Talk:Scotland: Difference between revisions
Reverted good faith edits by 36.71.73.58 (talk) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
{{oldpeerreview|archive=2}} |
|||
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{Scottish English|date=September 2010}} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
|action1=GAN |
|action1=GAN |
||
|action1date=15:30, 14 April 2006 |
|action1date=15:30, 14 April 2006 |
||
Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
|action5=GAR |
|action5=GAR |
||
|action5date=2 October 2007 |
|action5date=2 October 2007 |
||
|action5link=Talk:Scotland#GA on hold |
|action5link=Talk:Scotland/Archive_15#GA on hold |
||
|action5result=kept |
|action5result=kept |
||
|action5oldid=161574292 |
|action5oldid=161574292 |
||
|action6=PR |
|||
|action6date=25 January 2008 |
|||
|action6link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland/archive2 |
|||
|action6result=reviewed |
|||
|action6oldid=186692864 |
|||
|action7=GAR |
|||
|action7date=21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
|action7link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/1 |
|||
|action7result=kept |
|||
|action7oldid=263466650 |
|||
|action8=GAR |
|||
|action8date=7:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
|action8link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/2 |
|||
|action8result=delisted |
|||
|action8oldid=887394242 |
|||
|topic=geography |
|topic=geography |
||
|currentstatus= |
|currentstatus=DGA |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|vital=yes|class=B|collapsed=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|||
{{WikiProject Scotland|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Celts|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject UK geography|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|||
| 5 = {{WikiProjectPolitics|class=A|importance=mid}} |
|||
| 6 = {{WPUKgeo|importance=top|class=A|importance=high}} |
|||
| 7 = {{WikiProject Celts}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{ |
{{To do|1}} |
||
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|||
{{todo|1}} |
|||
{{archive box| |
|||
Previous discussions from this Talk page are archived here: |
|||
* [[/Archive Summary|Archive Summary]] |
|||
* [[/Archive1|Archive 1]] |
|||
* [[/Archive2|Archive 2]] |
|||
* [[/Archive3|Archive 3]] |
|||
* [[/Archive4|Archive 4]] |
|||
* [[/Archive5|Archive 5]] |
|||
* [[/Archive6|Archive 6]] |
|||
* [[/Archive7|Archive 7]] |
|||
* [[/Archive8|Archive 8]] |
|||
* [[/Archive9|Archive 9]] |
|||
* [[/Archive10|Archive 10]] |
|||
* [[/Archive11|Archive 11]] |
|||
* [[/Archive12|Archive 12]] |
|||
* [[/Archive13|Archive 13]] |
|||
* [[/Archive14|Archive 14]] |
|||
* [[/Archive15|Archive 15]] |
|||
* [[/Archive 16|Archive 16]]}} |
|||
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 14 2014 (2nd)}} |
|||
{{V0.5|class=GA|category=Geography|small=yes}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WPCD|small=yes}} |
|||
{{ |
{{Scotland NB}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
:''Please observe [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|official Wikipedia policy]] on [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|No personal attacks]]. In particular, please note the clear instruction: "... some types of comments are ''never'' acceptable: racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor... or using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Any such personal attacks will be immediately removed from this talk page (see [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks]]). Using ip [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sockpuppet]] or meatpuppet addresses, or [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]], to make personal attacks is particularly frowned upon. Please log in to your [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|account]].'' |
|||
|counter = 32 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|||
|algo = old(30d) |
|||
==Discussions opened by 122.105.217.71== |
|||
|archive = Talk:Scotland/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
An identical discussion doubting the "country" likeness has been opened by the same anonymous [[Special:Contributions/122.105.217.71|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. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
: No, the law of the UK doesn't state anything of the sort. --[[User:Breadandcheese|Breadandcheese]] ([[User talk:Breadandcheese|talk]]) 13:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Don't feed the Trolls would be my advice. [[User:Rab-k|Rab-k]] ([[User talk:Rab-k|talk]]) 09:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Clarify, Trolls? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::You may find [[Wikipedia:What is a troll?]] helps. [[User:Ben MacDui|Ben MacDui]]<sup><font color="#228B22">[[User talk:Ben MacDui|Talk]]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">[[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|Walk]]</font></small> 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Why do you think I'm a troll? [[Special:Contributions/122.105.217.71|122.105.217.71]] ([[User talk:122.105.217.71|talk]]) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:[[:Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll%3F#Pestering|This is what you do]] [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Give me one example of me doing that. [[Special:Contributions/122.105.216.1|122.105.216.1]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Breadandcheese|Breadandcheese]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Inge|Inge]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=122.105.217.71 contribs] are a bit OTT on the mass talk postings, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Netherlands&diff=prev&oldid=196728042 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. [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]] ([[User talk:SFC9394|talk]]) 23:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
How am i disrupting wikipedia? [[Special:Contributions/122.105.216.1|122.105.216.1]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Inge|Inge]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 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?[[User:Rab-k|Rab-k]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ben MacDui|Ben MacDui]]<sup><font color="#228B22">[[User talk:Ben MacDui|Talk]]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">[[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|Walk]]</font></small> 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Give me one example of me doing that. [[Special:Contributions/122.105.216.1|122.105.216.1]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wee Jimmy|Wee Jimmy]] ([[User talk:Wee Jimmy|talk]]) 00:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Please see the various discussions in Archive 13. <s>Archives 10-13</s> Thanks. [[User:Ben MacDui|Ben MacDui]]<sup><font color="#228B22">[[User talk:Ben MacDui|Talk]]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">[[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|Walk]]</font></small> 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. --[[User:Breadandcheese|Breadandcheese]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ben MacDui|Ben MacDui]]<sup><font color="#228B22">[[User talk:Ben MacDui|Talk]]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">[[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|Walk]]</font></small> 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. [[User:Ben MacDui|Ben MacDui]]<sup><font color="#228B22">[[User talk:Ben MacDui|Talk]]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">[[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|Walk]]</font></small> 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 :-) -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Alastairward|Alastairward]] ([[User talk:Alastairward|talk]]) 11:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::However, what Scotland ''was'' and ''is'', are two different things. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Rab-k|Rab-k]] ([[User talk:Rab-k|talk]]) 19:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== history == |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/216.236.125.18|216.236.125.18]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tomeasy|Tomeasy]] ([[User talk:Tomeasy|talk]]) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks [[User:Tomeasy|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 [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Something_amiss_in_Scotland|Something amiss in Scotland]] page in order to save going over old ground.[[User:Rab-k|Rab-k]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Ususal suspects? <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk </font>]] </span></small> 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. [[User:Tomeasy|Tomeasy]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Inge|Inge]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(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. [[User:Rjm at sleepers|Rjm at sleepers]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Inge|Inge]] ([[User talk:Inge|talk]]) 15:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The map should be changed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Indeed it should; so, I changed it! --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I admire your courage G2, but I fear the results. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Well, Wikipedia does support [[WP:BOLD|boldness]], but, really, we shouldn't fear bullies. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk: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]]? [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(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. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
''"we shouldn't fear bullies"'' and edits such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AG2bambino&diff=201603109&oldid=201602816 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. [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]] ([[User talk:SFC9394|talk]]) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you for sharing your personal opinions. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk: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 :-( -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Just ignore it, UKPhoenix79. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
|- |
|||
! [[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! -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Do you mean something like [[:Image:UK scotland.png]] (and similarly for the other three articles)? — [[User:Andrwsc|Andrwsc]] ([[User talk:Andrwsc|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Andrwsc|contribs]]) 19:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::'''THANK-YOU'''!!! It isn't perfect (I actually like the [[Bretagne|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. -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Holy smokers, that 'map' was rejected too? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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 {{user|Sarah777}} ("Scotland should be simply represented as darker on a uniform lighter European background") and {{user|Red King}} ("The key message is that Scotland is not a region of the UK, it is a distinct nation"). [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(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. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Mr Stephen|Mr Stephen]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
; Scotland in UK map: |
|||
# [[User:UKPhoenix79]] |
|||
# [[User:GoodDay]] |
|||
# [[User:Jza84]] |
|||
# [[User:Inge]] |
|||
# [[User talk:Tomeasy]] |
|||
# [[User:G2bambino]] |
|||
# [[User:Drachenfyre]] |
|||
# [[User:Mr Stephen]] |
|||
# [[User:Andrwsc]] |
|||
# [[User:Cameron]] |
|||
;Scotland alone map: |
|||
# [[User:Rab-k]] |
|||
# [[User:Jack forbes]] |
|||
# [[User:Barryob|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)</font>]] [[User talk:Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)</font>]] 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). [[User:Ben MacDui|Ben MacDui]]<sup><font color="#228B22">[[User talk:Ben MacDui|Talk]]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">[[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|Walk]]</font></small> 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? --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{RFChist| section=Change map !! reason=Long and <sigh> ongoing discussion on what map should represent Scotland in the UK !! time= 10:20, 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. -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Inge|Inge]] ([[User talk: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) [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]] ([[User talk: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! -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]] ([[User talk:SFC9394|talk]]) 11:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Your incivil activities are unacceptable - is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScotland&diff=201786990&oldid=201786776 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. [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScotland&diff=201785025&oldid=201784029 YOUR changes] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScotland&diff=201785406&oldid=201785125 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 :-( -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SFC9394|SFC9394]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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! -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 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? -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 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 -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tomeasy|Tomeasy]] ([[User talk:Tomeasy|talk]]) 16:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I fear ''both'' proposed maps will continue to be resisted here. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Whatever map gets chosen [[:Image:UK scotland.png|this]] on is a big no no due to the fact that the European mainland seem to have migrated south. --[[User:Barryob|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)</font>]] [[User talk:Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)</font>]] 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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ben MacDui|Ben MacDui]]<sup><font color="#228B22">[[User talk:Ben MacDui|Talk]]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">[[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|Walk]]</font></small> 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I do know of the past discussions on this 'map' topic & how there was ''no consensus'' then. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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 (philosophy)|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. [[User:Ben MacDui|Ben MacDui]]<sup><font color="#228B22">[[User talk:Ben MacDui|Talk]]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">[[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|Walk]]</font></small> 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. |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:Europe_location_SCO_2.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
examples from other countries (currently none known) |
