shouldn't fear bullies. --G2bambino (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Think outside the box. Perhaps the answer to this problem, always assuming there is a problem, would be to fix the maps on England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While I see that that would establish consistency (which I'm all for), I don't know that it's the best solution; it seems to be one in order to placate certain agenda-focused individuals rather than one that brings about the best result. Most people here seem to agree that the Scotland-within-the-UK map is superior because it graphically represents reality, whereas the Scotland-alone map makes it appear as though the nation is a sovereign state, which it, of course, is not. --G2bambino (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"we shouldn't fear bullies" and edits such as this are totally unacceptable and pure bad faith. You folks should follow the policies of wikipedia or don't bother editing. You are crossing a golden lines here. SFC9394 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your personal opinions. --G2bambino (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When I read a page describing Scotland I want to see where Scotland is, not England or Wales or anywhere else! I get the impression this conversation has been going on for a long long time! Does'nt there come a time when some people just think "I'm not going to win this conversation" and just leave it alone?--Jack forbes (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, Astrotrain, UKPhoenix ... the usual suspects How am I a usual suspect? I only called attention to this 2 days ago! You make it sound like I have been battling back and forward for months :-( -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore it, UKPhoenix79. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok take a look at these articles below. I have highlighted the unique parts of each TOC.

Scotland	Bavaria	Sicily	California	New South Wales
1 Etymology 2 History 3 Government and politics 4 Law 5 Geography and natural history 6 Economy and Infrastructure 7 Demography 8 Military 9 Culture 10 See also 11 References 12 Further reading 13 External links	1 History 2 Geography 3 Politics 4 Economy 5 Culture 6 Administrative divisions 7 Historical buildings 8 Miscellaneous 9 Population and area 10 See also 11 External links 12 References	1 History 2 Geography 3 Transport 4 Culture 5 People 6 World Heritage Sites 7 References 8 See also 9 External links	1 Etymology 2 Geography and environment 3 History 4 Demographics 5 Economy 6 Energy 7 Transportation 8 Government & Politics 9 California state law 10 Cities, towns and counties 11 Education 12 Sports 13 See also 14 References 15 Further reading 16 External links	1 History 2 Government 3 Administrative divisions 4 People 5 Education 6 Geography 7 Economy 8 Sport 9 The Arts 10 References 11 See also 12 External links

Now you may notice that Save California each sub-country entity shows the actual Country and its subdivisions nothing more or less. This is what I propose for the UK subdivisions. Lets follow suit! This will give a better close-up of the parts of the UK since currently it is very far away. Checking around it looks like only countries really use the current map so I believe that here lies the fault. Anyone know of a good map to use? I unfortunately wont have time to look for one. But if none are found I will look myself. Please remember the Irish when doing this and make sure that most if not all of the Isle of Ireland is shown and that N. Ireland is not the only part shown. So something more akin to Bretagne would work perfectly. I believe that this is the best option left to us! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did notice earlier that that was one of your presented options. I've since looked at some other sub-national entity articles and see it's actually quite a common practise. So, personally, I've no issue with a map that shows the UK only and where Scotland sits within it (a format that, of course, would also be used for England, Wales and NI). The UK article can show the UK within Europe. --G2bambino (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean something like Image:UK scotland.png (and similarly for the other three articles)? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

THANK-YOU!!! It isn't perfect (I actually like the French versions more) but the fact that this already exists I think will solve everything! I have updated all 4 articles and I think they are the better for it. I hope that you all appreciate that this conversation actually had a positive effect for all four constituent countries! Heck you can even see the individual nations very easily now!!! All without a microscope! Thanks for the help everybody. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokers, that 'map' was rejected too? GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stances

I've taken a little survey of the users involved and their positions, based on the discussions both here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Something amiss in Scotland. Please feel free to add your name to whatever list you belong to, or change any errors I've made.

