Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This Talk page is for discussing the core work of the WikiProject, ie. our drive to improve the quality of our key Scotland-related articles, focussing on Wikipedia 1.0 and beyond.

Currently, 559 of the articles assigned to this project, or 22.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought this sounded useful, so I've put the template on the project page (under the infobox). Let's see what happens... Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! Some time ago, I started Wikiproject Scottish Castles which has progressed well, but is now in another phase of virtual inactivity. I'd like to invite you all to see how we're doing and contribute if you feel that you can. There's plenty to do - so much, that I don't really know what to do! In particular we have a large number of articles requiring some sort of assessment to ensure that we know what stage they are all at. Additionally, someone who knows how to manage a Wikiproject would also be very welcome - I'm out of my depth in this respect. In short, any contribution that you can make will be received with much gratitude. Kind regards, Slink pink (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article entitled Charles Edward Stuart's Flight has appeared. It appears to draw heavily on a single source, but not to the extent of being a copyvio. As a first contribution by User:Dragonfly in Amber, its pretty impressive, in fact. It covers the escape of Mr Stuart following the Battle of Culloden, ending the Jacobite rising of 1745. Clearly it needs a bit of work, not least wikifying, but it makes me think: surely its time that The 'Forty-five had its own article, rather than being squished in with all the other Jacobite activities. Perhaps this new article, renamed and expanded, can form the basis for a more detailed, stand-alone article on the '45 and its after effects? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A poll is talking place on Subdivisions of the United Kingdom and Countries of the United Kingdom. The Merger proposal is here, and is where all the options (merge, redirect to or from etc) can be voted for. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The new article is "Countries" of the United Kingdom, by the way - not "counties", as it it may first appear.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the opening part of a discussion started at Talk:Scotland that is more applicable to this page: Ben MacDui 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite some Scottish wikipedians to a discussion on the talk harp page [[1]]. I am currently in discussion regarding an edit warring with an unknown poster relating to early medieval triangular harp instruments and origin in Scotland. As far as I can see and from multiple refrences and sources, the triangular harp was first evident in Pictland, and later to Ireland and the Anglo-Saxons. However user 93.107.129.136 states himself that such ideas are wrong and that any such Pictish relief is foreign in origin as the “stones are not of Pictish origin, they are influenced by Irish adventurers to Caledonia. These Irish settlers brought the Gaelic language, Gaelic literature and music with them, and Irish art”. So from this everything we percieve as being Pictish in art, culture and society is of Irish origin? To back up his point he has quoted one study by the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper in The Invention of Tradition [2]. That all Scottish culture is of Irish origin and therefore the triangular harp, music, insular art and pretty much everything attested to Scotland (Gael or Pict) didn’t originate there. Personally I find Ropers work bias although I was not aware indepth of Ropers theories it seems to me he attempted to whitewash Scottish history. I am well read in the harp and have edited the harp, clarsach and Origin of the harp in Europe pages and have found this is not the case backed up by quite a lot of references and cited sources, both Scottish and Irish.

However as the work of Roper is a cited source then I am willing to include this, but edit in caution as then all articles relating to Pictish and Scottish art, language, society and culture can be attrested to the Gaels of Ireland. User Rivertorch suggests the article should include cited quotations from each theory, fair enough. But from a research perspective, is Ropers work a fringe theory, or does his study have credence in the article. If that’s the case, then should it be included in every Scottish historical article? I personally think his views are racist and bias against the Scots. I ask you to click on the harp page, review all the data and discuss. Regards Celtic Harper (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Article: Greater Glasgow, Category:Greater Glasgow