|||
<!-- please only one example from each country, thanks --> |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
<!-- Image:Location map for Wallonia in Europe.png not actually used--> |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
Please comment by following this format: |
|||
::<nowiki>* - </nowiki>''<your comment>''<nowiki> -- ~~~~</nowiki> |
|||
* 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.) [[User:AllyD|AllyD]] ([[User talk:AllyD|talk]]) 19:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Comment''' Factually incorrect - see [[Wallonia]]. [[User:AllyD|AllyD]] ([[User talk: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! -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tomeasy|Tomeasy]] ([[User talk: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. |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:Europe_location_SCO.png |
|||
Image:Europe location ENG.png |
|||
Image:Europe location WAL.png |
|||
Image:Europe location N-IRL.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
examples from other countries (currently none known) |
|||
<!-- please only one example from each country, thanks --> |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
Please comment by following this format: |
|||
::<nowiki>* - </nowiki>''<your comment>''<nowiki> -- ~~~~</nowiki> |
|||
* It correctly show Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom & its location with Europe. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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.) --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 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. [[User:Tomeasy|Tomeasy]] ([[User talk: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.<br/> |
|||
'''3A''' |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:Uk map only scotland.png |
|||
Image:Uk map only england.png |
|||
Image:Uk map only wales.png |
|||
Image:Uk map only northern ireland.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
'''3B''' |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:UK scotland.png |
|||
Image:UK england.png |
|||
Image:UK wales.png |
|||
Image:UK north ireland.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
'''3C''' |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:Map of Scotland within the United Kingdom.png |
|||
Image:Map of England within the United Kingdom.png |
|||
Image:Map of Wales within the United Kingdom.png |
|||
Image:Map of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
examples from other countries |
|||
<!-- please only one example from each country, thanks --> |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:Deutschland Lage von Bayern.svg |
|||
Image:Italy Regions Sicily Map.png |
|||
Image:New South Wales locator-MJC.png |
|||
Image:Papua new guinea east new britain province.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
Please comment by following this format: |
|||
::<nowiki>* - </nowiki>''<your comment>''<nowiki> -- ~~~~</nowiki> |
|||
::* - My '''second choice''' -- [[User:Davidkinnen|Davidkinnen]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 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. [[User:Tomeasy|Tomeasy]] ([[User talk: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.<br/> |
|||
'''4A''' |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:Uk map scotland.png |
|||
Image:Uk map england.png |
|||
Image:Uk map wales.png |
|||
Image:Uk map northern ireland.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
'''4B''' |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:Uk map scotland green.png |
|||
Image:Uk map england green.png |
|||
Image:Uk map wales green.png |
|||
Image:Uk map northern ireland green.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
<!-- please only one example from each country, thanks --> |
|||
examples from other countries |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
Image:Map of USA CA.svg |
|||
Image:Bretagne map.png |
|||
Image:Alberta-map.png |
|||
Image:IndonesiaNorthSumatra.png |
|||
</gallery> |
|||
Please comment by following this format: |
|||
::<nowiki>* - </nowiki>''<your comment>''<nowiki> -- ~~~~</nowiki> |
|||
* Personally I like this type the best. <s>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.</s> OK I'VE MADE THEM hehehe :-D -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Davidkinnen|Davidkinnen]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*:Ok I have changed the red colour now... is that what you were thinking?? -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 11:17, 31 March 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... -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Pyrotec|Pyrotec]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk: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. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk </font>]] </span></small> 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. -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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 [[User talk:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]]. [[User:Tomeasy|Tomeasy]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Major Subdivisions list=== |
|||
---- |
|||
Here is a list of ''one'' major subdivision (lack of a better term) of ''every'' country on the planet ('''193''' Countries listed) ''Excluding'' the [[United Kingdom|UK]]. |
|||
*[[United Nations member states|191 UN members]] (''excluding'' the [[United Kingdom|UK]]) |
|||
*[[Vatican City]] & [[Republic of China|Taiwan]] |
|||
---- |
|||
====Choice 1==== |
|||
To show an expanded view of the continent the country is on. The subdivision in question will have a different colour to the entire continent including the countries other subdivisions. |
|||
'''Total = 0/193''' |
|||
====Choice 2==== |
|||
To show an expanded view of the continent the country is on and shade any other country in the same colour (different to the country itself). The subdivision in question will have a different colour to the rest of the country. |
|||
'''Total = 0/193''' |
|||
====Choice 3==== |
|||
---- |
|||
To show only the country and its subdivisions, no other neighbouring country shown. The subdivision in question will have a different colour to the rest of the country. |
|||
'''Africa''' = 43/52<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:Angola Provinces Cuando Cubango 250px.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Botswana-Kgalagadi.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:BurkinaFaso Centre-Nord.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Burundi Bururi.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Cameroon Extreme North 300px.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Locator map of São Nicolau, Cape Verde.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:CAR-BasseKotto.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Chad-Logone Oriental region.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Mohéli in Comoros.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:DCongoManiema.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Congo-Plateaux.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Coted'Ivoire ValleeduBandama.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Djibouti-Dikhilregion.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Eritrea Gash-Barka.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Ethiopia-Oromia.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Gabon-Moyen-Ogooue.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Gambia-NorthBank.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Ghana-Northern.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Guinea Kindia.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Guinea-Bissau Oio.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Kenya-RiftValley.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Lesotho Districts Thaba-Tseka 250px.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Libyen Wadi Al Shatii.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:MadagascarMahajanga.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:MW-Lilongwe.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Mali Sikasso.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Mauritania-Brakna.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Mauritius-Plaines Wilhems.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Mozambique Provinces Tete 250px.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Namibia Regions Otjozondjupa 250px.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Niger Dosso.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:NigeriaNiger.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Rwanda-South.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Senegal Tambacounda.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:SC-Belombre.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Sierra Leone PortLoko.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Somalia regions map Jubbada Hoose.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:South Africa Provinces showing FS.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Tanzania Mtwara.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:TN-18.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Uganda Kaberamaido.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:ZM-Western.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Province of Mashonaland Central.svg]] |
|||
'''Americas''' = 22/35<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:Antigua-Saint Mary.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Barbados-Saint George.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Bolivia-Santa Cruz.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Mapa loc Antofagasta.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Camagüey Province Location.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Dominica-Saint Joseph.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:DomRepSanJuan.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:El Salvador-San Salvador.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Grenada-Saint Andrew.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:AltaVerapazGUAT.PNG]] |
|||
[[:Image:Guyana-Potaro-Siparuni.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:HondurasOlancho.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Jamaica-Saint Elizabeth.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Mexico map, MX-CHH.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:NicaraguaRAAN.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Chiriquí.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:StKitts-Nevis JCA.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Santa lucia dennery political.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:SVG Saint Andrew.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Suriname-Coronie.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Uruguay-Florida.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Venezuela-amazonas.jpg]] |
|||
'''Asia''' = 29/46 (including Taiwan)<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:Afghanistan-Bamiyan.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:ArmeniaGegharkunik.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:BH-02.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:LocMap Bangladesh Dhaka.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:BhutanWangduePhodrang.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:IranYazd.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:IraqDiyala.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Israel haifa dist.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Map of Japan with highlight on 14 Kanagawa 神奈川県.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Jordan-Mafraq.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Kar obl.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:South Hwanghae NK.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Jeollanam SK.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Kuwait-Al Ahmadi.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:KyrgyzstanOsh.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Lebanon-Beqaa.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Map mn dornogobi aimag.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:MyanmarShan.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Oman Al Wusta.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:PakistanBalochistan.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:QA-07.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Saudi Arabia - Ar Riyad province locator.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:North Central province Sri Lanka.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Homs.PNG]] |
|||
