Talk:Shawlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rewrite

Please don't turn this wiki page into an advert for local shops.

I think a rewrite of the attraction element is in order. Many of the sites here will be short lived and although I think the first draught is very concise, It may be more beneficial if, instead of directions around the precinct, a proper page of fact was made about the attractions. I like how detailed the page currently is, I just think something less speakeasy would better represent the place. Any thoughts? Scott Lyon 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, a rewrite is needed. It certainly does need a better structure; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of essays (hope I'm not upsetting anyone here!). Perhaps sections for architecture/built environment, education, transport maybe, demographics definitely, politics (which wards, constituencies, parties?), maybe others. And references for various assertions (such as being a "hub", the gentrification, a "more settled demographic" etc.) are needed. Those I think are the main things. Other things like geographic coordinates and 2-3 representative photos would be nice.--81.156.165.195 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was looking up Shawlands and found the entry failed to represent the district, so I looked through the history and I really preferred the earlier versions that explain why Shawlands is what it is and why it is where it is (the artery of the A77, the connection to the city centre grid system, the mention of the cart and the clyde), and also the impact the M77 and Glasgow South Orbital has had and is having on the district as a result of bypassing it. This would serve well in comparison with other areas of the city. It seemed apt for an encyclopedia to include this, and I would think it would not require much in the way of reference, because it is descriptive in locating and explaining the area in relation to the city and its features. I would go as far as to say that this ought to be a template for other districts - the descriptive locating, the explaining of it and how it works as part of the whole city. The earlier versions give a better flavour of the place as a busting place of activity, rather than a place of housing or work, for example. Earlier versions describe that further south was "dry" and less built-up, and north was more of a city centre. The extent of Shawlands is always a debate, most locals, for example, would say that Langside Primary was definitely in Shawlands, despite its name. The article mentions the co-ownerships on Tantallon Road, but this road is sometimes not counted as being in Shawlands. So the article could do with mentioning the various boundaries relative to community councils, electoral wards, estate agents and so forth. The article also contradicts itself, in one paragraph it says there are two schools, and in another later paragraph there are more! I think the earlier versions were better. The attractions section is no longer much good. The district has lost its hotel, cinemas, ice rink, and now relies on restaurants, pubs, clubs and unusual specialty shops. The present article does a great disservice in this respect. I wonder if listing shops is such a bad thing on a constantly updatable web encyclopedia; where else would one get that kind of information? Where else should one get that kind of detail and information? I ask someone to please either revert back to earlier versions, or use these as a basis for a better article. The present one is no good at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.11.139 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC) I would also add that the following paragraph seems to have made a come back from the earliest versions, but it is poorly written and as it referes to an unknown painting, it ought to be omitted. It says "An 18th Century painting shows Shawlands as completely undeveloped, save for a solitary cottage at the Cross (the meeting place of Pollokshaws Road and Kilmarnock Road, and not as is sometimes assumed, the junction of Langside Avenue/Minard Road and Pollokshaws Road). This would change dramatically within the next century." What I think it is trying to say is "An 18th Century painting shows Shawlands as completely undeveloped, save for a solitary cottage at Shawlands Cross which is the meeting place of Pollokshaws Road and Kilmarnock Road. It is is sometimes assumed that Shawlands Cross is the junction of Langside Avenue/Minard Road and Pollokshaws Road, but this is in fact Camphill Cross." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.11.139 (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx