Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

Gaelic POV pushing?

Scottish Wikipedians may be interested in this post at the UK Wikipedians' notice board:

• Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Gaelic_POV_pushing

--Mais oui! 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On a related issue, can I ask what folks think of the recent editing in of twin gaelic/english name usage on infoboxes (eg. Forfar)? The reason given by Grcampbell in the edit summary is "Scotland is a dual language country...". That may technically be the case (with 1.16% of the population speaking gaelic), but this is an english language wiki - it isn't designed to be for gaelic speaking people (that would be what the Gaelic WP is for), or to conform to Scottish Exec guidelines. I don't have a problem with the gaelic name being in the article itself, it is a useful and interesting piece of information, but don't see any need for it to be the header in the infobox (what next, gaelic name redirects to the english article?) especially for the case that I linked to above. It would make sense out in the west where there is widespread use, but Forfar doesn't have dual language signposts or anything like that, indeed only 0.42% (or 55 people out of 13,000) actually speak the language in the town. Isn't the prominent usage going to give a false impression to those from out with Scotland as to the languages use and status? I don't mean to have a go at Gaelic (I am attempting to learn it myself), but I just see an increasing proliferation of its use out of all proportions to its current situation in Scotland. I too would like to see the day that we have true dual language status such as is the case in Wales or Ireland, but to paint that as currently being the case by having gaelic names splashed at the top of infoboxes, implying that it is an official and used name for a place, is a bit of a misdirection. Exceptions would be, as I said out in the western isles, where it obviously is used, and probably Glasgow and Edinburgh since they have an odd bit of usage as well (at Queen Street and Waverly stations for example), but other than that it is just going to potentially misinform non-scottish readers. SFC9394 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I often enter, or correct, Gaelic placenames. This has nothing to do with any "dual language" status of Scotland, whether that exists or not, and nothing to do with pushing a Gaelic POV. Most places in Scotland have names which stem from Gaelic, or (like Fort Augustus) have Gaelic names which predate the English name (and are still in use today). When the Gaelic name for a place is mentioned, I see it as an additional bit of historical information. Also, toponymy is a subject that many people find fascinating. Lianachan 16:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you - I am not saying they should be removed from any mention in the article, but they can be mentioned in a toponymy context without having to be header’ed. My fear is that we have gaelic place names emboldened as equal to english place names in an infobox in a current context (ie. not a historical look, but an implication that this is currently in use) then it is communicating to readers who don't know any different that they could use gaelic place names just as equally as English names and not expect to encounter any problems. SFC9394 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

One only has to look at the Scotland article to see that it has been welcome for a long time that Gaelic be used in that infobox. The reasoning behind using it for cities is along the same lines. The rest of the spiel I was going to say has been covered by Lianachan aptly. Also, the names are currently in use. By Gaelic speakers and the Scottish parliament. --Bob 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just to continue this one on, we now have an anon IP editing in the Scots version as well - Edinburgh. IMHO it makes the top of the infobox look a bit top heavy and daft. Perhaps a few extra category spaces could be added into the infobox for all the variations and leave the wiki language version at the top. SFC9394 17:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it isn't just cities that it has gone into - Forfar for one. Their usage by gaelic speakers is exactly the point - they aren't used by english speakers - this is the english language wiki. Historical context I have no problem with - current usage on the basis that the scottish parliament uses it, I am afraid I don't buy. SFC9394 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the Forfar entry, I do see where you're coming from with this. Having the Gaelic name there offers no historical insight, or translation of the placename. (Irrelevant, but I think the Gaelic name for Forfar is actually Baile Fharfair anyway). Lianachan 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've seen both, but it is true that it is more often accompanied by the word Baile, which means town --Bob 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, if people are so vehemently against Gaelic placenames at the top of the box, then in the infobox we could place an optional line for both the name of the town in Gaelic and the translation. Which, in this case would be town of shelving slope. --Bob 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Or just mention it, if it's relevant or in use, in the main text of the entry - similar to the entries for Fort William or Fort Augustus (each done a different way)? Lianachan 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why have infoboxes at all then? Also, I see no-one has yet suggested removing Alba from the Scotland infobox --Bob 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Would it not depend on how much the Gaelic name was in common useage, or how immediately relevant the Gaelic name is? Infoboxes aren't supposed to have every bit of information in them, but be a quick list of facts/stats/info. Lianachan 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not 'vehemently' against the use of names at the top of the box - I just don't think it is a good idea in the majority of cases. For example, it makes perfect sense with Portree or Stornoway, but no sense for small towns on the east coast of scotland where gaelic is no longer in general use. I would always encourage any historical additions that are about the gaelic name in the body of the article, as that adds a bit of depth and distinction to articles which so many other places struggle to get. Whether the names (including any scots versions) get a place as an optional line in the infobox is a judgement call - I have less of an issue with that as compared to the bold version - it is all down to whether it is a useful enough piece of info, since the infoboxes are just a gather box for the most useful facts to aid the reader. They aid both in allowing quick facts to be brought to the front (if someone wants to find out who the msp's are for Glasgow they can do so nice and quickly) and it also visually standardises basic facts (such as population) to aid fact finding irrespective of location or individual editors stylistic choices. SFC9394 20:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Further point with regards to Alba, that is be a special case, since it is a country box, not a place box. Also, if you want to look at it in a speaking sense, as you say, gaelic is an official language of Scotland, so it gets its place there, but zoom in to a town level and gaelic is not an official language of town foo so doesn’t get a mention, but is an official language of town bar, so does get a mention. Relevancy is all I am really after. SFC9394 20:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when did towns start taking "official languages"? If you want to take the opinion that a government's position on language status doesn't matter, then go over to the Kiev article, and put the Russian name of that Russophone city before its Ukrainian one, see how long it takes before the edit is reverted. :) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Again - what has Russia got to do with anything? I couldn't care less about Kiev, and it, or any revert wars taking place there, have nothing to do with this subject. If I go into my local council offices and ask them for foobar literature in gaelic they will say "no chance", if I go and do the same thing on Skye they will say "no problem". To be in ignorance of where gaelic is spoken just to suit your view is, once again, highly questionable. SFC9394 20:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Stranraer? Why don't you tell them to change the name of the town, because it's not in English anyway. The English translation is more fun anyway - "Fat Nose". --MacRusgail 21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't have a clue what your point is - if you are trying to insinuate that I have a problem with gaelic origin place names then you haven't read anything I have posted here (and are 100% wrong, I like the origin of the name, as well as the rhins, which I believe also has gaelic roots). SFC9394 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have no problem with you missing the point. It happens. However much or little you care about Kiev, it isn't unimportant. It's one of thousands of examples which make a nonsense of the importance you are assigning to "foobar literature in gaelic". I'm not "in ignorance" (such friendly phrases!) of where Gaelic is spoken, it just isn't more relevant than the other historical or political factors that, for instance, lead to train stations in Glasgow and Edinburgh putting Gaelic names on their signs, and lead to the Ukrainian name for Kiev being placed before Russian (the language of the city) on the wikipedia article. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But what you are talking about is very grey and blurry. The gaelic histororical context of a place should be included, but you are trying to bring in a lot of mystical things which can so easily become attached to a lot of romantic thoughts. You are arguing that the gaelic place name has as much right to be there as the anglicised version of it, on the basis that the 'official' version of events isn't always what really happened - but WP is not here to change what is officially accepted, merely to represent it. Truth is gaelic versions of place names are not used on a day to day basis throughout most of Scotland - all WP should be doing is representing that truth, not trying to represent some alternate version of things based on how things could or should be. SFC9394 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And truth be told, the gaelic train station signs are there for the tourists - you don't get a gaelic welcome at anniesland, but you do at queen street - it has little to do with deep historical appreciation and much more to do with creating an image, an impression for those from out with Scotland - I wish it wasn't the case, but that is the reason you don't get a Fàilte at anniesland, but do at the transport hub (the same at Glasgow airport if my memory serves). SFC9394 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when anyone opens with a title "POV pushing", my immediate reaction, based on my experience, is that they themselves are pushing the opposite point of view. It's not POV pushing to put the nation's second "official" language (and historical language BTW), it's informative. My opinion is that Gaelic names should be in the opening of the text, and at the top of the table, as they are in Irish articles, irrespective of the % of the population of the particular place who speak it. For all those simple souls who'll allegedly have their poor little heads confused by the status of Gaelic, there is always a link to the language next to the place name, where they will find all the info they'd need. I'm sorry I find that argument impossible to take seriously, but it's the argument I see all the time in revert wars over putting in/deleting Russian names at the same place in Ukrainian towns, or Polish names on Lithuanian towns, etc. There isn't an issue here, don't see why one or two people are trying to make it one. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Calgacus,