[[:Image:Hsinchu County Location Map.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Tj1-kaart.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:TurkmenistanBalkan.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:UZ-Navoiy.PNG]] |
|||
[[:Image:Yemen-Hadhramaut.png]] |
|||
'''Europe''' = 32/43<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:AlbaniaBeratCounty.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Andorra-Escaldes-Engordany.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Austria ooe.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:BelarusHrodnaRegion.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Vlaams GewestLocatie.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:BosniaCantonZenicaDoboj.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Oblast Burgas.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:CroatiaBjelovar-Bilogora.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Cyprus-Larnaca.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Karlovarsky kraj.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Map DK Region Midtjylland.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Ida-Viru maakond.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:FI-LS.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Deutschland Lage von Bayern.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:GreeceEpirus.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:HU county Borsod Abauj Zemplen.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Italy Regions Sicily Map.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Panevezio apskritis.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Latvia-Riga.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:District DiekirchLocatie.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:MKD muni nonn(Prilep).png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Kolašin-Position.PNG]] |
|||
[[:Image:Gelderland position.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Oppland kart.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Wojewodztwo dolnoslaskie.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:LocalDistritoGuarda.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:San Marino-Acquaviva.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Nitrakrajloc.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Pokrajine spodnja stajerska.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Localización Castilla y León.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Svcmap vasterbotten.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Swiss Canton Map BE.png]] |
|||
'''Oceania''' = 7/14<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:New South Wales locator-MJC.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Aiwomap.jpg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Position of Southland Region.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Papua new guinea east new britain province.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Samoa-Gaga'emauga.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Solomon Islands-Malaita.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Shefa.PNG]] |
|||
'''Transcontinental countries''' = 2/3<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:Egypt-Bani Suwayf.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Map of Russia - Sakha (Yakutia) Republic (2008-03).svg]] |
|||
'''Total = 135/193''' |
|||
---- |
|||
====Choice 4==== |
|||
---- |
|||
To show a close up of the country and shade any other country seen in the closeup in the same colour (different to the country itself). The subdivision in question will have a different colour to the rest of the country. |
|||
'''Africa''' = 5/52<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:DZ-01.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Benin Alibori.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Equatorial Guinea-Centro Sur.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Gharb-Chrarda-Béni Hssen.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Schamal Darfur.PNG]] |
|||
'''Americas''' = 12/35<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Bf-map.gif]] |
|||
[[:Image:BelizeStannCreek.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Brazil State MatoGrosso.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Alberta-map.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Republic of Colombia - Meta.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Costa Rica Guanacaste.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:EC-moronasantiago-map.PNG]] |
|||
[[:Image:Haiti-Artibonite.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Paraguay Presidente Hayes.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Location of Loreto region.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Map of USA CA.svg]] |
|||
== Audio Track Doesn’t Say “Scotland” == |
|||
'''Asia''' = 12/46<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:Azerbaijan-Quba.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Brunei-Brunei and Muara.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Jilin CN.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Georgia Kakheti map.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:India Maharashtra locator map.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:IndonesiaNorthSumatra.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Laos Khammouan.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Kelantan state locator.PNG]] |
|||
[[:Image:Ph luzviminda.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Thailand Central.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:East Timor-Viqueque.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:LocationVietnamQuangTri.png]] |
|||
Yeah, I'm really confused isn't the audio track in the header of this article, supposed to be a pronunciation guide for the word "Scotland"? But for some reason it says "Uhvupa". Am I missing something or do we need to re-record it? [[User:DSQ|DSQ]] ([[User talk:DSQ|talk]]) 11:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''Europe''' = 5/43<br/> |
|||
[[:Image:Bretagne map.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:IrelandCork.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:Cahul raion.png]] |
|||
[[:Image:LocalDistritoGuarda.svg]] |
|||
[[:Image:Map of Ukraine political simple Oblast Iwano-Frankiwsk.png]] |
|||
:The audio is for "Alba", not "Scotland". [[User:JaggedHamster|JaggedHamster]] ([[User talk:JaggedHamster|talk]]) 11:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''Transcontinental countries''' = 1/3<br/> |
|||
::Is it? Because that's not how you pronounce the word Alba, that would be "Al-ah-ba" or "Al-ah-pa". |
|||
[[:Image:Sivas Turkey Provinces locator.jpg]] |
|||
::Even if it was the correct pronunciation, which it definitely is not, the audio file link should not be next to the word "Scotland" surely? It should be moved to be next to the word Alba. |
|||
::Because the file is in the header multiple non English Wikipedia pages used this audio file as an example of how to say the word Scotland. That's how I discovered it by finding it on the Japanese language Wikipedia page スコットランド. [[User:DSQ|DSQ]] ([[User talk:DSQ|talk]]) 18:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:It does sound like it's supposed to say Alba, but it is a shocking rendition. '''''[[User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish|<span style="COLOR:#313F33">Catfish</span>]] [[User talk:Catfish Jim and the soapdish|<span style="COLOR:#313F33">Jim</span>]]<small style="COLOR:#313F33"> and the soapdish</small>''''' 19:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
'''Total = 35/193''' |
|||
::Okay it’s good to know it’s not just me! Would anyone be opposed to my changing it? [[User:DSQ|DSQ]] ([[User talk:DSQ|talk]]) 08:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
:::Go for it. I definitely wasn't claiming it was a good pronunciation of Alba, just explaining the confusion. [[User:JaggedHamster|JaggedHamster]] ([[User talk:JaggedHamster|talk]]) 08:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
====Other 1==== |
|||
::::Neither the sound file nor the IPA seem to be present in the current version, presumbaly swept away in the to-ing and fro-ing of the last few weeks. |
|||
'''no major subdivisions''' |
|||
::::If I understand that your intention is to produce a new sound file of the pronunciation of ''Alba'', how is your Gaelic? [[User:Mutt Lunker|Mutt Lunker]] ([[User talk:Mutt Lunker|talk]]) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Note that the following countries have no major subdivisions listed:<br/> |
|||
:::::...had missed from the above that you're aware it's not as someone uninformed might render it from English language spelling conventions. Out of idle curiosity I did a web search for pronunciation examples and there are some shockers. [[User:Mutt Lunker|Mutt Lunker]] ([[User talk:Mutt Lunker|talk]]) 12:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
'''Africa''' = 4/52<br/> |
|||
::::::It wasn't my intention to record a new version unfortunately as I think my accent isn't ready to represent our country just yet. I just felt it was imperative that the recording be removed. [[User:DSQ|DSQ]] ([[User talk:DSQ|talk]]) 01:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [[User:DSQ|DSQ]] ([[User talk:DSQ|talk]]) 01:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
[[Liberia]] [[Swaziland]] [[Togo]] [[Trinidad and Tobago]]<br/> |
|||
'''Asia''' = 2/46<br/> |
|||
[[Cambodia]] [[Singapore]]<br/> |
|||
'''Europe''' = 3/43<br/> |
|||
[[Liechtenstein]] [[Malta]] [[Vatican City]]<br/> |
|||
'''Oceania''' = 1/14<br/> |
|||
[[Fiji]] |
|||
== Lead == |
|||
'''Total = 10/193''' |
|||
====Other 2==== |
|||
'''no map for subdivisions''' |
|||
Country subdivided but no real map created specifically for ''one'' major subdivision in:<br/> |
|||
'''Africa''' = 1/52<br/> |
|||
[[São Tomé and Príncipe]]<br/> |
|||
'''Americas''' = 1/35<br/> |
|||
[[The Bahamas]]<br/> |
|||
'''Asia''' = 3/46<br/> |
|||
[[Maldives]] [[Nepal]] [[United Arab Emirates]]<br/> |
|||
'''Europe''' = 3/43<br/> |
|||
[[Iceland]] [[Monaco]] [[Serbia]]<br/> |
|||
'''Oceania''' = 6/14<br/> |
|||
[[Kiribati]] [[Marshall Islands]] [[Federated States of Micronesia]] [[Palau]] [[Tonga]] [[Tuvalu]]<br/> |
|||
Hi, |
|||
'''Total = 14/193''' |
|||
---- |
|||
Much work has been done by myself and other users to improve this article, and I have nominated it for a [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Geography and places|geography and places]] [[good article]] as I believe the article to be unto the standard of a good article since the last review which delisted the article in 2019. At a [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/1|review of the articles good status in January 2019]], it was flagged about the lack of guidance in following the "well written" criteria of a good article, it was noted in the review ; A good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world" |
|||
====Final data==== |
|||
*'''Choice 1''' - No country uses this format for its major subdivisions |
|||
*'''Choice 2''' - No country uses this format for its major subdivisions |
|||
*'''Choice 3''' - 69.948% of the major subdivisions uses this format. |
|||
*'''Choice 4''' - 18.135% of the major subdivisions uses this format. |
|||
*'''Other 1''' - 05.181% of the countries don't have a major subdivision |
|||
*'''Other 2''' - 07.254% of the articles don't have a specific map for one individual subdivision. |
|||
Fails in the first sentence - "'''Scotland''' is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." Apart from the ugly grammar it should be noted that other country articles do '''not'''begin, eg: |
|||
Please check my work to keep me honest and write notes or use <nowiki><s></s></nowiki> to notify of any changes so that it can be verified. I hope that you all like the work I put into all of this. It took over '''''5 hours''''' to do all of this <phew> -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 09:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Aruba''' is a [[country]] that is [[Kingdom of the Netherlands#Countries|part]] of the [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]]. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Aruba is a 33-kilometre (21 mi)-long island of the Lesser Antilles in the southern Caribbean Sea, 27 km (17 mi) north of the Paraguaná Peninsula, Falcón State, Venezuela.) |
|||
* '''Denmark''' is a [[state]] that is [[Member State of the European Union|part]] of the [[European Union]]. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: The Kingdom of Denmark, commonly known as Denmark, is a country in the Scandinavian region of northern Europe.) |
|||
* '''Hong Kong''' is a [[State (law)|state]] that is [[Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China|part]] of the [[People's Republic of China]]. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a territory located on China's south coast on the Pearl River Delta, bordering Guangdong province to the north and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south.) |
|||
It further explained: Note that the Scotland article comes under the auspices of WikiProject:Countries, which states explicitly that [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section|"The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like"]]. |
|||
=====comments===== |
|||
''please leave any comments here.'' |
|||
I therefore changed this in order to reflect the pending changes to bring the article back up to good article status, by re-wording the lead to read "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe which is part of the United Kingdom...." but see this has been reverted by another user. What is everyone's thoughts on this change? [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 20:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