Here is the opening part of a discussion started at Talk:Scotland that is more applicable to this page: Ben MacDui 09:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

anyone interested in starting a wikiproject focusing on Greater Glasgow/Glasgow or Greater Edinburgh/Edinburgh??Andrew22k (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Glasgow catches my eye. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I would be interested in a Greater Glasgow WP. However, what is Greater Glasgow? Most of the links in Google go to Glasgow web sites, appart from those that link to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (which is a defined area) (see for instance Greater Bristol which has similar problems over definition). Following the links in Greater Bristol to Office for National Statistics to ONS coding system, suggests that Greater Glasgow is not defined, so there may be no population statistics, etc. I remember the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Executive (GGPTE), which then become Strathclyde PTE (Passenger Transport Executive - not the current PTE); so is Greater Glasgow, our old friend "Strathclyde region" in modified form?Pyrotec (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think it is just a conurbation but im not sure. I have no experiance with creating or managing wikiprojects but i am willing to help out massively. We could call it Greater Glasgow but focus mainly on Glasgow?Andrew22k (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely visit these urbanised locations, and I doubt I'd be able to contribute much, but I think its a good idea (there are probably too many articles for WP Scotland to keep track of these days without a very large increase in this project's activity) and I'd be happy to offer support and suggestions for setting it up. Ben MacDui 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create the wikiproject but i doubt it will be good enough, i might start it but do any of you's know what i need to do? i have made a proposal for the wikiproject here if any of you can provide support please add your name to the proposal.Andrew22k (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worthwhile talking to User:Simply south, who set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland as well as several other WPs; and advised on others.Pyrotec (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking outside of the box regarding Greater Glasgow... what about a Strathclyde project? That would cover a region that has inummerable ties (with regards to industry), and doesn't in anyway "nullify" the "identities" of smaller burghs and villages surrounding Glasgow. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strathclyde doesn't really exist anymore, i think Greater Glasgow is more suitable. Andrew22k (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the boundaries of Strathclyde are (were) well known, as was GG PTE; in contrast Greater Glasgow does not exist as far as population statistics are concerned. The only GG that does exist appears to be NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.Pyrotec (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I realise Strathclyde has gone (administratively or otherwise), but it does seem to endure as the name for the region. It would encompass alot of the big urban areas: Glasgow, Barrhead, Paisley, Renfrew, Inverclyde, Dumbarton etc. I was just thinking outside of the box really. There's loads of potential here though if that was opposed - "Glasgow and Strathclyde" might be suitable. Then, we have the "Lowlands" and "Central Belt". We could even have a "Glasgow and Edinburgh" project or "Scottish cities". It just seems to me that a WP:GLASGOW is too small a project and we need to strike a balance of what will be helpful to us as editors. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, just a nudge that Kirkcaldy has been nominated for GA status... however, I think it's also fair to say that there are a couple of concerns regarding the history of the burgh and how some of the sources have been creditted.

Any chance someone could take a look? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had already been failed by the time I got there. Ben MacDui 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the project page the new article Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow is both a DYK and a GAC. However, there is considerable overlap between this new article and the existing Gutter Sound. Ben MacDui 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general call for any wikimedians in the UK who would be interested in getting involved with and extremely active venture to finally bring Wikimania to the UK. To join the team simply sign your name here. It would be good to join the Wikimedia UK mailing list, view the mailing list archives or to join the irc channel at irc:wikimania-oxford. Information on how to access IRC can be found here. We really are pulling out all the stops this year and any help we could get would be most appreciated. All the information about the Oxford bid can be found at meta wiki here. I and the others in the team look forward to working with you. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 23:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this new task force to the 'directly related Wikiprojects' (its actually a sub of WP:GEOG). --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the wikipedia article on Scotland not be merged with the article titled Kingdom of Scotland to create a full article on the history of Scotland and the modern Kingdom. The Kingdom of Scotland Article finishes in 1707 and has not shown that the country still exists. This is insulting to the people of Scotland as it makes out our country is no longer a country, but a state of the UK. It does not recognise that our country is still a kingdom seperate to the Uk and wikipedia should respect this.81.79.221.243 (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this proposition. The Kingdom of Scotland article is clear in the introduction that it is discussing the 843-1707 state, in the same way that Kingdom of Great Britain discusses the 1707-1801 state, or that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland discusses the 1801-1927 state. The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist in 1707. There may be an independent Scotland in the future, but in all probability it won't be officially titled "Kingdom of Scotland", and even if it was it would be a different state, in the same way that the various Polands over the centuries have all been different states. And please desist from making major changes to the articles until you achieve a consensus on this point. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends, new person here, apologies for any mistakes! I semi-accidently came in here mostly to query the constant usage of the term Kingdom of Scotland. I can not give true reference immediately but essentially this does not (or ever, exist)! You have a King of Scots or a Queen of Scots, but not the land. There were people(s) in this area long before the Scots arrived. Also may I point out that the King/Queen of Scots had direct authority only over lower/southern Scotland essentially. The (especially north) highlands and western isles though acknowledging, and as appropriate, assisting one another were not under the dominion of the King/Queen until historically very recently (seventeen hundreds). --TheMadHighlander (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As James VI of Scotland was also James 1 of England, and Queen Elizabeth II (of England) received the Crown of Scotland. Which by the way still is in Edinburgh Castle. I would have thought that the Kingdom of Scotland still exists. In the same way as the Kingdom of Fife, The Kingdom of England etc. But what do I know I'm English!80.195.38.188 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland national football team has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Please alarm anyone else involved. Domiy (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see:

• Requested move

Thanks.--Mais oui! (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is trying to apply the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, as used in Scotland to the Scotland article, removing the arms of Scotland. The image file being used is named in a totally misleading way, to try to imply that these are the arms of Scotland. The arms of the UK should be applied to the United Kingdom article, not the Scotland article. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody fancy taking on the "Biggest in Scotland" (or tallest) task? We have Black Hill transmitting station and Durris transmitting station both claiming to be the tallest structures. We have a Glasgow skyscrapers category but not a wider Scotland structure one... Ta/wangi (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British. Your input is welcome. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles listed are also on a similar one produced for WikiProject Scottish Islands. I have created a list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Islands#Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Scottish Islands, and those that have received attention so far are indicated. Ben MacDui 17:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the peerage project about whether Scottish boundary-counts should be called "Marquess" or "Marquis". See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Marquess_.2F_Marquis:_Natty4bumpo. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are the Northern Isles and Hebrides part of Great Britain?

Problem: Great Britain is an island. However, some sources say Great Britain is made up of England, Wales and Scotland. How would we reflect this on Image:British Isles terms.gif? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the joys of being British. The entire landscape of the terminology seems to be designed to do your head in. I think it might be helpful to distinguish between geographical and political use of the term "GB". Geographically speaking, neither the Hebrides nor NI are part of GB. Politically however, the nation state is the UK of GB and NI, and it is clear that this description is not intended as a boost to the Orkney Movement. As Skye Barra is not part of NI, it must by definition therefore, be part of GB in a political sense. Use in the latter context may be less than rigorous, but common e.g. "Team GB". As for the gif, it is rather jaunty and a real improvement, although for some reason it takes unnecessary liberties with Unst, St Kilda and Rockall. (I hesitate to mention Forewick Holm.) When Wikipedia goes 3D I envisage a series of over-laying Euler diagrams and a full time post created to enable the hopelessly lost to return to the land of the living. Yours for the independent Jacobite Kingdom of Aigas. Ben MacDui 09:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Skye is an example of further confusion. Haswell-Smith's logic is presumably that Skye is not a proper island any more and part of GB. I think we can safely use Barra. Ben MacDui 09:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islay is on the WP 0.7 list. I have done quick copy edit, but some of the wording in the Islay#Churches section reads oddly to me. Can we write of congregations being "currently vacant" or of a "priest with charge". I have no wish to confuse matters further so if anyone has a knowledge of these mysteries I'd appreciate assistance. It's not a lengthy section. Ben MacDui 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only a Church of England minister, but I agree with you - some of the language is slightly incorrect. A congregation cannot be vacant, but a post (or a "living") can be vacant. You're also right about the "priest with charge"; it should be "priest in charge" or "priest-in-charge". What struck me about the whole paragraph is the (probably unnecessary) detailed information about various clergy. Why not also have details about the island's postmen or Community Councillors or refuse collectors??? Renata (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - unless you are so inspired in the meantime, I will take a chainsaw to it at the weekend. What's with the "only"? Ben MacDui 07:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis done. Thanks for you help. Ben MacDui 11:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning lads & lassies. Unable to sleep due to a ghastly bout of man-flu, I've overhauled the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency article. It seems sad that I've only just got round to doing it now, when it may cease to exist in it's current form next year, but hey ho. I'd be grateful if anybody would have a look over it if they have some spare time. Cheers, Liam Mason (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article i have split (although i don't know about the notability of the other article). The article on the Scottish town is now located at Methil, Fife but needs a lot of work. Simply south (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well i'll be keeping an eye on it until i can get round to doing work. Kilnburn (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many Scotland articles are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates.

It is now possible to get lists of Scotland articles that have no geographical coordinates via Wikipedia:CatScan, for example:

• Scotland articles missing geo-coordinates.

Alternatively, if CatScan is down or very slow, you can find them by looking through Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data.

The articles in the lists above are currently marked with {{coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data (or else have lat&long entered into the infobox).

There are about 179 articles missing coords - I hope you'll consider adding coordinates so as to make Scotland articles more visible on the web. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Update. Articles have now been slotted into subcategories, as follows:

• 0 articles in Category:Argyll and Bute articles missing geocoordinate data
• 4 articles in Category:Central Scotland articles missing geocoordinate data
• 6 articles in Category:Dumfries and Galloway articles missing geocoordinate data
• 3 articles in Category:Edinburgh articles missing geocoordinate data
• 12 articles in Category:Fife articles missing geocoordinate data
• 35 articles in Category:Glasgow articles missing geocoordinate data
• 7 articles in Category:Highland articles missing geocoordinate data
• 11 articles in Category:Lothians articles missing geocoordinate data
• 0 articles in Category:North East Scotland articles missing geocoordinate data
• 0 articles in Category:Orkney and Shetland articles missing geocoordinate data
• 18 articles in Category:Scottish Borders articles missing geocoordinate data
• 5 articles in Category:Tayside articles missing geocoordinate data
• 0 articles in Category:West of Scotland articles missing geocoordinate data
• 0 articles in Category:Western Isles articles missing geocoordinate data

Coords are useful for making the article appear on Google Maps & many other mapping services; and they allow our users to click through to see the article subject location on a map. There's a short guide to on how to add geocodes to articles ... it really is very easy to do. I hope you'll take some time to ensure that Scotland is as well represented as it can be on wikipedia by fixing up the listed articles. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article would cover all Fife-related articles such as places, famous people, museums, football and rugby clubs and churches to name a few. Examples would be: Kirkcaldy, Andrew Carnegie, Adam Smith, Dunfermline Abbey, Dunfermline Athletic, The Old Course and Kirkcaldy Museum and Art Gallery. This could also help support articles that really do need a lot of work while keeping general maintenance. Examples would be: Methil, Dunfermline, Cupar and a lot of the smaller towns such as Kennoway and Lower Largo.

1. Kilnburn (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject WikiProject Fife
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fife

To keep the discussion together, I suggest that anyone wishing to discuss/support/oppose etc does so at the main discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_WikiProject_Fife. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring your attention to this cat and its associated template:

• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Scotland
• {{reqphotoin|Scotland}} (for use only on Talk pages)

Please populate (and hopefully, over time, also de-populate!!) this category.

