Talk:Glasgow/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Weegie

I have turned the (pretty terrible) article Weegie into a redirect to Glasgow, if anyone wants to know. Jellyman (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted this as the term Weegie deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.143.76.154 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Let it be known that Weegie is largely an exonym, probably of Edinburgh origin.

Nuttyskin (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Let it be further known that there are a number of references in the article from Glasgow publications using the term to describe Glaswegians, with an obvious sense of fun and pride in the word. If it is an exonym, it is one that seems to have been adopted by the city to an extent sufficient for the publishers to think that these articles would go down well. .Girth Summit (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it could do with a reference in the article that this term is controversial. On reddit Glasgow the therm is universally hated. I've started seeing it used in ads, like the one referenced in the link, and on an Irish travel ad aimed at Glaswegians on the TV the other day. I'd bet advertisers with no knowledge of Scotland are adopting it directly from this article, thinking every Glaswegian is happy to be called a "weegie" not understanding it's not that simple Aldaden (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

...Here's a source for you that it is not a standard word for a Glaswegian: https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/aye-right-ebay-website-under-15465262 Aldaden (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glasgow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513101220/http://www.venuefinder.com/venues/scottish_exhibition_+_conference_centre/V8654/meeting-rooms/ to http://www.venuefinder.com/venues/scottish_exhibition_+_conference_centre/V8654/meeting-rooms/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511142036/http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/rangers_founders_plaque_unveiled_at_fleshers_haugh_461850/index.shtml to http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/rangers_founders_plaque_unveiled_at_fleshers_haugh_461850/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Weegie

Per discussion at WP:RSN and with Bryan5631, I've replaced the sentences in the language section covering the term 'weegie'. I've removed any mention of it either being used by Glaswegians with pride, or of it being a pejorative term used by East-coasters, because I wasn't able to identify any sources that actually discussed this question; I found plenty of examples of its use, but it would be WP:OR to make a statement based on inference from examples. The book now cited asserts that the term seems to be replacing 'keelie', which fits in well with our article given the content of the preceding sentence; if any reliable sources can be found that actually discuss the use of the term weegie, and any potential connotations, it would be good to expand on this. Girth Summit (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it should be prominent in the article. If it appears it should be highlighted that it is controversial. This article should be enough to show as much. In fact, I'd bet that ebay used the term in the first place because they saw it on Wikipedia and thougth, "Oh. People from Glasgow love being called Weegies". Call me a cynic, but I wonder if advocates are actually from Glasgow or are just trying to sneak in a word they know some Glaswegians hate. Why would you fight so much to include a word known to be hated by some?

lol. Someone expanded on Weegie to point out that it can be derogatory. Instantly removed. I was half joking this was a conspiracy before to make outsiders to get people to call Glaswegians Weegies. Now I think I'm beginning to believe it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.134.249 (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This should be added to the article

Scotland's most and least deprived areas named https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-51279966

Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) - a measure considering seven criteria including income and health.

Carntyne West and Haghill, in Glasgow, was the second most deprived.

The most-deprived areas for each criteria:

Income - Falkirk town centre and Callendar Park Employment - Glasgow's Shettleston north Health - Glasgow's Possil Park Education - Craigneuk, in Wishaw, North Lanarkshire Access - Rannoch and Aberfeldy, in Perth and Kinross Crime - South area of Glasgow city centre Housing - Part of Strathbungo, on the south side of Glasgow

Councils with highest percentage of deprived areas: Glasgow City is second on the list.

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Etmyology

That Glasgow is first 'Welsh' in origin is contested. 'Celtic' would be more accurate than 'Brittonic'. The significance of Gaelic in the city and surrounding region's modern place names is here ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.89.234 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Glasgow on Mars

I find this section unconvincing - the references don't suggest anywhere on Mars specifically named after Glasgow, and 'ponit' looks like a typo. Mdrb55 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Population rank for Europe is using metro area

The source used for it is for metro area instead of city limits, which the other 2 sources use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoceany2 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ranking

The text says 'as of 2011': is it long enough yet after the 2021 census to update the year? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The 2021 Census was deferred to 2022 in Scotland. In any case, the demographic results of the analysis of Census data are not usually published until at least a year after the Census date. Archon 2488 (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Can the ranking be re-dated from other sources? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In principle, yes, there are other reliable sources for demographic data about Glasgow, such as The National Records of Scotland estimates. I guess it's not really ideal to mix'n'match data from such disparate sources (which naturally use different methodologies, variously to estimate or calculate the population, in different years) if your objective is to construct a consistent ranking of cities by population – if this is what you are thinking of. If nothing else, this seems likely to be considered WP:OR. I don't know of any UK-wide source of demographic data, known to be accurate to a particular year, that would allow such a comparison/ranking. There are also ONS estimates but I haven't looked in enough detail to see if they offer the kind of granularity you'd need (i.e. city-by-city comparisons) for this purpose.

Another question is, can it really not wait until 2023-24, when the new Census data is fully available? Archon 2488 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The main issue is that the entry is ten years old - so might be considered an issue by 'those using WP for quick facts.' A clarification of the issue and a link 'for the interim' would probably suffice. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)