No offense pal but maybe you should get a life. Why an Englishman who lives in America should be so obsessed with Scotland has me puzzled. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.107.172.66|58.107.172.66]] ([[User talk:58.107.172.66|talk]]) 11:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:That was rather insulting. But I'm British (hence my username) are you saying That someone in the US from Ohio has no right to edit any information on the Connecticut article? Your argument is rather asinine! Who says that I live in America anyway? -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm happy with the current wording of the lead paragraph. It states that Scotland is part of the UK, primarily located on Great Britain, borders England to the south-west, and is surrounded by seas on its other sides. We could explicitly state that it's in north-west Europe – I'm not against the idea – but I would also expect the current information to give the average reader a good idea of Scotland's location. |
|||
== Republic of Ireland in United Kingdom map == |
|||
:To add some further examples: |
|||
:* [[England]] is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. |
|||
:* [[Wales]] is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. |
|||
:* [[Northern Ireland]] is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland that is variously described as a country, province or region. |
|||
:* [[Catalonia]] is an autonomous community of Spain, designated as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy. |
|||
:* The [[Faroe Islands|Faroe]] or Faeroe Islands are an archipelago in the North Atlantic Ocean and an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. |
|||
:* [[Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol]] is an autonomous region of Italy, located in the northern part of the country. |
|||
:I wouldn't say there's a firm consensus over what exactly the lead sentence should include. [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope|talk]]) 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The firm consensus you seek over what exactly the lead sentence should include is determined under the auspices of WikiProject:Countries, which states explicitly that "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like", which I had mentioned above. Indeed, I would advocate for the location of all countries including that of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be included in their lead paragraphs, as this is geographically where they are located. Saying that Scotland is primarily located on the island of Great Britain is not really explaining '''where it is''', it is explaining it is located on the island of Great Britain, in which users would then need to navigate to the [[British Isles]] article to find out geographically where the British Isles is located in the world. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "but I would also expect the current information to give the average reader a good idea of Scotland's location", isn't this exactly what adding the fact that Scotland is "located in northwest Europe and is part of the United Kingdom..." is about? [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Additionally, your examples of [[Catalonia]] and [[Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol]] are not countries, they are regions. Scotland, and indeed, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, are countries and not regions, therefore, they fall under the auspices of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries|WikiProject Countries]] and the template example of the lead section. [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 21:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Scotland's location is described in relation to the UK, Great Britain, England, the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Irish Sea. That's a good description of its location, in my opinion. Scotland is an autonomous region of the UK in a similar way to Catalonia within Spain and Trentino-Alto within Italy, they're fair comparisons. [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope|talk]]) 21:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Disagree on that one, it does not set out in plain English where exactly in the world Scotland is located. Also, you are wrong on that one, Scotland is not legally referred to as an autonomous region of the UK, nor is England or Wales, or even Northern Ireland, despite its complexity. See this example from the [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]], (''https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20080909013512/http:/www.number10.gov.uk/Page823''), who they themselves refer to as all four as countries, not autonomous regions. [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 22:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Also, regardless of your own personal beliefs as to whether Scotland is a country or autonomous region of the UK, it still falls under the auspices of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries|WikiProject Countries]] whereas Catalonia does not, and as such, the article should be following the agreed guidance and templates on such matters. [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 22:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Scotland is a country and an autonomous region, which is why it's appropriate to compare it to similar autonomous regions. I disagree with your interpretation of the WikiProject Countries guidance, but I'm not opposed to adding an explicit mention of Scotland's position within Europe. The best thing to do is to wait and see if a consensus develops. [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope|talk]]) 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's status as a country is much stronger than its status as an autonomous region. Catalonia, never having been an independent country like Scotland, has always been a region of Spain and as such has always commonly been referred to as such. You don't hear many people referring to Scotland, Wales, England or even Northern Ireland as a "region of the UK". You might disagree with my reference to the guidance over at WikiProject Countries, but the fact remains that is indeed the agreed set guidance set out for articles which are under the Countries WikiProject area. [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I will await the result of impending consensus. You know, sometimes being part of the Wikipedia community infuriates me and makes me feel physically sick. Here we are omitting the simple fact that Scotland is located in northwest Europe, all because it is part of the United Kingdom and located on the British Isles. We are completely ignoring the fact that this is clearly where Scotland is located, and for what? Just because [[England]] and [[Wales]] doesn't mention the fact that they are in northwest Europe either? The inclusion of geographical location of Scotland in terms of the world map will greatly increase its chance of being re-granted good article status, but instead, we are reverting the inclusion of the mention of Scotland being located in NW Europe in order to keep it consistent with the England and Wales article. It's a sad day, really... [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 22:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::As I've said, I don't oppose to adding Scotland's position in Europe if that's the consensus, I just don't think it's ''essential'' to the lead. You could add it now and I wouldn't object. At the same time, I do think the current format works well, as it contextualises Scotland within the UK before moving on to its wider location. |
|||
:::::::My understanding of [[WP:WPCTEMPLATE]] is that country leads should contain all of the information mentioned in the guideline, not that the lead must rigidly follow the order in which they are listed or the example format. It does state at the top of the guideline: "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope|talk]]) 23:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm fine with the current wording. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Well, I'll specifiy further, fine with "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." It then goes to state it is the northern part of Great Britain in the next sentence so stating its location. But mainly this lead has to be consistent with [[Wales]] and [[England]]. This lead has been stable. A wider discussion is needed if changed for consistency with other articles, with me only open to following the format of [[Northern Ireland]] if required. Plus Wales and England have these leads and are good articles, so did not negatively impact them. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 23:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::In this case, it was found to have negatively impacted Scotland's good article status, that is the point. This was not my point of view, but the view point of the reviewer back in 2019 when the article was delisted. Honestly, I don't have any issues with the current lead either, but it does not acknowledge Scotland's geographical location in the world which is surely mandatory for location related articles. Yes, it is also consistent with the Wales and England articles (not sure it necessary "has" to be consistent, but hey...), but does that mean we should not be beginning a separate discussion on those articles to include geographical location to benefit readers? As, IMO, merely stating that Scotland is a part of the British Isles is not specifying '''where precisely''' it is located in layman's terms, rather, it is only indicating that it is part of an island. [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 00:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Also, not sure what you are suggesting re [[Northern Ireland]], but wished to express my strong disapproval of any suggestion to change either the leads in England, Scotland or Wales to similar wording of the Northern Ireland article such as "part of the United Kingdom, variously described as...". Clearly, Northern Ireland is a more complex issue, and for that reason, is not commonly referred to as a country in the way that England, Wales and Scotland is. [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Referring to the "located on" bit, obviously not the "variously described". '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 02:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::What about? |
|||
::::::::::::{{tqb|Scotland is a country that is part of the [[United Kingdom]], mainly located on the northern part of the island of [[Great Britain]], in north-western Europe.}} |
|||
::::::::::::This would have to ideally be carried to [[Wales]] and [[England]]. As, well, it would be less likely to be stable if not as people will try and make it consistent either side. |
|||
::::::::::::My main concern is the switching around from stating it is part of the UK first to that it is a European country first, considering many of those that wish Scotland be disassociated with the UK want to emphasise it as a European country rather than part of the UK. But as it remains part of the UK ''for now'', it is best for that to be stated first, until the constitutional situation changes. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 03:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Absolutely. The most important international characteristic should come first, which is that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the four countries that comprise the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. If desired northwestern or western Europe can be mentioned later in the lead, after Scotland's position in Great Britain or the British Isles. We don't normally or at any rate shouldn't omit inbetween geographies. In any case there's a graphic showing Scotland's position in Europe in the infobox, which for many may well be more informative than a written description. [[User:Rupples|Rupples]] ([[User talk:Rupples|talk]]) 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I have no objection to the proposed lead sentence, likewise, I have no objection to retaining the status quo. I do, however, feel that this is being overcomplicated and it ''really'' should not matter whether it reads '''Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that is part of the United Kingdom''' or '''Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, mainly located on the northern part of the island of Great Britain, in north-western Europe'''. Both give prominence to the fact that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and that hasn't been disputed either by my edit including the geographical location before the fact that Scotland is a country part of the United Kingdom. [[User:Goodreg3|<span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Goodreg3</span>]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 22:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Still prioritisation can display a order of preference or what is the most important aspect, the first can give the impression "Scotland is a European country that, secondly, is part of the UK", while the second states "Scotland is a UK country, secondly, on an island in Europe". If readers see "country in Europe" first, akin to [[Republic of Ireland]] or [[Belgium]], then they'll associate it with those, and as primarily a "European country", which is not entirely correct ''for now''. '''[[User:DankJae|<span style="color: black">Dank</span>]][[User talk:DankJae|<span style="color: red">Jae</span>]]''' 22:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::This [https://www.thoughtco.com/country-state-and-nation-1433559 helpful article] helped me understand the difference between a Country, State and Nation. I note the confusion of different interpretations of each word. However I would argue the introduction of this article should read "Scotland is a nation that is part of the United Kingdom". This would better agree with the wiki definitions of [[Country]], [[Nation]] and [[State (polity)]]. [[User:Ssojjoss|Ssojjoss]] ([[User talk:Ssojjoss|talk]]) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Lead reversion to stable version=== |
|||
