This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Scots/Scottish Gaelic Wikipedias
It seems to me that it'd be a good idea to include links to the Scots and Scottish Gaelic wikipedias on the Portal. I don't ever deal with the portal, so I figured I'd put up a request for such a thing here (the Portal's talk page looks like it gets much less traffic, and isn't really the place to discuss it). Thoughts? Canaen 01:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't spot this when you posted it. Yes, excellent idea: just go ahead and put in a wee box if you like. --Mais oui! 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I created an article for the prominent public artist George Wyllie from a red link and immediately got hit with a Speedy Deletion notice. Not best pleased about this when I consider the number of pages for one-time drummers in Finnish metal bands, etc. Anyway, folks, like to review the page and its deletion notice and enhance the case for a page on a mere Scottish artist? AllyD 11:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I figure the listing of works asserts notability, googling on the straw locomotive, so I've removed the tag. Shimgray | talk | 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Adding more content helps to assert notability - I put in a bit about the Straw Loco and an external link, I'm sure more can be added. ::Supergolden:: 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What a coincidence! I was just walking past his house in the sunshine yesterday. ...dave souza, talk 13:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Scottish Infobox Map Standardisation
I have been adding infoboxes to a few Scottish towns with a new style map, and I am seeking consensus to standardise the existing boxes based around the new map style before I go ahead and add many more. Basically the previous map used (as can be seen with Stirling, for example) appears to me to be difficult to decode, with the dot barley visible unless the map is clicked on for a full view. Given the point of the map is to give a quick and easy pointer to a settlements location, having to open the image to full view is a bit pointless. The other problem would be purely aesthetic, with the blue/green mix appearing a bit queasy.
The new map style I am using is just a reworking of the Image:UK_scotland.png image, as used on the Scotland page, with the rest of the UK cropped out and the seas transparent. An example of my cropped version can be seen on Irvine, North Ayrshire.
I would contact the user who made the original satellite style maps directly to see if he was ok for standardisation, but he appears to have been inactive since last August, so I decided to ask here before I ploughed on ahead and changed any of the original boxes. Any comments welcome. SFC9394 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
A standard map is a good idea and I agree with your points on the Stirling example. I too have been working on maps, although I prefer the style of this one. If it was to become standardised, we'd need to include orkney/shetland of course, but I'd be happy go along with whatever the community decides. Hellinterface 00:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with the idea of a standard map, and the Stirling example is very poor. The Irvine example is a better map, not least because it includes Orkney and Shetland. My only comment is that the red dot is still a bit indistinct against the strong green. I would suggest either changing the dot to yellow for better visibility, or toning down the green. --Cactus.man✍ 07:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In addition to agreeing a standard map, should we also agree on standardised dimensions too? Also, I think I'm changing my preference to the Irvine style map. Hellinterface 10:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work guys. Although I have a preference for maps which show geographical relief, I must concede that at this small scale a very simple outline map works better. Somehow the blue Tillicoultry one seems clearer than the green one (something to do with colour contrast?). However we progress with this, I would like to express my strong preference for including both Orkney and Shetland in all Scotland (and UK) maps: it is ridiculous how many times Shetland especially is simply cropped out.--Mais oui! 10:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've produced a wee example with the Irvine style map to demonstrate why maybe black is the most suitable colour for denoting the location. Yellow is not a good choice as it is barely visible against the white background when used on one of the smaller western isles for example. See here. I was also thinking that we should upload the source as a layered Photoshop image, that way if the location dot has it's own layer, it can be easily dragged to new locations, whilst maintining size/colour etc. I'm not sure how popular Photoshop is around these parts though. One other consideration is dot size, obviously the larger the dot, the less accurate it is, particularly on a small map like this. I reckon the one in my example (5px) covers an area of roughly 8-10 miles in all directions from it's centre point. Hellinterface 10:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, a black dot is better (certainly in the islands example you give), but I think the green is still too strong and needs to be toned down somewhat. --Cactus.man✍ 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Glad everyone is roughly in agreement on the need for a change. I have uploaded a lighter version with a black locator: Image:Scotloc test.PNG. I had used a red locator (5px width) on the originals as roughly defined by the colour scheme set out in WikiProject Maps, and I originally dabbled with yellow as well (and found as Hellinterface did that it camouflaged itself on the coasts). Black does seem to work the best though (especially against a lighter green). I am not sure if there is any easy way of introducing topography without it clouding the image