Hanlon's razor leads me to conclude that it's an oversight which has led you to omit Sarah777 (talk · contribs) ("Scotland should be simply represented as darker on a uniform lighter European background") and Red King (talk · contribs) ("The key message is that Scotland is not a region of the UK, it is a distinct nation"). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you feel their names belong somewhere, put them in. I believe that's what I suggested be done above. --G2bambino (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My assumption is, Sarah's concerns lay with the map at Northern Ireland; but I'll let her speak for herself. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My reading of Red King's contribution is different to yours (AM), but, I'm sure he/she will be along to speak soon. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree that that the map should be changed. I wouldn't say that I was an opposing force, more like a negotiator trying to discover whats going wrong & work with those around me to improve the article. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland in UK map

Scotland alone map

User:Rab-k
User:Jack forbes
Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to conduct a straw poll (yet again) I suggest you count the views of the editors of this article rather than those of others. Furthermore, my suspicion is that your views would tend to be treated more seriously if you had heretofore made any serious attempt to actually improve the article, rather than re-starting a debate that has been gone over several times already, often involving strong feelings bordering on incivility. It would also at least be more interesting if a new idea or view was being presented rather than just a re-hash of all the old stuff. Do some people actually enjoy this or is it a compulsion? - ( I ask myself). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that seriously your commentary on this matter? Opinions about a map on this article are opinions about a map on this article, regardless of where they're expressed. Perhaps it's easier for you to set arbitrary requirements so as to knock off as many of your oponents as possible? --G2bambino (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand a few of you don't realize that there is obviously a problem people have with the old map being used. The fact that this has apparently been a conversation that has been going on for the better part of a year should let editors know that this is an issue, even if you don't believe it yourself. Why have you dug your heals in so much on this minor point, when editors like myself believe that this small change will improve the article? I have made a Wikipedia:Requests for comment hopefully someone will have a good suggestion. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> There obviously isn't a consensus on the map so stop referring to that. I have yet to see any convincing arguments why we should have the present map. I only see questionable tactics used to drive off new contributors or anyone with a differing opinion. I again object to the notion that some wikipedians are worth more than others. I have as much right to edit this article as any. My opinion counts just as much towards a consensus as any. You should read WP:OWN and take it to heart. If you want to retain this map give arguments, dont just revert and point to a non-existent consensus. Please also read WP:CONSENSUS in which you will find "Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice." So if you insist on keeping this "eccentric" solution I at least expect to be met with respect and arguments. If the guardians of this article find that debating with other users is a chore then just stop and let fresh heads give it a go. Inge (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"when editors like myself believe that this small change will improve the article?" - it has little to do with this article though, doesn't it? All those arguing for change seem to have is that all 4 must be the same. You replaced a map that indicated the location of Scotland at a continental level - something clearly identifiable - to one that enforced the reader to know where the UK was for them to know Scotland's location (and even then have to read tiny 8 point text to find out what bit Scotland was). That doesn't seem like "an improvement" to me - that seems like an absolute hindrance - which is why I can't take your comments at face value (p.s. can you please sign your comments with 4 not 3 tildes, that makes identifying people much easier) SFC9394 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your entire argument up to now has been that the editors are smart enough to know that Scotland is in the UK. Now your saying that they aren't smart enough to know that the UK is in Europe? I guess that County Cork has a problem because I don't know where Ireland is??? Really this is your argument now??? Seriously??? Please what is your real reason! Please open up the dialog and convince us that your point.... well has a point! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My argument has been nothing of the sort - the map should display the location of the article subject - nothing more nothing less - no contentious political information, no enforced "standards". Stop mis-characterising others views. SFC9394 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your incivil activities are unacceptable - is this edit fine? - removing my entire comment. The RFC text you have included "discussion on what map should represent Scotland in the UK" - that is not NPOV - that is a very specific statement to reach an end goal - the same as the "discussions" at your UK project "poll". The dispute is what the infobox map should be and that is all there is - no little political bylines - no statements to reach a specific goal. You have changed it twice now - I won't change it back - but I will make it known that you are not upholding the rules from day one on this - and I can't be bothered with editors like that. SFC9394 (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't call me uncivil YOU edited MY comments! That is called Wikipedia:Vandalism Modifying users' comments - Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged. I reverted YOUR changes to MY comments please remember that. It was not your position to do that and if you would have asked for a change or given a better suggestion that would have been one thing but your actions were uncalled for. Especially since I have acted with nothing but respect to everybody here and that shows a high level of disrespect when you then make comments about my reversal of YOUR edits to MY comments. I imagined that you didn't know better hence my edit summary, but making comments on the talk page and making me look like the bad guy for reverting YOUR edits to MY comments... thats just too far :-( -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"YOU edited MY comments!" - I edited an RFC statement - it is not "your" comment - it is meant to be a neutral explanation of the problem - your version is as far from as is neutral as is possible. Along with reverting my change you also deleted my entire comment, as shown by the diff above - and didn't add it back - check the history of the page - there is no slight of hand, you deleted it. If it was an honest mistake then all you needed to do was say so - instead you are now pretending you didn't delete anything. SFC9394 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok now you just made me feel bad... I had no idea that I removed your comment. Sorry about that. No I didn't know that I removed that at all, I wouldn't pretend either I just thought that you were being asinine by saying I removed your edits to my comment... I didn't realize that there was more too it then that... sorry! But please ask people before you edit their comments, because they were my comments that I placed in the RFC after all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by Your incivil activities are unacceptable [...] the same as the "discussions" at your UK project "poll". and You have changed it twice now - I won't change it back I have no clue what you even mean. I haven't made a poll... though I now think we should. I actually followed the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle exactly to the guidelines when I originally came to this article and that is what alerted me to this ongoing issue. So how could you say that I am not upholding the rules from day one on this? From day one I have done everything exactly the way that Wikipedia recommends that I do it! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would've had more to say on this whole topic (the map)? But, one of the editors (though not at this discussion) has 'twice' declared me a troll. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