Just to be clear, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotland&oldid=1193267614 my last reversion] to the lead paragraph is intended to return it to a stable state while discussion is ongoing rather than to impose my own preferences. I have no intention of getting into an edit war, as I hope my engagement with the discussion here demonstrates. [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope|talk]]) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to be clear - '''I also intend not to engage in an edit war''', but merely trying to gain some consensus here amongst contributors and readers alike in order to move forward and have the article in the strongest position going forward for resubmission as a good article. [[User:Goodreg3|Goodreg3]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 00:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This, I take it, is the place where to register a complaint about the Republic of Ireland being included in the maps of the UK? Oh, I see, the problem was that the map of Scotland didn't have the rest of the UK shaded in? Did this unease some British nationalist sentiment? Well, boo-hoo! So, by compromise you shade the Republic of Ireland in along with the UK? "Location of XXX in the United Kingdom"!? From a quick browse of the above "discussion", I see the usual British nationalist cadre are out en force to push their particular brand of jingoism. Did shading in the Republic along with your rickety little union assuage the unease set loose by rebellious Scots? I've reverted all of these offensive little nationalist scribbles. --[[User:Sony-youth|<span style="font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">sony-youth</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Sony-youth|pléigh]]</sup> 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Of course. I didn't think you were engaging in an edit war, I just wanted to explain my last edit and give you a chance to object to it if you wanted. I totally understand you wanting to get the article in good shape for the GA review, and I admire you for taking on a topic as big as Scotland! [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope|talk]]) 00:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Your complaint about the apparent inclusion of the Republic of Ireland, on the ''British Isles'' map is understandable (even though it is colored different from the UK). Concerning Northern Ireland, Wales, England & Scotland howerver? I disagree with you. PS- I didn't write up the 1707 Act of Union & all those succeeding Acts, it's ''not'' my fault that Wales, England, Northern Ireland & Scotland ''are not'' independant. What's with the anti-UK stuff, anyways? Geez. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::A note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotland&diff=next&oldid=1193021775 this reversion] of an adjustment to the lead was not an endorsement of the preceding version, containing as it did the edits under discussion above. I agree with the reversion to the stable version before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotland&diff=next&oldid=1193021775 this edit], in terms of allowing discussion to take place but also because the changes made an unwieldy sentence. [[User:Mutt Lunker|Mutt Lunker]] ([[User talk:Mutt Lunker|talk]]) 01:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I thought that it would be better then showing Northern Ireland only and ignoring the rest of the Isle of Ireland. That I dare say would be a bigger insult than anything else I could think of! -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: |
::::Naturally. Will await the result of any constructive consensus. [[User:Goodreg3|<span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Goodreg3</span>]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 01:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
The longstanding status quo for the lead? should remain, as it was the result of a hard-fought consensus (I was a part of those old discussions) both 'here' & at the intros to [[England]], [[Wales]] & [[Scotland]]. ''Furthermore'', the British prime minister <u>should not</u> be included in the infobox of this page 'or' the infoboxes at England, Wales & Northern Ireland. PS - For example: We don't include the US president in the infoboxes of US states. Nor do we include the Canadian prime minister in the infoboxes of Canadian provinces & territories. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Surely Sony-youth must be talking only about the map in option 3. --[[User:G2bambino|G2bambino]] ([[User talk:G2bambino|talk]]) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I am happy to vote in favour of retaining the current status quo of the lead sentence to establish some much needed stability on the article. Also, in agreement with the points re British Prime Minister being included on the page for the exact same reasons you have mentioned. A quick search has not found the US President mentioned or photograph included of in articles such as [[California]] and [[Florida]], and similarly, the Canadian PM is not included in articles such as [[Nova Scotia]] or [[Quebec]]. [[User:Goodreg3|<span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Goodreg3</span>]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Stances Cont'd== |
|||
::Unless it's been changed since GoodDay made their comment, the infobox doesn't mention the British prime minister. [[User:A.D.Hope|A.D.Hope]] ([[User talk:A.D.Hope|talk]]) 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
It seems apparent to me, that there's a overwhelming majority infavour of changing the map. Also, the editors who wish to keep the current map? seem to ''not'' be participating lately in the overall discussion on the matter. Should that be considered a consensus for change? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::No it does not, but there was attempts made a few days ago to include Sunak in the Government and politics section alongside the Monarch and First Minister which I will always insist is not relevant on an article about a country with its own level of devolved government, just in the same way I mentioned above that articles such as Quebec, Queensland and New South Wales do not feature the PM of their respective sovereign states. [[User:Goodreg3|<span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Goodreg3</span>]] ([[User talk:Goodreg3|talk]]) 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I would love to hear other thoughts and opinions on this topic. I have put a lot of work into researching this debate and placing the facts on the table <small>considering this is such a minor change I don't know if that is a good thing...</small> so please at least let me know what you think :-) -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 05:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sunak's more relevant than Shona Robison, though... [[User:Tim O'Doherty|Tim O'Doherty]] ([[User talk:Tim O'Doherty|talk]]) 22:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::<b>GoodDay, I noticed this comment you made on the "Wales" article (see below) in relation to the Welsh map, in which you seemed to support the removal of the shading illustrating the rest of the UK. You seem to have a completely opposite and very outspoken view in relation to Scotland. My question is - and not wishing to seem suspicious of your "single topic" interest - WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU UP TO?!? |
|||
:::::My understanding is that the lead that was there had been agreed by consensus. |
|||
::"<i>Seeing as Scotland doesen't shade the rest of the UK on their map, should this article do the same? GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)"</i></b> |
|||
:::::<b>lead with changes</b> |
|||
Still here, [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]], and thanks for the time you've spent [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]]. As for ''not'' participating, as a member of a "gang of nationally motivated editors who've decided their narrow group creates a consensus and have taken ownership of the article in order to maintain it. Nasty indeed." and one of "the same obstinate three or four still fight for the Scotland-alone map", it seems to me that this situation has dissolved into a slagging match between two sides. What has turned me off this ''discussion'' are the comments left on individual talk pages, (claims by editors of being "driven away" or treated in a "Charles Bronson" like manner, and general sniping directed towards the supposed "Scottish Clan" - you know who you are for as pointed out in this realm your comments can indeed be read by all), which have been a real eye-opener for me on this occassion. |
|||
:::::Scotland (Scots: Scotland; Scottish Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers the northern part of the island of [[Great Britain]]. Scotland shares a land border with England to the south and is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, the North Sea to the north-east and east, and the Irish Sea to the south. Edinburgh is the capital and Glasgow is the largest of the cities of Scotland. |
|||
:::::Information I have removed can be found in the infobox and / or the geography section where more detail is provided. The changes I am suggesting would make the article lead more succinct and easy to read. |
|||
Leaving to one side the issue of colour and scale, there are really only two options here: |
|||
* Have the info box in the '''Scotland''' article show a map of '''Scotland'''. |
|||
:::::although I agree with having important information the article, the current lead looks cluttered and too long as per [[MOS:LEADLENGTH]]. It looks like everything is being crammed into the lead which is suppose to be short and to the point.[[User:ChefBear01|ChefBear01]] ([[User talk:ChefBear01|talk]]) 06:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Have the info box in the '''Scotland''' article show a map of the '''United Kingdom''' (With Scotland highlighted) |
|||
I have made my opinions known and my arguments have been described as unsustainable and increasingly strange. I see little point in stating these again here, (they can be found elsewhere), and as for my preference for the map, it matters not. [[User:Rab-k|Rab-k]] ([[User talk:Rab-k|talk]]) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Rab-k? ya forgot 'Chuck Norris'. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks I actually had fun researching the other countries. I must say I found it rather interesting. I hope that those other comments weren't aimed at me. Being British I hope that you didn't ever think that I was attacking the ''Scottish Clan'' because that would be akin to attacking myself, and that is just not how I personally feel. I've tried to be fair and actually went to great lengths to get as many voices into this conversation as possible. I saw that this little <small>and I mean little</small> item was a hot issue for this page and I hope that somehow I have made an improvement by getting the issues front and center and even ''creating'' viable alternatives since none were available at the time. But without making a choice one way or another do you at least like the version I created :-D -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::They are all excellent maps, given a choice of yours alone, Choice 4 (Red) would be my preference.[[User:Rab-k|Rab-k]] ([[User talk:Rab-k|talk]]) 11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2024 == |
|||
:::Thanks for the compliment... I think 4 is the best also, though I prefer green, it seams that the majority like red more, oh well you cant win them all. -- [[User:UKPhoenix79|UKPhoenix79]] ([[User talk:UKPhoenix79|talk]]) 11:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Scotland|answered=yes}} |
|||
I think it is worthwhile to make some comments about how to go about choosing the best kind of map display. Obviously, consensus with the rest of wikipedia plays a part, but suppose we did not have to attend to that, or it was not an over-arching requirement that "trumped" all other concerns. It seems to me from my own knowledge of psychological and cognition research into graphical displays in the past that one must strive for simplicity and clearness in the displays so that what they are intended to convey is conveyed as quickly and unambiguously as possible: immediacy and accuracy. So, this means we must first agree on what is to be conveyed (the locations of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom) Given that (I assume this is not a contentious issue), we must then turn our attention to simplicity and clearness and this means avoiding all unnecessary clutter as well as using an appropriate scale. Thus the terrain-type additions, apart from sea-land boundaries, would be inadvisable. This rules out maps 1 and 2 on this basis. Maps 1 and 2 are also ruled out by issues of clarity as the scale is too small to achieve the degree of immediacy and accuracy that is desired, I argue. Map 3 would also be ruled out as it would be inconsistent in its exclusion of continental Europe, and inclusion of the Republic of Ireland. The option where the Republic of Ireland is excluded seems to me to fail as it conveys a misleading context (that Northern Ireland is an island, and, indeed, no European context is supplied.) Map 4 does not have this inconsistency (indeed, it is largely a corrected version of Map 3). So, it seems that attention should be devoted to this option if we are considering only these for options. The residual issues remain a possible need to provide a wider European context, and the choice of colouring scheme to highlight most immediately and accurately what we want to highlight. The first can be solved by having the map-insert, as I suggested above, showing where on a greater map of Europe this particular map is located; the second can be solved by a careful choice of contrasting colours for highlighting the areas we want highlighting. In this respect, I think the adjusted red highlighting scheme for Map 4 is the better option than the green. So, as far as I am aware (and in conformance with my own preference, because I used this argument to direct my choice), I think the research would tend to favour Map four, adjust red colouring. Whether that agrees with various preferences affected by overtly political stances, or wikipedia's advice or even with its requirements is, of course, another matter entirely. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen;padding:1px;"><font style="color:White;background:DarkGreen" size="0"> DDStretch </font></span>]] [[User talk:ddstretch|<font color="DarkGreen" size = "0">(talk)</font>]] 11:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I suggest adding a distinct section within the History of Scotland section that deals with Scotland's involvement in the British Empire. [[User:MiloThatch 98|MiloThatch 98]] ([[User talk:MiloThatch 98|talk]]) 23:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> 💜 <span style="border-radius:4px;background:#edf"> [[User:Melecie|<span style="color:#471a7a">'''mel'''ecie</span>]] </span> [[User talk:Melecie|<span style="color:#471a7a">talk</span>]] - 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::PS- I've scratched out some of my postings at [[Wales]], [[England]] and [[Northern Ireland]], where I intially prefered consistancy at any cost. I'm telling ya'll this, so as to save another editor time/trouble of reporting it to you. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