1. I did not start this title - I merely added here since it was already running and makes more sense than starting yet another chapter on this very lengthy page.
2. I am sure you do see it all the time in Russian articles, but this ain't Russia, and to make such a comparison is in total ignorance of both the facts and the historical context. No too situations can be fully comparable - and to dismiss percentages out of hand simply because it suits you POV is questionable at the very least. SFC9394 20:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now there's a friendly start. I'm POV am I? Now we all just learned something: read over the page User:Molobo for one of legions of examples of someone accusing someone else of the quality they themselves are characterized by. No, I've not said anything about you being POV; I say no such thing, and although you yourself are making it out as if you are "POV", I'm keeping an open mind on the topic. ;) And when did I say you started this title? I didn't say it, I know who started the title. And if you think the comparison is in "total ignorance", as you so nicely put it, maybe you'll discover how right or wrong you are when you start removing Gaelic names from busy Scottish town articles. Such things are prone to sensitivies; and unless you yourself have an agenda, then ... when you see a dragon sleeping, my advice to you is, let it sleep. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First you said:

I'm afraid that when anyone opens with a title "POV pushing", my immediate reaction, based on my experience, is that they themselves are pushing the opposite point of view

Now you say:

No, I've not said anything about you being POV

I have no time for trolls - If you believe that I have a big issue about this then you are 100% wrong - but you can believe what you like, I don't have time to play games (or games of semantics, which is what you are doing now). SFC9394 21:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can read what I said. Now, if you had paid any care to what I've actually said, you'd have found that the statement "No, I've not said anything about you being POV" is actually true. Inconvenient maybe, since you obviously wish to slander me, the "troll" that I clearly am, but I haven't accused you of being point of view. If you, SFC9394, wish to slander me further, I have a talk page that you are welcome to leave it on; you can leave anything you like, but you shouldn't do it here; we don't want to be clogging up this comminity talk page after all. ;) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

By bringing in the first line in the way you did you were implying it - otherwise why bring it in? As I said, semantics, and that is my right to reply, and final word on it. SFC9394 21:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I imply only what I mean to imply; what you read from it is entirely dependent on your own care and/or level of paranoia. Why did I bring it up? Because it revealed quite clearly the presence of an unhelpful agenda; no other reason. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of information. I see that I am being criticised for the title I chose for the header: Gaelic POV pushing?. If you are super-observant then you will notice that there is actually a question mark at the end: it is not a statement. As it happens I disagree with the linked post at UK Wikipedians' notice board, indeed I voted for the use of the Gaelic name rather than Outer Hebrides during the Rename vote at Talk:Outer Hebrides.--Mais oui! 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, people are jumping the gun tonight. Like I said, I know who started the tag, User:Solipsist; don't worry, I know you wouldn't make a title like that. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make 100% more sense to reach consensus on the issues discussed here before you go around the place changing articles? SFC9394 22:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would he worry about that? Seems pretty uncontroversial, though I think the alternative name(s) should be just below the place, rather than in the box. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Places where a gaelic/scots name doesn't exist come to mind. Can the field be suppressed if it isn't needed? At least gaelic is a defined language, scots is a hodgepodge amalgam which often contradicts itself or a suitable word doesn't exist. It is going to look unsightly to have a load of {((placeS}}} littered about where things don't quite fit the template. Also what occurs for modern names which don't have gaelic origins? SFC9394 00:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the position for Scots is useful either; every place has a local name, like Glesga in Glasgow, but that's not necessarily what actual Scots-speakers in, say, Buchan call it. I think the Scots section would have to wait until the government or some related institution standardizes it. In any case, Scots is so close to English that most town names are actually referred to in Scots by their "English" name, so it is superfluous. (What does one gain from learning that Wigtoun is a Scots form of Wigtown)? Moreover, in about 2/3rds of the Scottish landmass, Scots was never really spoken for any extended period of time, whereas only a small fraction of it can claim that honour with Gaelic. Theoretically, Gaelic names exist for every location in Scotland, but they aren't always easy to find for the more obscure places in locations like those in the Northern Isles or the far south-east where (post-Old Irish) Gaelic has never been spoken, but they are so readily available that almost every location that would get a wiki article will have a Gaelic name easy to hand. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have put that the other way round: "In any case, English is so close to Scots that most town names are actually referred to in English by their Scots name".

I realise that some people are "Scots-sceptics", but I am not one of them, and I believe that the consensus here at Wikipedia is to respect Scots as a language, and not as a dialect of English. Obviously though, an intelligent presentation of all sides of the debate needs to be presented at the relevant articles.--Mais oui! 09:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say I am scots-sceptic, more scots-realist. It certainly exists, and certainly as far more than an english dialect (the amount of independently derived, completely different words attests to that) - but I find it difficult to define as one singular language. It is fractured into half a dozen, a dozen, (maybe even more) indistinct dialects of itself, and each zone blurs and merges into the next. Ultimately you have a result that in each separate 'zone' words are spoken and spelt slightly differently, and some words don't even exist in another zone, or have completely different meanings. So if I read Burns, it may be scots, but it is (even ignoring the historical differences) to my eye and ear, ayrshire-scots. In the above example, if scots was being used, I wouldn't use Wigtoun, I would use Wigtoon. There is no absolute source on what should be used, and what is right and wrong, so we are left with potential contradictions based on how each scots-dialect renders words. The fields when not used could at the very least be left blank (ie include them in the page's box but just don't put anything in) to ensure that people know the field exists and can fill it in if they see something that needs added (and it looks a lot better blank than with pageS all over the shop). SFC9394 12:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Darien

The History of Panama article contains no references to the Darien Scheme that I can see. --MacRusgail 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Tillicoultry

The Tillicoultry page has some external links which I consider to be poor quality and have removed in the past, these have recently reappeared. Does wikipedia have any guidelines on what sort of external pages should be linked to? --Hellinterface 21:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Alai 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dougie Donnelly's website perhaps? :) --MacRusgail 17:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers ;) OK, so do you interpret 'accessible', in particular I'm talking about this site which, to my eye is shocking. What do you reckon?

MacRusgail - Should you ever get lost on you way to Sterling Furniture, I hope you get pointed in completely the wrong direction by the local kids, as is traditional. ;-P

Cool building, pity about it's website! --MacRusgail 21:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Scottish laws

Should Acts with "(Scotland)" in the title, passed by the UK Parliament, be categorised under Category:Scottish laws? And if so, what should that subcategory be titled? Contribute to the discussion at:

• User talk:Astrotrain

--Mais oui! 15:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Should Category:Scottish laws be used for Acts of Parliament that are passed by the UK Parliament in Westminster. According to legal expert, User:George Burgess, acts with "(Scotland)" in the title can also apply to the rest of the UK and are not necessarily restricted to Scotland, therefore should Category:British laws be used instead?? Astrotrain 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Because this discussion has now been conducted on four(!) different pages thus far, I have copied the entire extant debate onto one public forum, ie: here. Please leave any additional comments on this topic here.--Mais oui! 10:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you are removing UK parliaments Acts that relate to Wales out of the Category British laws, whereas I think they ought to be in British laws as they are made by the UK parliament, and Welsh laws (a category I recently created). I would like to agree the way to categorise laws like this. Kurando | ^_^ 11:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to your query: articles should not be included in both a subcategory and a supercategory.--Mais oui! 11:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the introductory text at Category:British laws should be changed? Kurando | ^_^ 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.--Mais oui! 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Still trying to work out the best way to categorise acts like this. After a discussion with User:Mais oui! yesterday we thought that that UK acts that apply only to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should go into the subcategories. I thought to begin with that an act like this could go in both Scottish and British categories, but he tells me articles should not go in a category and its subcategory. What do you think? Kurando | ^_^ 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't bother with what Mais_oui! thinks in regards to categories. He has a history of removing all the British categories from various articles, and changing British to English, Scottish etc. If a law is passed by the UK Parliament it is a British law- not a Scottish law. Astrotrain 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

One solution would be to create a new category, called something like Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland, and make it a subcat of both Category:British laws and Category:Scottish laws. Although the current system is OK, it would perhaps be better to differentiate between pre-Union Scottish laws, British laws for Scotland, and devolved Scottish laws (at the moment they are all just lumped in together, which will become more and more messy as more articles are started and entered in the cat).

Although I regret the catty nature of Astrotrain's comment left on your Talk page yesterday, he does have a reasonable point in wanting British laws to be correctly labelled as such, even when they are only applicable to Scotland.

All of the above goes for Eng, Wales and NI too.

Finally, I think that an article actually listing all the UK parliament legislation only applicable to Scotland would be an excellent tool, helping to give structure to the new subcat. Same obviously for Eng, Wales and NI.

Oh, another "finally": you really, really ought to try very hard indeed not to enter an article in both a subcat and the parent cat (although occasional exceptions do exist, this isn't one of them). It is just standard good practice, widely observed throughout Wikipedia.--Mais oui! 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.

Better to have:

• For UK Parliament since 1707- British laws
• For Scottish Parliament since 1999- Scottish laws

Astrotrain 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but I genuinely do not understand. You say:

• "British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland". That is in line with my understanding, and is crystal clear, and easily categorisable.
• "contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales". Navigating through the tortuous phraseology, what I think you are saying is that that law extended what was previously only an E & W law into Scotland? Is that right? Whatever, the fact is that the terms of that Act apply solely to Scotland: it is a Scottish law.

