This cunning new wheeze is described at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing. Essentially a bot will deliver updates on all articles with a WP Scotland banner that are up for deletion, DYK, assessments and reviews etc. When its operational it would probably make sense to watch the sub-page it creates for changes rather than the News section of WP:SCOWNB as the updates are transcluded. Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Article alerts should appear in a few days. Ben MacDui 10:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With a degree of perhaps over-enthusiasm I decided to add a gap in the Arran collection of articles and started work on The Sleeping Warrior. This turned out to be a rather baffling and unusual assignment. Firstly numerous websites refer to somewhat different profiles and I have found nothing definitive as a written description so far. However, a quick hunt around Flickr seems to reveal some semblance of sense. If this is clearly the head and shoulders, and this a rather wonderful and definitive image of the whole shape, all becomes clear. Local knowledge, better references etc. appreciated. Ben MacDui 20:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this by pasting text from History of Scotland. Please review this creation, esp. in terms of periodization, which is rather random, and name (Early Modern Scotland better?). It leaves one more period article to be created, the one covering the period after the Napoleonic wars (the HoS templat calls it "Scotland in the Modern Era", but this title is far from satisfactory as it isn't exclusive of Early Modern Era). There is however not enough content in the HoS article to create a fork. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Edinburgh coat of arms image got deleted as it had no license info. I have re-uploaded it, with a fair-use rationale for the articles Edinburgh, Politics of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Castle, and Coat of arms of Edinburgh. If there are any others that need this image, please add further rationale to the image page. I also removed the coa image from templates, replacing it with a home-made alternative image. Hopefully it won't get deleted again! Maybe worth checking if other coats of arms are similarly at-risk. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged the article created for it into the primary article for Edinburgh, and added the image to the Edinburgh infobox. What significance does it have aside from being symbolic of Edinburgh? DeMatt (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:39, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Students in a campaign group at the University of St Andrews are editing wikipedia to promote their campaign ("Lower Rents Now Coalition"). Please be on the look-out for this and watchlist the relevant pages, which include University of St Andrews, David Russell Apartments, and of course the group itself, Lower Rents Now Coalition. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How should articles about men and women of the 1st half of the 16th century be categorized? In the example Janet Beaton, Category:Women of medieval Scotland seems too early; I am happy to make a new category, but I am not sure what would be consistent with this project. Thanks. - PKM (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put any woman born after the 15th century in that category. It will probably be a good idea to create new categories for women who lived afterwards: E.g. Category:Woman in 16th-century Scotland, Category:Woman in 17th-century Scotland, etc. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th Century Micklewood bridge at Doune is mentioned on Underspanned suspension bridge; could anyone add details (such as fate of the bridge) or photos? --Una Smith (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting, I'll have a look next time I'm at the library. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewRT(Talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all.

I'm currently redrafting George Heriot, and I noticed that the Dictionary of National Biography talks about his father (also George Heriot, 1540-1610) being an MP; it doesn't give details, but I'd presume for Edinburgh. Does anyone know if there's an accessible list somewhere of c16th Scottish Members of Parliament? It'd be nice to sort out a footnote about him... Shimgray | talk | 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone like to do a peer review of the Susan Boyle article. SunCreator (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not a member of this project. You may want to standardize and expand the Susan Boyle related article Blackburn, West Lothian. I did some minor edits there. The article needs new ratings as well. Just thought that I would bring this to the project's attention. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn - done. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone had suggestions for ways to tie Wikipedia in to the events of Homecoming Scotland 2009 in three months time? As I've suggested over on the Clans project, it might be asking too much to see one or all of Scottish clan, Tartan and Kilt as the front-page featured articles for the three days of Homecoming, but it would be nice to get them (and Sept (social)) up to WP:GA by then. Anyone fancy taking them on? They're pretty fundamental articles in any case - and some of the most popular, that big 3 are all averaging over 18000 pageviews/month - so it's an opportunity for someone to really make a difference. Scottish Highlands is another "biggy" that could do with some work, and the Homecoming article itself is pretty stubby, although I understand it's hard to write the article before the event happens. Le Deluge (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the above article and frankly, its a bit of a disaster - totally unreferenced and full of POV statements. I've cleaned it up a bit but it needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. I'm not a member of this wikiproject but took the liberty of adding your banner to the talk page to flag it up. Could somebody check it to see if the ratings are right (I'm not sure what the importance should be) and give it a bit of TLC? Thanks Richerman (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that, its a complete cut and paste from a BBC website. I've put it up for speedy deletion. Richerman (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchers of this page might like to contribute to a discussion at Talk:Alex Salmond about the nationality field in the biography infoboxes of Scots, especially those of SNP politicians. Or perhaps the discussion should be here. Viewfinder (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've fallen a bit behind here - I've just added two more of each that I've nominated, and am in the process of scanning and preparing a series of Featured picture candidates on the works of Sir Walter Scott. Rob Roy is up at the moment, The Bride of Lammermuir just passed. Thinking of Black Dwarf or Ivanhoe or Heart of Midlothian next, though I'll have to check - the set isn't complete, so it may be that some simply aren't possible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expressed some concerns on my talk page regarding the manufacture of entirely new, supposedly Scots, spellings of proper names that are already Scots on the Scots wikipedia, and their potential for tainting the wider wikisphere. The particular example regards the infection of the Kirkcaldy article with the spurious Scots version of the name as Kirkcaudy. It's evident that this was a good faith edit, but sourced from a new spelling, cooked up on the talk page of the Scots article. I reverted the addition to the English article as the only apparent source is the Scots article. I'm discussing the matter on the Scots article but there is as yet no consensus and what I would view as worrying disrespect for wiki policy in regards to active advocacy of the concoction of new orthographies - essentially original research. I elaborate a little further on my talk page.

I fear the issue is wider than just the name of Kirkcaldy, and such maverick action on the Scots wiki could, and probably has, spilled out in to the English one and those of other tongues. Er, help... Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been pissing me off for ages. I have removed "Embra" from the Edinburgh article. The whole point is that the word "Edinburgh" is Scots! The English language merely uses the original Scots name. Same for all other Scottish towns. All unreferenced names purporting to be Scots must be removed. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a huge issue, been bothering me for ages too. Scots is not a written language, and in the time when "Scots" was a written language it was not clearly distinguished from English and spellings weren't consistent. Some body with real authority, likes the ones they have for Celtic languages, needs to standardize an orthography based on local pronunciations, for this to work on wiki. In reality, the prestige written form of modern Scots is standard Commonwealth English, which its as close to as many other English dialect groups. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is huge, and contentious (e.g. I have some disagreements* with the para above, but not over the fundamental issue, so I won't divert the discussion). I'd agree that it is highly desirable that a body with authority draw up conventions and standardized orthography, potentially constructing neologisms or promoting previously unused or unconventional spellings, and that this should inform usage on the Scots Wikipaedia. The problem is that some editors on the Scots wiki seem to believe that they are this appropriate body, to me in clear conflict with policies and guidelines, particularly on verifiability. I'm not sure whether this is through ignorance, wilful flouting or a bit of both. To give the benefit of the doubt, the help pages, policies and guidelines etc. on Scots wiki are as yet rather undernourished, with some that are there as yet untranslated from English. It may also be from my comparative lack of familiarity but they also seem a little harder to navigate. Improvement of these may be a worthwhile start in tackling this issue.

Also, my impression is that citation of material (in general and not just in regard to orthography) seems to be less widespread than in other wikis and could be improved.

Despite personally largely inhabiting the English wiki, I'm as keen to see the Scots wiki flourish and develop and certainly don't want to have an apparent battle between the two. However the ripples to the rest of the wikisphere mean that this is not just an internal issue to the Scots wiki. Any ideas for a plan of action at this Project, or possibly widening it further? Is there a wiki-wide standards and policies body for instance?

(*For the record, I'd maintain that Scots clearly is a written language, but without standardised spellings, or indeed pronunciations, and largely neglected in literature of all forms in modern Scotland in favour of the official and higher status tongue (i.e. English). What's more, to say that "the prestige written form of modern Scots is standard Commonwealth English" is to some extent like saying "the prestige written form of medieval Scots was standard medieval Latin". The former is much less utilised or standardised, the latter has the high status, but they're not the same thing.)
Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought - is it worthwhile compiling a list of article names and/or proper names prone to having dubious and spurious Scots spellings added to them, as a firefighting exercise? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Latin isn't a product of the Scots-English dialect continuum, so it's not really the same. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the very reason I chose the example: the high status language in present day Scotland is Scottish or British or Commonwealth English, but simply because it is on a language/dialect continuum does not make it "modern Scots" any more than the (clearly more linguistically distinct) high status and vernacular pairing of medieval Latin and Scots.

That said, and more importantly for the issue at hand, conventionally much of modern Scots is similar or identical to Standard English and, as would be expected, particularly so for words or proper nouns originating in Scotland (such as Kirkcaldy, Edinburgh). The tendency of some Scots wiki editors to make a word or spelling choice on the basis, to quote another user, simply "tae gar it luik deifferent frae Inglis" is a cultural cringe that effectively awards a word or spelling to English and falsely banishes it from Scots whenever the more usual or conventional word is the same in Scots as English, even if it is of Scots origin (again such as Kirkcaldy, Edinburgh).

Anyway, any further thoughts on what to do? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any examples where the "Scots" word for a place-name in Scotland should be different from English? I think if the users who are patriotic about Scots could be convinced of your line of argument (which is correct on that point I think), then we wouldn't need to have any Scots spellings in articles at all (though local IPA pronunciation with ogg would definitely be useful). Scots speakers are 100% literate in English, and as there's no standard orthography for the variety it's difficult to see how there could be different spellings. There are some historical spellings that make the names completely different from modern names, such as Ycolmkil (and variants) the older Scots word for Iona, but in these examples I'd guess the modern Scots word has surely become the same (as Iona is surely the modern Scots word). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly a few in Doric - Steenhive, The Broch, Kinker etc. Some are harder to assess. A local conversation would hardly ever refer to Lossiemouth as other than "Lossie", but does that make it a Scots word? Likewise "Peterheed", Aiberdeen and so on. "Furry Boots City" is just a nickname, but it's hard to put language in a box, especially when there is no formal oversight. Ben MacDui 18:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there certainly are places that have different names in Scots than English. I'm only taking issue with the contrivance of new names or spellings to (spuriously appear to) heighten difference when none exists. Fawkirk. Kilconquhar is pronounced Kilconker in formal/English contexts but otherwise Kin-yucher in Scots; personally I don't know what the conventional spelling for the latter would be. Ainster, although the article has it Enster, which reflects the Scots pronunciation less well. Glesca is legit, but it's arguable if Glasgow is any less Scots. Scots versions may be more problematic orthographically and they may have to be looked at case by case but the problem shouldn't be insurmountable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess as part of the GA sweeps, an editor has removed good article status from Scots language with just a week's notice, on the grounds of a lack of inline citations. Anyone fancy taking a look? It is a Top importanc article for the Project. FlagSteward (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of Scottish battle stub articles have been proposed for deletion via WP:PROD 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and rightly so. They are mainly the creations of Scotland Rules (talk · contribs) who, unfortunately, is mixing up fiction with actual history. Two of the battles that I've reviewed so far only exist in Blind Harry's Wallace, which is long since discredited as an actual historical source by historians (not least because it has been shown to contain several demonstrable falsehoods, as well as it apparently being made up by Harry some 200 years after the fact and not a translation of a contemporary account as claimed). I'm afraid that a good hard look at Special:Contributions/Scotland Rules by everyone is in order. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for some help regarding creating/editing/disambiguating articles related to 19th Century Scottish Clubs.

I'm currently working on creating articles on Scottish Cup seasons (eg. Scottish Cup 1876–77), and have found that there is very little information on the early participants (which there are many!). Furthermore, (possibly unrelated) clubs have similar names, and I am sure some links direct to these pages rather to the actual club. Moreover, there is little information on the evolution of some of these clubs to a present-day club (for example, Ayr Thistle merged to form Ayr F.C., and merged again to Ayr United F.C.).

I'm looking for help with people with knowledge of this era to help clean up existing articles, create new articles, and disambiguate some of the links.

Does anyone have any idea of good resources for this niche? Do we have enough enthusiasts for a task force? Macarism (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown has been nominated for a good article reassessment. 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.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All, for the 1237 Treaty of York, I replaced the stub with an article, as the stub incorrectly said that the treaty determined the Anglo-Scottish border, which it did not. I then started to go through the what-links-here list to check what was said about the treaty and was appalled at the number of high-profile, important articles that need to be changed. I'm not comfortable about wading into all of this if so many people are under the impression that the treaty relates to the border. I made the change and I'll help clear up the collateral damage in other articles, but I'd rather this information not come as a surprise to those who defend the articles against spurious information and vandalism. Suggestions more than welcome.

Checking for the source of the original error, it seems to lie in this page of the UK National Archives website, which was cited in 2007 and has propagated into a number of articles in the meantime. The Treaty of York article as it now stands is well-cited, just click on the links to get to the appropriate pages, one of which includes an English translation of the treaty (provided by someone's PhD dissertation).

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the article as part of the GA sweeps process. The article needs some work to meet WP:GAC so has been delisted. You can find details of issues that need addressing at Talk:Treasure Island/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After creating a couple of articles on former Scottish theatres I noticed there was no template appropriate for them. On looking at the King's Theatre, Glasgow I see the template for theatres of Scotland which is solely for those still in existence. Does having Category:Former theatres in Scotland obviate the need for a template to fit such articles? Coll Mac (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if there are not likely to be a large number of former theatres, you should consider adding them to the existing template. (People interested in existing theatres are probably interested in former ones too). Something with two sections per Template:Hebrides might work best. A note to Template talk:Scottish Theatres in advance would probably be appreciated by wiki-theatregoers. Ben MacDui 18:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I shall take your advice and post a note there. As a newcomer I will have to ask them how to add them to the template (I hate being a newcomer anywhere, the sooner I'm a veteran the better). :) Coll Mac (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Template:Hebrides in edit mode it will give you some clues. I'd copy the existing theatres template into a sandbox and muck about with it there if I were you. Just let me know if you need any help. Ben MacDui 08:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that, Ben. Thanks. Coll Mac (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stung by ferocious criticism at Talk:Fauna of Scotland#Domesticated animals I have defended our collective honour by introducing List of domesticated Scottish breeds. I am intrigued to discover that we have a "national feline emblem" in the shape of the peculiar-looking Scottish Fold cat (pictured) and several of the breeds I had never even heard of before. Anyone with knowledge of the Shetland Goose, Scottish Tan Face sheep etc. (or those who just like pictures of Hielan' coos) welcome. Ben MacDui 19:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well. You live and learn. It's all new to me too! Thanks for sharing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grumbles about the quality of the picture on the main page at Wikipedia talk:Did you know led to the unearthing that our glorious new national emblem is currently putting Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the Tour de France in their place. See latest view hits. Ben MacDui 16:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A recent attempt was made to switch location maps but was reverted on grounds that there was a "census" a few years back. Times have changed now and the new map is much more clearer to display pin on. The one that is insisted we keep is awful for the purpose. It shows no rivers, no division areas, the new svg is of a much higher quality than png anyway but th fact that is shows county divisions whilst the one we have at present does not makes it a much better location map. I suggest we review the situtaion and come to a new consensus. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]