number of Inhabitants according to 2022 census is 5,439,842 but other nummers are mentioned here as well [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A46A:9576:0:C59F:11CF:827E:439F|2A02:A46A:9576:0:C59F:11CF:827E:439F]] ([[User talk:2A02:A46A:9576:0:C59F:11CF:827E:439F|talk]]) 14:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Scotland is nation? at begining of article== |
|||
I think that there is logical mistake. Scotland is country or land or something similar. Nation refers to set of people with some characteristics... Scots are nation.--[[User:Cikicdragan|Čikić Dragan]] ([[User talk:Cikicdragan|talk]]) 15:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Would you believe, ''nation'' has just been added to the begining of the [[England]] article. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Cikicdragan|Čikić Dragan]] I direct you to [[Talk:Scotland/Archive 16|Archive 16]] of the talk page. --[[User:Barryob|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)</font>]] [[User talk:Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)</font>]] 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. '''Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom''' (UK), and forms part of Britain (the largest island) and Great Britain (which includes the Scottish islands). As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”." From [http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/publicInfo/faq/category2.htm Scottish Parliament website "Is Scotland a country?"]. [[Special:Contributions/195.27.13.214|195.27.13.214]] ([[User talk:195.27.13.214|talk]]) 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Absolutely ludicrous. The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist when it merged to become the kingdom of GB. --[[User:Cameron|Cameron]] ([[User Talk:Cameron|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cameron|c]]) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024 == |
|||
:::::Cikicdragan is right of course! Why people (the nation?) want to assert a piece of land is a sentient group of humans is madness to me. I think [http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm this source] explains the problem best. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk </font>]] </span></small> 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{Edit semi-protected|Scotland|answered=yes}} |
|||
::::::McCrone, David, ''Understanding Scotland: The Sociology of a Nation.'' London: Routledge, 2001, p. 47:<blockquote><tt>'''Scotland as nation'''<br/>Whether or not Scotland is a nation evokes strong responses. On the one hand, the political nationalist takes it as axiomatic so that it is a self-evident truth. On the other hand, those who are opposed to political independence pount out that there are too many deep and abiding differences across the country to sustain an argument for cultural homogeneity. What we see in this debate is its thoroughly political context. Asking the question seems to require that one reveals political preferences, that nationhood and statehood are inextricably linked. That is not our way here. We are concerned with decoupling these terms so as to argue that it is quite proper to treat Scotland as a nation without implying that it is or should be a state.</tt></blockquote> I think, no, I'm quite sure, I posted that here already. And others. Like the man said, all in the archives. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Change the Secretary of State from Alister Jack to Ian Murray [[User:Wardenofsomething|Wardenofsomething]] ([[User talk:Wardenofsomething|talk]]) 23:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Jamedeus|Jamedeus]] ([[User talk:Jamedeus|talk]]) 06:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Constituent country == |
|||
Are you saying the Scottish parliament website is wrong? Note, it also states that Scotland is a Kingdom within a Kingdom,(UK).--[[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 19:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I do indeed. It is general knowledge that the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist in 1701 as did the Kingdom of England --[[User:Cameron|Cameron]] ([[User Talk:Cameron|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cameron|c]]) 19:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:You mean 1707, of course. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, I'm getting muddled with 1801 now = ) --[[User:Cameron|Cameron]] ([[User Talk:Cameron|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cameron|c]]) 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Being a Kingdom does not imply sovereignty --[[User:Barryob|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)</font>]] [[User talk:Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)</font>]] 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I wouldnt dream of implying so. But fact remains that a Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist de jure in 1707...--[[User:Cameron|Cameron]] ([[User Talk:Cameron|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cameron|c]]) 19:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist, period in 1707. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Watching the news every day I notice that when mention of the Queen is made she is invarably called the Queen of England, so the bbc and itv believe that England is a Kingdom, ergo, Scotland is a Kingdom! So with the media and a majority of English people believing this, 1707 or no 1707 you have a lot of people to convince otherwise!--[[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:This article, [[Kingdom of Scotland]], [[England]] & [[Kingdom of England]] suggests otherwise. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I personally think the first line "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." should be changed to "Scotland is a constituent country that is part of the United Kingdom". I understand that a constituent country is just a type of country, although when someone hears the word country they wouldn't think of a constituent country. I do think that the first line of the article is linked well considering "country" leads to the actual page of the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom, although I think it'd be better to call Scotland a constituent country, as not only is it more specific but it is also the correct name that it should be given. |
|||
I didn't expect such "emotionfull" and fast responses. I feel I touch in very sensitive thing. I'm not such versed in circumstances in Scotland. Does it have any relation to possible separation of Scotland? In serbian language we use noun "nation" in named sense. And we learn it at high school as at university. I assume in English is different. Now I don't have time to ponder this, but I hope I will do it. Sorry if I insulted someone.--[[User:Cikicdragan|Čikić Dragan]] ([[User talk:Cikicdragan|talk]]) 20:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Scotland shouldn't be called just a country, as it is already part of a country (United Kingdom). To any typical person it wouldn't make much sense for four countries to be part of one country, that'd more be a continent. |
|||
Ach well, within the next decade these conversations will become a relic of another time:)--[[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 20:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
It doesn't hurt anyone to call it a constituent country as it doesn't change the meaning of the first line, nor does it change the truth, rather, it's even more correct, stating the type of country Scotland actually is. |
|||
:"Sociology of a Nation"? Yes, "[[Sociology]] is the study of society" not geography! Simillarly, that's not a statutory defintion one bit. Would it not be possible that that's an illiterate, biased author. |
|||
Wordings like these tend to lead people to mistakes, causing many people to just call nations such as Scotland "a country inside a country" without actually knowing the difference between the status of Scotland and the status of another country such as Russia. They are not the same thing, so they shouldn't be called the same thing. |
|||
:Why don't we use [[Home Nations]] instead? To me (and clearly many others - perhaps half the editors involved in the last of the regular debates about this) "nation" just reads stupidly (Scotland is a group of people in Europe). <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk </font>]] </span></small> 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Could we use 'Home Nation' at [[England]], [[Wales]] and [[Northern Ireland]], aswell? If so? I'm all for it. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you, [[User:Setergh|Setergh]] ([[User talk:Setergh|talk]]) 16:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I imagine the term [[Home Nation]]s is something we can all agree has a specific meaning, and is one that does not add or detract any value for any particular cultural/political stance. <small>--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">[[User:Jza84|<b>Jza84</b>]] | [[User_talk: Jza84|<font style="color:#000000;background:#D3D3D3;"> Talk </font>]] </span></small> 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:This is all covered by the first item in the FAQ on this page. [[User:JaggedHamster|JaggedHamster]] ([[User talk:JaggedHamster|talk]]) 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I quote the [[Home Nations]] article: "Both British and Irish media frequently use the term Home Nations to include Ireland as a whole, often when referring to sporting events." Will you be fixing that soon? [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== CoA of Scotland == |
|||
::I'm sold, 'Home Nations' it is. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::This is a very useful and interesting discussion, and we shouldn't shy away from it. Some very interesting things to consider have been raised: |
|||
*nation- a people sharing a set of characteristics, customs, culture and aspirations. Scotland? Check |
|||
*a kingdom? Well, as has been said, if England can be informally named a kingdom, why can't Scotland? |
|||
*a country? Well, yes, it's a convenient term to avoid the politics. |
|||
So, where does that leave us? Where Scotland itself is - in the mist.--[[User:Gazzster|Gazzster]] ([[User talk:Gazzster|talk]]) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Is that the coat of arms of Scotland, or the coat of arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland? [[User:Pur 0 0|Pur 0 0]] ([[User talk:Pur 0 0|talk]]) 17:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:They're the [[arms of dominion]] of the King in right of Scotland. [[User:Dgp4004|Dgp4004]] ([[User talk:Dgp4004|talk]]) 17:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Home Nation is rarely used outside sporting context and then you get the whole Ireland/Northern Ireland issue so it is a bad idea to use it to refer to Scotland. --[[User:Barryob|<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)</font>]] [[User talk:Barryob|<font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)</font>]] 22:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:42, 13 October 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scotland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Introduction Issues relating to the geography and politics of the United Kingdom and nearby territories can be surprisingly complex and controversial, and the subjects raised in this FAQ regarding the Scotland article are best understood in this context. We aim to be enyclopaedic and neutral. We also recognise that reconciling diverse views can be hard work as common phrases are sometimes interpreted in different ways in different cultures. We ask that editors new to this page read the following with an open mind. Where necessary, please research the facts rather than simply jumping to conclusions based on what you "know to be true".
A1: Numerous reliable sources support the view that Scotland is a country—see for example the article entitled Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of references at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. This view is shared with other reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe Scotland in this way. This is one of the most frequent questions raised by visitors to this talk page. However, in the absence of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to Scotland,[1] England, Northern Ireland, Wales and the UK itself. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries", and this term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community. Note however, that a country is not the same as a "sovereign state", and that "constituent country" is also used in other parts of Wikipedia. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality, compromise, and camaraderie on this issue.
A2: Widespread confusion surrounds the use of the word "nation". In standard British English, and in academic language, a nation is defined as a social group and not a division of land. This is also the approach taken in the article entitled nation, across Wikipedia and in other major encyclopedias (for example, the Scottish people and the Québécois are described as "nations"). The term Home Nations is generally used only in sporting contexts. It is not used in major reputable sources outside of sport.