I really do think that we ought to take the most sensible, and above all useful, approach to this. It is utterly undeniable that every single Westminster statute with "(Scotland)" in the title has a special status in Scottish law: therefore all such articles really must be included in Category:Scottish laws. Whether this is via direct entry, or as a subcat, is open to debate. As I said earlier, subcats are the most obvious solution.

By the way, you missed out a third, crucial, category of Scottish law: Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, prior to the Union.

Finally, I consider it singularly unhelpful that you have "archived" a discussion strand on your Talk page that was only started today.--Mais oui! 21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Employment Rights Act 1996 was originally a law that applied throughout the UK, though a few sections only applied in E&W. The 2003 Act amended these sections to apply also in Scotland. No new law was created, just an extension of existing law from E&W to include Scotland. To say "Scottish law", implies that it is a unique law for Scotland- when in fact it is exactly the same law as England and Wales. Astrotrain 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"No new law was created". This may be stating the blindingly ovious, but a new law most certainly was created! No less than statute law. The new law even has a title, a date, a text, an archived debate and parliamentary vote (and a Wikipedia article): Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003.

The Act called the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is a unique law for Scotland: it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on England, Northern Ireland or Wales: it is a Scottish law. I think that you really are being a little obscurantist here. Category:Scottish laws is exactly what it says on the tin.--Mais oui! 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see your point. However laws passed by the UK parliament should be kept seperate from laws passed by the Scottish Parliament to avoid confusion. Astrotrain 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you on that point: Category:Scottish laws should have (at least) three subcats, with names something like:

• Category:Acts of the Estates of Parliament
• Category:Acts of the Westminster Parliament which apply only to Scotland
• Category:Acts of the Scottish Parliament

I'm not sure that that wording is best, not least because I'm not sure if Statutory Instruments are meant to be getting included too, but you get my drift.--Mais oui! 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is actually more complex than that. Although the purpose of the Act is to make a change that relates to Scotland, the Act itself does not have an "extent" provision (normally found in the last few sections) and therefore applies UK-wide. It does therefore amend English law. While many Acts with "(Scotland)" in the title do indeed extend only to Scotland, this is not always the case - for example some provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Act included a provision relating to the Channel Islands. The moral of this story is that the presence or absence of "(Scotland)" from the short title of an Act is not a foolproof guide. We had much debate when the Scottish Parliament was established about whether its Acts needed to have "(Scotland)" or some other indicator of their Scottishness in the title.--George Burgess 14:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, very interesting comments. In that case, I would say that all acts passed by Westminster should be British laws category as there is no guarantee that they only apply to Scotland. Astrotrain 14:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

They are already in that category: in a subcategory. --Mais oui! 14:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Scottish laws should surely be used for laws which apply (or used to apply) in Scotland whether or not they have the word "Scotland" in the title of the enabling act and whichever Parliamentary body may have passed them. When it comes down to it, Scottish laws are those which the judiciary of Scotland use. The discussion on Astrotrain's talk page seems to confuse Acts of the various parliaments and the various laws which they promulgate. In particular a British Act like the Sunday working one, may make changes both to English Law and to Scots law. So it is important to differentiate between (English or Scots) laws and the (British) acts which introduce them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of new subcategories per mais oui!'s suggestion as most of the exisiting categories are rather overloaded anyway. If we kept British laws, Scottish laws and English laws, and then had

1. 'UK acts' which contained all acts passed by UK
2. 'Scot acts' passed by Scot parl
3. Laws passed by UK which apply to Scot would go in UK acts AND Scot laws, but not Scot acts

which would make a somewhat more complex categorisation scheme, but I think less ambiguos as it would not contain double entries. Anyway, i think I will try it out when I think of some suitable category names. Kurando | ^_^ 09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Some subcategorisation of British laws, Scottish laws and English laws is needed. I am creating UK acts by year for all UK acts, but ones which apply to Scotland I think should stay in Scottish laws (until suitable subcategories are created). Kurando | ^_^ 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that User:Kurando has now started cat: Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 2003, etc..., which seems quite an elegant solution: so for example that Sunday working hours Act is now in both cat:Scottish laws and this new UK parliament cat. Both of those cats are subcats of cat:British laws.--Mais oui! 11:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While I am quiet happy that there are such things as British Acts of Parliament, I am less sure that there are such things as British laws, except in the trivial sense that Scottish and English laws are both British. What did you have in mind as an example of a British law, Kurando ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine British laws eventually should contain no articles, only categories such as English laws, Scottish laws, UK Acts, Scottish Acts etc. Though I suppose there could be something like EU regulations that apply specifically to the UK? Kurando | ^_^ 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)