PS- a new map has been added to the articles England, Northern Ireland and Wales, it shows only the British Isles. So far, there hasn't been any objections to it, on those 3 articles. I hope this article will adopt it, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

As this old content-dispute has grown so lively again of late, I've stuck a three day protection on it. In that period at least we can keep the argumentation confined to this talk page, keep users out of trouble, and hopefully come closer to general understanding in the mean time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for coming to help, any chance that you'd like to make a comment on the situation or even get some others here to join the discussion? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna hold back for now on this time-sucker of an issue, been through it so many times. Sent a message of sorts to a guy on WP:Working group, but we'll see if their involvement becomes necessary. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect your decision to stand aside and I thank you for trying to bring more people to this discussion. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's regrettable but necessary (the page being locked). So little (but intense) resistance over a 'map change' - very frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stances Cont'd

I can understand that some people feel unhappy with the map that has recently been introduced showing only the British Isles. In deed, geographically it is less descriptive and we should anyway wait for this discussion to come to an end before we change the map.

My proposition would be to use exactly the map that we have right now, improved by light orange shades for the territories of England, Wales, and NI. This way the the full geographical meaning will be restored and the discrepancy with maps shown for other sub-nationals would be abrogated. Tomeasy (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear both proposed maps will continue to be resisted here. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever map gets chosen this on is a big no no due to the fact that the European mainland seem to have migrated south. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to show the 'three' Scotland map example for this discussion? I think it would help to have them here, for all sides to study. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a template that was used in the lengthy Talk:Scotland/Archive 14 debates. As I recall, maps placed on this gallery were removed by editors who felt they were losing the argument so there are probably a few gaps. I assume that the request :indicates that you are unfamiliar with the lengthy history of this debate... I realise that everyone is entitled to their say, but it would be just dandy if users who want to re-open old wounds would at least take the trouble to do a little research first. How fine the day when someone new comes along and writes: 'having studied the arguments a, b and c for, and d, e and f against I wonder if anyone has ever considered g?' instead of just jumping in feet first brandishing their point of view. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do know of the past discussions on this 'map' topic & how there was no consensus then. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed a contentious debate which did not result in anything resembling a formal decision. On the other hand, the current map, or one very similar to it has been in place for some considerable time. It is not everyone's first choice, but the very least you can say is that it has emerged as the 'least worst' option, supported or tolerated by the majority of regular editors.

Its main advantage is clarity, and of course it suits those of us for whom the concept of 'Scotland' is as or more important than the concept of 'Scotland-within-the-UK'.

Its main disadvantage is that it suggests to some a national sovereignty that does not reflect the constitutional reality of the UK and by extension it does not suit those of us for whom the concept of 'Britishness' is as or more important than the concept of 'Scotland' as an semi-independent entity.

In reality it is not a question of 'either/or' but rather 'both/and'. Scotland is a holon - a country within a country. We can of course attempt to address the wording of the article to reflect this complexity, and perhaps we have succeeded in achieving something accurate and acceptable there. So far as I can see a map is never going to be able to convey this. It is either going to show other parts of the British Isles (sorry Sonic-youth) in relation to Scotland, or it isn't. It is hard to imagine a situation where a sizeable minority does not take umbrage. I can only encourage those of us who are in the majority to treat those whose views are not currently reflected in the map with both consideration and firmness. Similarly, I hope those who are, or may be in a minority, will act with both a robust defense of their position, but an acceptance that there is a body of opinion to be swayed rather than an assumption that a hard-won consensus is somehow a mistake or the work of those who wish them ill. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