A3: There have been extremely complex discussion about these matters. The Royal Standard of Scotland (commonly referred to as the "Lion Rampant") was used by the King of Scots until 1603. Today, its correct use is restricted to official representatives of The Monarch.[2] The blue and white Saltire is the flag of Scotland and is widely used by national and local government offices and in numerous other less official capacities. As with other issues described here this outcome is to some extent a compromise solution that seems to suit all parties in that it identifies symbols of Scotland as an entity in its own right, whilst also emphasising the importance of the relationship with the United Kingdom.
A4: There is no official Scottish national anthem. Although there is no doubt that Flower of Scotland is currently amongst the most popular unofficial national anthems in Scotland, it is not the only one, nor even the longest established.
A5: Scots is spoken by 30% of the Scottish population (approximately 1.5 million individuals) according to the 1996 estimate of the General Register Office for Scotland.[3] It is recognised by the European Union's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.[4] By contrast, Scottish English is a variation of standard British English. Whilst the distinction is by no means clear cut, Wikipedia policy permits the use of Scottish English words and phrases where appropriate. Scots, on the other hand, has its own site: see the Scots Wikipedia.
A6: Yes, but "Elizabeth II" is her legal title, as resolved in Scots law in the legal action entitled MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. Related issues
A7: See the article entitled "Terminology of the British Isles". Great Britain is the name of the largest island that the UK encompasses, and is not generally used in source material as the name of the sovereign state.
A8: This view is supported by some sources, but the current consensus amongst the editing community is aligned to a greater body of work which describes both Northern Ireland and Wales as countries. However, the terms are not all mutually exclusive: a country can also be a principality or a province, and these terms are mentioned throughout Wikipedia as alternative names in afternotes. References
|
This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Scotland was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Scotland:
Priority 1 (top)
|
Other talk page banners | |||
|
Audio Track Doesn’t Say “Scotland”
[edit]Yeah, I'm really confused isn't the audio track in the header of this article, supposed to be a pronunciation guide for the word "Scotland"? But for some reason it says "Uhvupa". Am I missing something or do we need to re-record it? DSQ (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- The audio is for "Alba", not "Scotland". JaggedHamster (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is it? Because that's not how you pronounce the word Alba, that would be "Al-ah-ba" or "Al-ah-pa".
- Even if it was the correct pronunciation, which it definitely is not, the audio file link should not be next to the word "Scotland" surely? It should be moved to be next to the word Alba.
- Because the file is in the header multiple non English Wikipedia pages used this audio file as an example of how to say the word Scotland. That's how I discovered it by finding it on the Japanese language Wikipedia page スコットランド. DSQ (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- It does sound like it's supposed to say Alba, but it is a shocking rendition. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Okay it’s good to know it’s not just me! Would anyone be opposed to my changing it? DSQ (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Go for it. I definitely wasn't claiming it was a good pronunciation of Alba, just explaining the confusion. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neither the sound file nor the IPA seem to be present in the current version, presumbaly swept away in the to-ing and fro-ing of the last few weeks.
- If I understand that your intention is to produce a new sound file of the pronunciation of Alba, how is your Gaelic? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- ...had missed from the above that you're aware it's not as someone uninformed might render it from English language spelling conventions. Out of idle curiosity I did a web search for pronunciation examples and there are some shockers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't my intention to record a new version unfortunately as I think my accent isn't ready to represent our country just yet. I just felt it was imperative that the recording be removed. DSQ (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) DSQ (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- ...had missed from the above that you're aware it's not as someone uninformed might render it from English language spelling conventions. Out of idle curiosity I did a web search for pronunciation examples and there are some shockers. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Go for it. I definitely wasn't claiming it was a good pronunciation of Alba, just explaining the confusion. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay it’s good to know it’s not just me! Would anyone be opposed to my changing it? DSQ (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]Hi,
Much work has been done by myself and other users to improve this article, and I have nominated it for a geography and places good article as I believe the article to be unto the standard of a good article since the last review which delisted the article in 2019. At a review of the articles good status in January 2019, it was flagged about the lack of guidance in following the "well written" criteria of a good article, it was noted in the review ; A good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world"
Fails in the first sentence - "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." Apart from the ugly grammar it should be noted that other country articles do notbegin, eg:
- Aruba is a country that is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Aruba is a 33-kilometre (21 mi)-long island of the Lesser Antilles in the southern Caribbean Sea, 27 km (17 mi) north of the Paraguaná Peninsula, Falcón State, Venezuela.)
- Denmark is a state that is part of the European Union. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: The Kingdom of Denmark, commonly known as Denmark, is a country in the Scandinavian region of northern Europe.)
- Hong Kong is a state that is part of the People's Republic of China. (Actual lead sentence as of 2/1: Hong Kong, officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, is a territory located on China's south coast on the Pearl River Delta, bordering Guangdong province to the north and facing the South China Sea to the east, west and south.)
It further explained: Note that the Scotland article comes under the auspices of WikiProject:Countries, which states explicitly that "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like".
I therefore changed this in order to reflect the pending changes to bring the article back up to good article status, by re-wording the lead to read "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe which is part of the United Kingdom...." but see this has been reverted by another user. What is everyone's thoughts on this change? Goodreg3 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the current wording of the lead paragraph. It states that Scotland is part of the UK, primarily located on Great Britain, borders England to the south-west, and is surrounded by seas on its other sides. We could explicitly state that it's in north-west Europe – I'm not against the idea – but I would also expect the current information to give the average reader a good idea of Scotland's location.
- To add some further examples:
- England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.
- Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.
- Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland that is variously described as a country, province or region.
- Catalonia is an autonomous community of Spain, designated as a nationality by its Statute of Autonomy.
- The Faroe or Faeroe Islands are an archipelago in the North Atlantic Ocean and an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
- Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol is an autonomous region of Italy, located in the northern part of the country.
- I wouldn't say there's a firm consensus over what exactly the lead sentence should include. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- The firm consensus you seek over what exactly the lead sentence should include is determined under the auspices of WikiProject:Countries, which states explicitly that "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like", which I had mentioned above. Indeed, I would advocate for the location of all countries including that of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be included in their lead paragraphs, as this is geographically where they are located. Saying that Scotland is primarily located on the island of Great Britain is not really explaining where it is, it is explaining it is located on the island of Great Britain, in which users would then need to navigate to the British Isles article to find out geographically where the British Isles is located in the world. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "but I would also expect the current information to give the average reader a good idea of Scotland's location", isn't this exactly what adding the fact that Scotland is "located in northwest Europe and is part of the United Kingdom..." is about? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, your examples of Catalonia and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol are not countries, they are regions. Scotland, and indeed, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, are countries and not regions, therefore, they fall under the auspices of WikiProject Countries and the template example of the lead section. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Scotland's location is described in relation to the UK, Great Britain, England, the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Irish Sea. That's a good description of its location, in my opinion. Scotland is an autonomous region of the UK in a similar way to Catalonia within Spain and Trentino-Alto within Italy, they're fair comparisons. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Disagree on that one, it does not set out in plain English where exactly in the world Scotland is located. Also, you are wrong on that one, Scotland is not legally referred to as an autonomous region of the UK, nor is England or Wales, or even Northern Ireland, despite its complexity. See this example from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, (https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20080909013512/http:/www.number10.gov.uk/Page823), who they themselves refer to as all four as countries, not autonomous regions. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, regardless of your own personal beliefs as to whether Scotland is a country or autonomous region of the UK, it still falls under the auspices of WikiProject Countries whereas Catalonia does not, and as such, the article should be following the agreed guidance and templates on such matters. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Scotland is a country and an autonomous region, which is why it's appropriate to compare it to similar autonomous regions. I disagree with your interpretation of the WikiProject Countries guidance, but I'm not opposed to adding an explicit mention of Scotland's position within Europe. The best thing to do is to wait and see if a consensus develops. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's status as a country is much stronger than its status as an autonomous region. Catalonia, never having been an independent country like Scotland, has always been a region of Spain and as such has always commonly been referred to as such. You don't hear many people referring to Scotland, Wales, England or even Northern Ireland as a "region of the UK". You might disagree with my reference to the guidance over at WikiProject Countries, but the fact remains that is indeed the agreed set guidance set out for articles which are under the Countries WikiProject area. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I will await the result of impending consensus. You know, sometimes being part of the Wikipedia community infuriates me and makes me feel physically sick. Here we are omitting the simple fact that Scotland is located in northwest Europe, all because it is part of the United Kingdom and located on the British Isles. We are completely ignoring the fact that this is clearly where Scotland is located, and for what? Just because England and Wales doesn't mention the fact that they are in northwest Europe either? The inclusion of geographical location of Scotland in terms of the world map will greatly increase its chance of being re-granted good article status, but instead, we are reverting the inclusion of the mention of Scotland being located in NW Europe in order to keep it consistent with the England and Wales article. It's a sad day, really... Goodreg3 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- As I've said, I don't oppose to adding Scotland's position in Europe if that's the consensus, I just don't think it's essential to the lead. You could add it now and I wouldn't object. At the same time, I do think the current format works well, as it contextualises Scotland within the UK before moving on to its wider location.