I would particularly appreciate it if anyone can help in providing an image for the Great Seal of Scotland article. Thanks in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Great Seal to a great meal: Popeseye steak also needs a photo. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought i would bring to your attention, that a new task force has been started today (24/11) by myself. You can find this via the link provided: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Fife task force. Kilnburn (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could some kind soul please cast an eye over:

• Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_December_1

I feel that the hook could do with "tightening up" (perhaps a total re-write or "ALT" hook proposal?), and the article needs a lot of work with copy editing, refs, expansion etc etc. Pretty photographs or other good images would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing quite a lot of editing on the article for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway recently and have added a discussion to the talk page here for other editors to comment before I continue. Your contributions would be welcome. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you might want to know that a "new" User, who (ahem) "cannot remember" his old User name, has just started this:

• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/2008-12/Scotland

--Mais oui! (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A number of articles have been nominated for a name change which involves changing the capitalization scheme used. They are:

• Special Protection Area,
• Area of Conservation,
• Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
• Site of Special Scientific Interest, and
• Special Area of Conservation

(the links point to the discussion of the requested moves.) Members may wish to comment on the requests both for and against the proposed moves. I'm not sure where else notices could be posted to get as wide a discussion as possible, both for and against the requests), and so would appreciate people identifying appropriate projects and posting similar messages there.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent drive to improve the quality of location maps, a group around User:NordNordWest has created a series of new base graphics. The full set for Europe may be found here.

Included, of course, is also a new picture for Scotland, which, in my opinion, resembles the position of SCO and its surrounding a lot better than the current "Island picture". Another benefit is that the newly created map uses the SVG format, which means that it's freely scalable without any quality loss.

Would it be okay to exchange the base picture of the Scottish location map? Soccer-holic (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not without a crystal clear consensus. That "island picture" as you call it, was the result of some very fine collaborative work at this WikiProject, probably our most "participative" collective effort to date. Importantly, our map is a geographical map (a relief map); while the one you propose is a political map. This WikiProject has had some highly unpleasant experience of Users trying to impose political/politicised maps on Scotland-related articles, when a geographical map is much more neutral. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm okay. I am aware of the tensions which surround some Scottish topics, but I would not have thought that those have been (and probably still are) that severe. It is really better to leave everything as it is, then. --Soccer-holic (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Walls near Hoy is referred to as such by several reliable sources. After a minor editing dispute I have had a couple of emails from Cantick (talk · contribs) - apparently locals are keen to see their island returned to its "rightful name" of "Walls" - "which was one of the reasons we agreed to correct your Wiki section in the first place". Its fine by me if reliable sources start referring to "Walls" but we need to avoid becoming a tool in the campaign. I will drop them another note asap, but in the meantime let's keep an eye on South Walls and Hoy. Thanks, Ben MacDui 18:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea is currently undergoing GA review. Any assistance appreciated.SriMesh | talk 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing a taskforce on Scottish football at WP:FOOTY. Anyone intrested in helping? 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion for a new article on Edinburgh town walls, which would merge/replace Flodden Wall and Telfer Wall, but also include the Netherbow and other city defences. Any thoughts welcome, please add to Talk:Flodden Wall. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just though everybody should know that WikiProject Scottish Royalty has been proposed here on the WikiProject Council/Proposals area. This project would be a child of WikiProject British Royalty and would take a similar role as WikiProject English Royalty. The Quill (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Mais oui! (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Castle is up for Peer Review, any comments welcome here. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#List of National Anthems that could affect whether or not the Scottish national anthem is included on List of National Anthems. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) (Copied from Talk:Scotland. Ben MacDui 14:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalgalleries/. Badagnani (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed to move this to Edinburgh Trams based on what it seems the official name is. Please see Talk:Edinburgh tram network#Move 2. If there are no objections by Friday i am going ahead with the move. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bored with tedious amendments to articles using the odd word from the vernacular? Fed up with POV-pushers who haven't read WP:ENGVAR? Announcing the all new Template:Scottish English to remove those ugly stains. Ben MacDui 15:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting discussion on-going over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#'Scots Language Centre' & 'Dictionary of the Scots Language', regarding a couple of sources on the Scots language. It could possibly benefit from some informed opinions, if anyone knows the status of these organisations. Leithp 12:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in the Dundee talk page that the article no longer met many of the criteria for FA back in 2007. I imagine the requirements have either changed significantly or the article has degraded through subsequent editing. I've therefore nominated it for FA review. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the review page:

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dundee

--Mais oui! (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish has nominated Dundee for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it might be of interest to inform that there is a "discussion" on Talk:Germanic peoples about a the includeability of a genetics section. Among the points suggested (by SYNTHy innuendo) is that northern Poland, Ireland and Scotland represent the purest blooded Germanic people. The reasons or excuses offered on the talk page for inclusion of this innuendo are totally unconvincing to me I'm afraid, and it comes across as an embarrassingly Nazi-esque attempt to provide a modern origo gentis (this is a medieval literary tradition of concocting stories for the origins of particular nations) for a much beloved 18th century ethno-linguistic construction. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the National Galleries of Scotland publishing parts of their collections on Flickr (see norification above; I have been slowly adding some photos to Commons), now the National Archives have published images online. Perhaps of use to our articles?

Please see:

• www.scotlandsimages.com
• National treasures shown online, BBC

--Mais oui! (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone with some knowledge on the subject could take a look at the current setup of the articles on this issue. At the moment there is Scottish Independence and Scottish national identity but there is not a separate article on Scottish Nationalism which at the moment is just a redirect to the Independence article. In my opinion there should be a separate article for Scottish Nationalism rather than just a redirect. That seems to work well for the Welsh Nationalism and Welsh Independence articles. Theres alot of problems with the current Scottish articles so if anyone has any ideas on how to improve the setup or the articles covering this issue please take a look thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish national identity should be referenced or face AfD in my opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why Scottish national identity is not just covered on the Culture of Scotland or Scottish people article, theres plenty of space for the information there. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this had been brought up here - people who want to vote on the move should look at the discussion at - Talk:Scottish_independence#Request_move. I don't see why "Scottish national identity" has to be deleted. It is a complex subject more complex than English or Welsh identity (although both of these are currently becoming more complex).

as the disambiguation says "Scottish nationalism" can refer to "Scottish independence", "Scottish national identity" (not necessarily pro-independence" and the SNP. Scottish nationalism can also cover historic support for devolution (pioneered by nationalists), cultural movements etc. In fact Scottish nationalism comes in many forms, some of which may any post-date future independence.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been moved here from: Talk:Scotland_during_the_Roman_Empire#Scots_law.3F.

The statement "Roman influence on Scottish culture was not enduring", whilst true, does raise an interesting question: why is Scots law based upon Roman law (or, more accurately, Byzantine law, see Corpus Juris Civilis)? Anyone out there know? Ought to deserve a brief mention in the article, perhaps? --Mais oui! (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question and I have no idea what the answer is off-hand. I imagine the convention, as used in Scotland is of medieval rather than Iron Age provenance, but I'll certainly have a look. Ben MacDui 11:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It purely a guess: as a result of the wars between England and Scotland, there was an alliance (the "old alliance") between France and Scotland, so I think it possibly more due to the French link than the Roman invasion.Pyrotec (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the medieval Auld Alliance/France origin is by far the most plausible, now that you mention it. I do know that an unbelievably large amount of medieval Scots were educated (or became themselves teachers) at the University of Paris (eg. the Collegium scoticum was founded in 1325; see also: Category:University of Paris people), and other French/continental universities.

However, I have now spotted the following (totally unreferenced) section at our Scots law article:

From the 12th century the assimilation of the Celtic church into the Roman Catholic Church brought Canon law and Church courts dealing with areas of civil law, introducing Roman law based on 6th century law from the Eastern Roman empire of Justinian. This influence extended as Medieval Scots students of Civil or Canon Law mostly went abroad, to universities in Italy, France, Germany or the Netherlands. (The English universities, Oxford and Cambridge, were closed to Scots.) The University of St. Andrews (1410) included the teaching of Civil and Canon Law in its purposes, though it appears that little or no such teaching took place. The University of Glasgow (1451) was active in law teaching in its early years, one scholar there being William Elphinstone, who then studied abroad and went on to found the University of Aberdeen (1495) which taught canon law until the mid 16th century. Studying on the European mainland continued to be the norm for Scottish law students until the 18th century. In the early 16th century a costly war pushed James V of Scotland to do a deal with Pope Paul III for funds in the form of a tithe on the church in exchange for agreeing to found a College of Justice, in 1532.