There seams to be 4 solutions to this

Choice 1

Keep the map. This option is to highlight only the constituent country in question and to show an expanded view of Europe as a whole.

examples from other countries (currently none known)

Please comment by following this format:

* - <your comment> -- ~~~~

Geographical map which clearly locates Scotland. (The geographical role is paramount, but the deficiencies of the alternative options are clear in their privileging of the UK political Union over visible context for Scotland's other trading and political links over the centuries, such as Ireland, Norway, France, Veere, Gdansk.) AllyD (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Factually incorrect - see Wallonia. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  - I went to the Belgium#Communities and regions page and then followed the link saying 3. The three regions: clicked on Flemish Region and it showed Image:Vlaams GewestLocatie.png. I checked Walloon Region the official region page found that there was a broken image link to Image:Wallonia (Belgium).png, fixed that. Even Brussels-Capital Region shows a close up map Image:BelgiumBrussels.png but it kinda has too doesn't it! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not like this option, since it is inconsistent with maps of other sub-national entities and users might be mislead to the interpretation that Scotland is an independent state. Tomeasy (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Change the map

Choice 2

This option is to highlight all of the UK and have a different colour for the constituent country in question and to show an expanded view of Europe as a whole.

examples from other countries (currently none known)

Please comment by following this format:

* - <your comment> -- ~~~~

It correctly show Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom & its location with Europe. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
To paraphrase from an above vote for the Scotland-only map: Geographical map which clearly locates Scotland. (The geographical role is paramount, but the deficiencies of the alternative option is clear in its dismissing of the fact that a country's boundaries are political by nature, and a constituent country should be graphically represented as a subset of the larger political union to which it belongs; context for Scotland's other trading and political links over the centuries, such as Ireland, Norway, France, Veere, Gdansk are irrelevant to a map.) --G2bambino (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The scale is too small to make this option worthwhile except to show, in only the vaguest sense roughly where the places one wants to highlight are. DDStretch (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is what I argued for in the first place, though I have to agree that the region of interest ends up a little bit too small. Nevertheless, this would go for me. Tomeasy (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Choice 3

To show only the country and its constituent parts keeping in line with other countries allow people to go to the main country page to get a wider geographical location.
3A

examples from other countries

Please comment by following this format:

* - <your comment> -- ~~~~

- My second choice -- Davidkinnen (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Some greater context needs to be shown for this, though not so much as to make it worthless (as would be the case if a europe-wide map were chosen.) DDStretch (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this choice problematic. As you've already seen, you come into trouble whether of not to include Ireland. If you leave it out, the result is comparable to Bavaria, Sicily, or NSW--a map without reference to its location, which I do not like.

If you include Ireland, you actually get into another choice (3-b if you like). You then have some, very limited geographical reference. Moreover, it seems we get trouble with some people who interpret this as an aggressive act towards Ireland's annexation, which it is of course not, if one considers the color usage. Nevertheless, I do not really like it because it shows too little around Scotland, while I prefer it to choice 1. Tomeasy (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Choice 4

To show a close up of the UK shade any nations that are not a part of the UK in a different colour. The constituent country in question will have a different colour to the rest of the UK.
4A

Uk map northern ireland green.png

examples from other countries

Please comment by following this format:

* - <your comment> -- ~~~~

Personally I like this type the best. ~~Though since I cannot find a version like this for the UK one would have to be made. In the mean time I would say that Choice 3 would be a great runner up.~~ OK I'VE MADE THEM hehehe :-D -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Though it dosen't show all of Europe, it shows Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My second choice, as it shows Scotland within the United Kingdom, but the northern coast of France keeps the UK from being a floating entity completely without context. --G2bambino (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My first choice as it I think it is the clearest and is, I think, the most accessible. Davidkinnen (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This seems closest (though not identical) to the colouring scheme used in local county maps used in the UK place templates. If one has to choose any of these, I guess this would be my first choice, though I do think the red colour is a bit too saturated and vivid for my liking. DDStretch  (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(afterthought) Would a small map insert, showing what this maps shows, in relation to Europe, be a good idea? The biggest problem with the Europe maps is that the UK and Ireland, etc are too small to make them worthwhile. DDStretch  (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After checking almost 200 articles on their subdivisions I can say that showing the map of the world along with style 4 is not used. It relies on someone going to the nations article to see the country's location in the world. This is to show the subdivisions location in the country. Its a rather specific task but one that is well defined. Thanks for the suggestion though please keep them coming :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but you may have misunderstood a little. First, I'm not bothered about consistency with other articles in this matter as much as concentrating on conveying intended information as clearly and as unambiguously as possible. The map insert was intended to show the context of the map a bit more in relation to Europe (not the world). It is similar to what has been done on (for example) Chew Stoke, where the map insert shows the local map's context within the whole of the UK. In this respect, we would have a small map insert of Europe with a similar box in it showing the limits of the area as depicted in the large map. I know it wouldn't be consistent with other maps used, but I think, in this instance, it is worth paying attention more to accuracy and clear communication rather than slavish adherence to consistency (especially since we have no way of knowing the basis by which the other maps were chosen.) In this respect, although the main aim is to show the subdivisions of the United Kingdom, there does seem to be a wish that some of the context is shown (so we have Republic of Ireland and a small part of France included) All I'm saying is that I think this context may be usefully expanded a little with no significant degradation in accuracy or ease of interpretation for the extra information conveyed (because there is plenty of slack space where the map insert could be placed.) It would also go some way to satisfying the needs of people who prefer the first two options. DDStretch  (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have changed the red colour now... is that what you were thinking?? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is better with less saturation of the red. I much prefer this colouring scheme to the green one, though. DDStretch  (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I wasn't sure at first if I did it right. Glad I was correct -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a green one now. I think that we all will like that one :-) also I created Image:Uk map crown dependency.png for the Crown Dependency page. Yes I know I'm gloating, but I'm having fun with these maps :-D not only that I feel like I'm getting things accomplished and actually improving the articles I made these images for. Ok now back to your regularly scheduled debate... -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Choice 4 and that would be my first preference; choice 3 would be my second preference. I don't particularly like choices 1 and 2.Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Choice 4 is probably the best, though 3 has possibilities. 2 is rather too small for Scotland although could appear as a second image. 1 is just not consistent with much of the rest of the encyclopedia and contains less information needlessly Timrollpickering (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Something between choice 4 and 2 was what I had in mind. I like DDStretch's point of adding a small Europe map insert. Choice 3 has some problems in that it keeps the Republic in, but discludes France and the continent despite them contemporaneously having the same status. The colours aren't too appealing to me either. --Jza84 | Talk 10:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created a new version of choice 3 since it seams to be a big complaint that the Republic of Ireland is there. Personally I prefer choice 4 or 3 with the republic in, but due to popular demand here you go... Though I believe it will cause more problems than it is worth. If you want you can even show me another map that has colours you like so that I can use it as a reference and create a new version of the one you don't like. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my preferred choice, since it displays reasonably geographical reference and also that Scotland is part of UK. As Phoenix I prefer the 2nd shading alternative as exemplified in green. Not because it is green, actually it could be any other color, but because it leaves all territory beyond the UK neutral. The first option Phoenix showed was a bit confusing since dark red did not connect with light red but with white, while light red was the rest. In the new option it is clear that dark is region of interest, light the territory it is a part of and the rest is the rest. Thanks for your efforts UKPhoenix79. Tomeasy (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. I coloured 4A that way because it seams to be the most popular colouring scheme for maps on wikipedia. If people want a different version just let me know and give me a link to another version that has that colour and I'll do my best for you all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What would the maps look like if you took 4A and swapped round the colours for places in the UK but not highlighted with the non-UK places? That might go some way to addressing Tomeasy's comments about the shading used conforming to a more intuitive scheme. Additionally, one might also try a version which takes the resulting very light non-UK regions and replaces that colour with what Tomeasy suggests is neutral. Could we just have a look at those, if it doesn't take up too much time? Many thanks. DDStretch  (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following. Is there an example that you know? If not could you list your ideas using the following format

article colour = ; other subdivision colour = ; water colour = ; other countries colour =

that might help me understand better. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this for the current map style 4A. Say at the moment you have article colour = W; other subdivision colour = X; water colour = Y; other countries colour = Z. What I'm asking for is whether it would be possible to try this colouring scheme so we could just see what it looked like: article colour = W ; other subdivision colour = Z; water colour = Y; other countries colour = X. Is that clearer? DDStretch  (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

now I understand. But that might cause confusion for people who peruse other articles. If you check Talk:Scotland#Choice_4_2 and browse through the images provided, you will see what this might lead others to believe that the wrong territory is part of the nation. If we were going to change the colours it might be best to avoid the colour X/Z entirely (not really fond of Z) and just use Grey or something that will still give the neutrality your looking for on other countries. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! It might be an idea to use grey then for the other countries. DDStretch  (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)