- My understanding of WP:WPCTEMPLATE is that country leads should contain all of the information mentioned in the guideline, not that the lead must rigidly follow the order in which they are listed or the example format. It does state at the top of the guideline: "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." A.D.Hope (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the current wording. DankJae 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'll specifiy further, fine with "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." It then goes to state it is the northern part of Great Britain in the next sentence so stating its location. But mainly this lead has to be consistent with Wales and England. This lead has been stable. A wider discussion is needed if changed for consistency with other articles, with me only open to following the format of Northern Ireland if required. Plus Wales and England have these leads and are good articles, so did not negatively impact them. DankJae 23:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, it was found to have negatively impacted Scotland's good article status, that is the point. This was not my point of view, but the view point of the reviewer back in 2019 when the article was delisted. Honestly, I don't have any issues with the current lead either, but it does not acknowledge Scotland's geographical location in the world which is surely mandatory for location related articles. Yes, it is also consistent with the Wales and England articles (not sure it necessary "has" to be consistent, but hey...), but does that mean we should not be beginning a separate discussion on those articles to include geographical location to benefit readers? As, IMO, merely stating that Scotland is a part of the British Isles is not specifying where precisely it is located in layman's terms, rather, it is only indicating that it is part of an island. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, not sure what you are suggesting re Northern Ireland, but wished to express my strong disapproval of any suggestion to change either the leads in England, Scotland or Wales to similar wording of the Northern Ireland article such as "part of the United Kingdom, variously described as...". Clearly, Northern Ireland is a more complex issue, and for that reason, is not commonly referred to as a country in the way that England, Wales and Scotland is. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Referring to the "located on" bit, obviously not the "variously described". DankJae 02:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- What about?
Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, mainly located on the northern part of the island of Great Britain, in north-western Europe.
- This would have to ideally be carried to Wales and England. As, well, it would be less likely to be stable if not as people will try and make it consistent either side.
- My main concern is the switching around from stating it is part of the UK first to that it is a European country first, considering many of those that wish Scotland be disassociated with the UK want to emphasise it as a European country rather than part of the UK. But as it remains part of the UK for now, it is best for that to be stated first, until the constitutional situation changes. DankJae 03:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The most important international characteristic should come first, which is that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the four countries that comprise the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. If desired northwestern or western Europe can be mentioned later in the lead, after Scotland's position in Great Britain or the British Isles. We don't normally or at any rate shouldn't omit inbetween geographies. In any case there's a graphic showing Scotland's position in Europe in the infobox, which for many may well be more informative than a written description. Rupples (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the proposed lead sentence, likewise, I have no objection to retaining the status quo. I do, however, feel that this is being overcomplicated and it really should not matter whether it reads Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that is part of the United Kingdom or Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, mainly located on the northern part of the island of Great Britain, in north-western Europe. Both give prominence to the fact that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and that hasn't been disputed either by my edit including the geographical location before the fact that Scotland is a country part of the United Kingdom. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Still prioritisation can display a order of preference or what is the most important aspect, the first can give the impression "Scotland is a European country that, secondly, is part of the UK", while the second states "Scotland is a UK country, secondly, on an island in Europe". If readers see "country in Europe" first, akin to Republic of Ireland or Belgium, then they'll associate it with those, and as primarily a "European country", which is not entirely correct for now. DankJae 22:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Referring to the "located on" bit, obviously not the "variously described". DankJae 02:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'll specifiy further, fine with "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." It then goes to state it is the northern part of Great Britain in the next sentence so stating its location. But mainly this lead has to be consistent with Wales and England. This lead has been stable. A wider discussion is needed if changed for consistency with other articles, with me only open to following the format of Northern Ireland if required. Plus Wales and England have these leads and are good articles, so did not negatively impact them. DankJae 23:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the current wording. DankJae 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- This helpful article helped me understand the difference between a Country, State and Nation. I note the confusion of different interpretations of each word. However I would argue the introduction of this article should read "Scotland is a nation that is part of the United Kingdom". This would better agree with the wiki definitions of Country, Nation and State (polity). Ssojjoss (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Scotland is a country and an autonomous region, which is why it's appropriate to compare it to similar autonomous regions. I disagree with your interpretation of the WikiProject Countries guidance, but I'm not opposed to adding an explicit mention of Scotland's position within Europe. The best thing to do is to wait and see if a consensus develops. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Scotland's location is described in relation to the UK, Great Britain, England, the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Irish Sea. That's a good description of its location, in my opinion. Scotland is an autonomous region of the UK in a similar way to Catalonia within Spain and Trentino-Alto within Italy, they're fair comparisons. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Lead reversion to stable version
[edit]Just to be clear, my last reversion to the lead paragraph is intended to return it to a stable state while discussion is ongoing rather than to impose my own preferences. I have no intention of getting into an edit war, as I hope my engagement with the discussion here demonstrates. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear - I also intend not to engage in an edit war, but merely trying to gain some consensus here amongst contributors and readers alike in order to move forward and have the article in the strongest position going forward for resubmission as a good article. Goodreg3 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Of course. I didn't think you were engaging in an edit war, I just wanted to explain my last edit and give you a chance to object to it if you wanted. I totally understand you wanting to get the article in good shape for the GA review, and I admire you for taking on a topic as big as Scotland! A.D.Hope (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- A note that this reversion of an adjustment to the lead was not an endorsement of the preceding version, containing as it did the edits under discussion above. I agree with the reversion to the stable version before this edit, in terms of allowing discussion to take place but also because the changes made an unwieldy sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Naturally. Will await the result of any constructive consensus. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- A note that this reversion of an adjustment to the lead was not an endorsement of the preceding version, containing as it did the edits under discussion above. I agree with the reversion to the stable version before this edit, in terms of allowing discussion to take place but also because the changes made an unwieldy sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Of course. I didn't think you were engaging in an edit war, I just wanted to explain my last edit and give you a chance to object to it if you wanted. I totally understand you wanting to get the article in good shape for the GA review, and I admire you for taking on a topic as big as Scotland! A.D.Hope (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The longstanding status quo for the lead? should remain, as it was the result of a hard-fought consensus (I was a part of those old discussions) both 'here' & at the intros to England, Wales & Scotland. Furthermore, the British prime minister should not be included in the infobox of this page 'or' the infoboxes at England, Wales & Northern Ireland. PS - For example: We don't include the US president in the infoboxes of US states. Nor do we include the Canadian prime minister in the infoboxes of Canadian provinces & territories. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am happy to vote in favour of retaining the current status quo of the lead sentence to establish some much needed stability on the article. Also, in agreement with the points re British Prime Minister being included on the page for the exact same reasons you have mentioned. A quick search has not found the US President mentioned or photograph included of in articles such as California and Florida, and similarly, the Canadian PM is not included in articles such as Nova Scotia or Quebec. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unless it's been changed since GoodDay made their comment, the infobox doesn't mention the British prime minister. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- No it does not, but there was attempts made a few days ago to include Sunak in the Government and politics section alongside the Monarch and First Minister which I will always insist is not relevant on an article about a country with its own level of devolved government, just in the same way I mentioned above that articles such as Quebec, Queensland and New South Wales do not feature the PM of their respective sovereign states. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sunak's more relevant than Shona Robison, though... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the lead that was there had been agreed by consensus.
- Sunak's more relevant than Shona Robison, though... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- No it does not, but there was attempts made a few days ago to include Sunak in the Government and politics section alongside the Monarch and First Minister which I will always insist is not relevant on an article about a country with its own level of devolved government, just in the same way I mentioned above that articles such as Quebec, Queensland and New South Wales do not feature the PM of their respective sovereign states. Goodreg3 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unless it's been changed since GoodDay made their comment, the infobox doesn't mention the British prime minister. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- lead with changes
- Scotland (Scots: Scotland; Scottish Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers the northern part of the island of Great Britain. Scotland shares a land border with England to the south and is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, the North Sea to the north-east and east, and the Irish Sea to the south. Edinburgh is the capital and Glasgow is the largest of the cities of Scotland.
- Information I have removed can be found in the infobox and / or the geography section where more detail is provided. The changes I am suggesting would make the article lead more succinct and easy to read.
- although I agree with having important information the article, the current lead looks cluttered and too long as per MOS:LEADLENGTH. It looks like everything is being crammed into the lead which is suppose to be short and to the point.ChefBear01 (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest adding a distinct section within the History of Scotland section that deals with Scotland's involvement in the British Empire. MiloThatch 98 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜 melecie talk - 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
number of Inhabitants according to 2022 census is 5,439,842 but other nummers are mentioned here as well 2A02:A46A:9576:0:C59F:11CF:827E:439F (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the Secretary of State from Alister Jack to Ian Murray Wardenofsomething (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done Jamedeus (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Constituent country
[edit]I personally think the first line "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." should be changed to "Scotland is a constituent country that is part of the United Kingdom". I understand that a constituent country is just a type of country, although when someone hears the word country they wouldn't think of a constituent country. I do think that the first line of the article is linked well considering "country" leads to the actual page of the constituent countries that make up the United Kingdom, although I think it'd be better to call Scotland a constituent country, as not only is it more specific but it is also the correct name that it should be given.
Scotland shouldn't be called just a country, as it is already part of a country (United Kingdom). To any typical person it wouldn't make much sense for four countries to be part of one country, that'd more be a continent.
It doesn't hurt anyone to call it a constituent country as it doesn't change the meaning of the first line, nor does it change the truth, rather, it's even more correct, stating the type of country Scotland actually is.
Wordings like these tend to lead people to mistakes, causing many people to just call nations such as Scotland "a country inside a country" without actually knowing the difference between the status of Scotland and the status of another country such as Russia. They are not the same thing, so they shouldn't be called the same thing.
Thank you, Setergh (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is all covered by the first item in the FAQ on this page. JaggedHamster (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
CoA of Scotland
[edit]Is that the coat of arms of Scotland, or the coat of arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland? Pur 0 0 (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- They're the arms of dominion of the King in right of Scotland. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use Scottish English
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Geography
- B-Class vital articles in Geography
- B-Class Scotland articles
- Top-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- B-Class Celts articles
- Top-importance Celts articles
- WikiProject Celts articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Top-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class UK geography articles
- Top-importance UK geography articles
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report