too much, it would be a nice extra though. Hellinterface, any layered image file formats generally should be uploaded as The GIMP .xcf format as it is all open source and free, where as psp is a proprietary format. The gimp can do most of what psp and Photoshop can do, but it is a bit more long winded. As a template, both a dot/background xcf layer file could be uploaded, and a png with a dot in the middle (like the test png above), that way those with the gimp could easily move the dot, and those without could easily scrub out the dot and place a new one wherever they wished. SFC9394 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The GIMP supports PSD files. GIMP File types. Does anyone know of a PS plugin that allows you to save as .xcf format? I would argue that PSD is a more widely supported format. I don't agree that just because something is open source, it is better. I've tried the GIMP in the past, it's OK, but have never been impressed enough to switch away from PS. Hellinterface 12:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I would support SFC9394's Image:Scotloc test.PNG. The contrast between the dot and map is better, and the green is also not too "peely wally". I think trying to introduce any form of topography feature at these display resolutions would be counter productive. The layered idea for the dot is a great idea, but not my technical strong point. I'll let you guys work that out. --Cactus.man✍ 13:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is all to do with patents and proprietary formats. Basically PS, PSP formats are owned by their relative companies and the format characteristics have intellectual property rights and patents on them. It is all mixed in with the same reason that up until a couple of years a go gif's were frowned upon, because companies held patents on the gif format (the patents have now expired and they are now freely useable). As far as I know the various proprietary format implementations in the Gimp are reverse engineered (in much the same way that the MS office formats are reverse engineered in openoffice). It should work, and mostly will, but it isn't guaranteed 100% accurate that if something is saved by you in PSD in photoshop, that it will open 100% correctly in the gimp. It is a bit annoying if you have used one or the other program for years and know it inside out, but I think the decision was taken so as to avoid format wars on WP, and to ensure that the software is freely available and compiled versions exist for multiple OS's. For more complex work I still find it easier to lift what I am doing out of the Gimp, edit it in a better editor and then paste back in. SFC9394 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of format, Image:Scotloc test.PNG looks good to me. Assuming everyone else is happy with it, what's next? How do we go about letting others know about it? Are we going to have a drive to roll it out to articles? Hellinterface 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I am currently experimenting with a topographical version of the map, hopefully I will be able to post an image of it tonight or tomorrow morning for comment (I don't know how it will turn out yet, it may be good or it may be rubbish). As for how we proceed once we have agreed, I would suggest setting up a sub category within Maps of Scotland titled "locations of Scottish settlements" or something like that and then just fire in the templates and fill it up with the maps. There aren't too many needing replaced, and a comment could be put on the Scottish infobox template page suggesting the usage of the map template. Any other thoughts? SFC9394 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
File:Scotloc topog test.png Here is the topographical version it is a bit rough around the edges and Shetland needs added, but it gives an idea as to how it would look. Comments welcomed. SFC9394 02:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The topographical version looks good, nice work SFC. I would be interested to see how readable the dot is in the middle of the Grampians. How about knocking up versions of the plain and topo maps for, say, Braemar. --Cactus.man✍ 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The topo version is aestetically is far superior, IMO. As ✍ says, if it retains the readability of the non topo map, then it's my definite choice. One of the main reasons I didn't initially like the non-topo version was the non-antialiased coastline, but it looks like you've recified that with the topo version. Hellinterface 09:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I have created a comparison of the three with highland dots, 1 is the original, 2 is the topographical original and 3 is a lightened topographical.
1 2 3
About the only drawback of the topo versions is that they are ~25kb compared to 3kb for the plain one. Not a huge worry, but it is a minor issue with regards to page loading. SFC9394 11:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Great stuff SFC! No 3 does the trick for me, contrast with the dot is fine and the topographical detail is still there. BTW, how did you add all that topographical detail, just curious. --Cactus.man✍ 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice work! Another vote for #3. Hellinterface 12:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
float
Ok, I have cleaned and polished up a final version, and have created a category on the commons for all the maps (Scottish Location Maps) and have uploaded a couple of template images as well. So once a map is created we can just dump it in that category and they will all be kept in one place. Comments on the final version are still welcomed if anyone feels there are things which need changed.
Cactus.man, all the topographical detail is added by using the SRTM & GTOPO30DEM data. I have been experimenting with using the data for the last month or so. This map has a heavily down-converted resolution, Topo map of Galloway was my first effort, and gives a good idea of the more native resolutions of the data.