So, the Catholic Church is credited with introducing Roman law into Scotland, in the 12th century (note: prior to the Auld Alliance). I note that our Auld Alliance article makes no mention of the origins of the Scottish legal system, let alone reference the topic.

I will move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland as it does not really concern this article, and point to the discussion at Talk:Corpus Juris Civilis, Talk:Roman Catholicism in Scotland, Talk:Auld Alliance, Talk:Law of France and Talk:Scots law. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion took place at Talk:Scotland_during_the_Roman_Empire. Please continue discussion below.

My handy Architect's legal handbook gives a brief outline of the continental influence, so I've rephrased what it says as a new opening paragraph to the section, cited accordingly.[3] In passing, I've noted that students going to the only two English universities had to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church, debarring Roman Catholics, nonconformists and presumably most Scots. At Oxford this applied from 1581 to 1871.[4] The Act of Uniformity passed in 1662 had similar effect.[5] London University started in 1826 didn't have this requirement, don't know if they did law studies. . . dave souza, talk 12:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it doesn't matter very much but as a project I suspect we are way off the pace in this area. The Assessment department stats show there are more than 1000, and that's just those with the WP Scotland banner on them. At a guess, I'd say there are probably between 10,000 and 20,000 articles without a banner at all. The reviewers are keeping up-to-date with the occasional review requests, and many new articles are being assessed and old ones re-assessed all the time, but please don't assume "someone else" is keeping up with the numerous new articles that are being continually generated. There may be a case for attempting to split the task into various sub-sections if anyone is so motivated. See also Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scotland articles by quality log if you are curious. Ben MacDui 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think its worth attempting a "tag and assess" drive, similar to the drive carried out by the Military History project? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Drive) Would enough people want to participate in such a drive? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this drive, and yes, I think its a good idea. The task is probably too big for any single individual to take on, but if a few willing hands were found the backlog could be cut down considerably. It doesn't have to involve major commitments, just a willingness to watch the new articles list and Assessment department stats, and tag and assess when so inspired. I'd say an ideal minimum number of participants would be 10, although it could probably be done by 5 if they were willing to stick to it. By all means count me in as one of the willing if there is a sufficient head of steam. Ben MacDui 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally, the Template:WP Scotland has just been updated too. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA's now all have an "importance" rating bar one where I have a COI. Ben MacDui 16:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Top and Highs all have a rating although the system is not yet recognising the List class articles. Ben MacDui 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear we are largely snoozing on this subject. So it goes. Ben MacDui 20:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ben - I undertook the GA review a little while back on Scotland during the Roman Empire, and have just recently started to get involved in the assessment side of this project. I found some of the above comments a little hard to follow. Sometimes, material on this discussion page reads like the second half of a conversation that happened... somewhere (my favourite is one of Shoemakers Holiday's contribs below). What are you meaning by articles with "no banner at all" - do you mean articles that would be within the Scotland project scope but are not tagged as such on their talk pages? That would certainly be a lot to hunt down... I'll go back to my sporadic tagging and rating for now, but will try and keep an eye out. Is there a reason to leave assessment requests on the assessment page once they have been responded to? I noticed some marked with strikethrough, and did that myself for one, then thought "why am I not just deleting this, now it's done?" Am i missing something? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

We are Wikimedia UK - the group of local Wikimedians helping the Foundation to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge". Love Wikipedia? Based in the UK? Can you support us in projects such as generating free-content photographs, freeing up archive material and media relations? Or are there other projects you'd like us to help with? if so, please click here to Join up, Donate and Get Involved