WikiProject Maps is a good place to start, with FreeGIS being a good external website listing of free tools and data (all my work so far has been using free software & resources). If you are interested in playing about with it all then drop me a note on my talk page with any questions you have and I will be happy to help you out (it took me a few days of scrabbling about in the dark to start to get some good results). SFC9394 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that we use SVG maps, but the relief maps have persuaded me that this is useful information that we should use here if at all possible. Unfortunately the way MediaWiki handles SVGs means we couldn't incorporate the relief information into an SVG, and I'd rather have the relief and live without SVG. Can I make some requests/suggestions:
the darker of the two relief maps is, for me, the clearer
I think the single black dot (or one of any other colour) isn't going to be clear everywhere. I'd suggest a black dot with a white (or transparent) circle around it.
I'd suggest that the images we have mediawiki store at commons be double (in both dimensions) the final desired size - hopefully the imagemagick downscale will produce an okay result, and having a larger version on hand (as opposed to asking for new images to be manually created) allows higher resolution applications (I'm thinking initially of for-print Wikireaders) to work nicely and without the maps either being titchy or blocky in the higher-than-screen resoltion format.
If we do finalise on this format (and I say go for it) I'm very anxious that you also upload super-detailed instructions on how someone can regenerate the basic map and the final annotated ones. We (Wikipedia) have a bad habit of starting to do something major like this, and then having the person with all the knowledge on how to do so quit, leaving us with a job half done.
Again if we finalise on this, can I ask you to upload a very large scale blank version. In addition to the doton geolocator maps, it would be nice to use this same basic map as a basis for stuff like historical maps (maps of wars, roman walls), transport maps, and political maps.
Lastly, a geotools question - can one get (for the UK) hydrological datasets (the courses of rivers and the locii of their watersheds)?
But in summary: it's good, let's do it - either #2 or #3 are good by me. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I really like topographical map #3. Yes, #2 is better just as a relief map, but the primary purpose here is to stick a visible pin on the picture, and #3 just seems more likely to allow that.--Mais oui! 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Map #3 has the best visibility of the target dot whilst retaining the relief features. I agree with Finlay that the original image (on commons) should be larger, but some testing should be done for stability when it is downsized for browsing on WP. This leads on to the question of what should the final size be in the Infobox. The inclusion of Shetland over-extends the image size vertically. Would it be a good idea to reproduce this in a floating box near the mainland in the same manner that paper map publishers do? Thoughts welcome. --Cactus.man✍ 19:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded a higher res (553x933) to the commons area - I have also uploaded a dot version at that res and have scaled it here and compared against the Glasgow pic that was already uploaded, that will give an idea how well mediawiki is going to resize (it seems to be fine).
I recognised the Shetland problem, and the eagle eyed will notice that the two images above show a slight difference with the high res one being as per reality, and I then 'pulled' Shetland down a few pixels to try and compress it a bit for the standard uploaded template file. Here is a test boxed version, I don't have any problems with that, thus allowing more space for the mainland - however I don't know if any Shetlanders have problems with always ending up 'boxed'.
At some point I can upload a super high res, as the current one is not (near) as high as it can go, but to go up from there will require me to rebuild the maps from the topo data (I am away on business from tomorrow until Friday, but I should have plenty of time to take a crack at doing a very large template map at the weekend).
In theory a white/black spot is a good idea, the only problem I see is that the marker is going to get so big that it will be covering too large an area to be individually distinctive (Location of Glasgow vs Paisley will become the same dot effectively if a white surround extends out from the black dot).
An outline of the methods I used are on Hellinterface's talk page - it is all basically variations on a theme, and should certainly be reproducible by others.
hydrological datasets is a sort of yes/no situation - I have experimented with them privately, and have implementations of all the watercourses for the Galloway map that I made - the reason it doesn't appear on the final map is all down to possible copyvio problems. I have posed the question on the issue here, but nobody has answered. The basemap data contains a lot of useful GIS components, but if it is OS derived then it can't be used - so at the moment I am not using with it for any WP work. SFC9394 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Getting aread of myself...I speculatively went started rolling this out before it was finalised, I'll obviously need to rectify that if any more changes take place. However, for those of you who want to see how it looks in an infobox before making up you mind on size/Shetland etc, check out Glasgow, Edinburgh or any other Scottish city. Hellinterface 22:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In regard of the placement of Shetland, personally I'd favour the geographically correct rendering, even at the comcomitent expense of the shrinkage of the rest of the country. Part of the argument normal publishers use for consigning poor Shetland to a box is shortage of space; I'd argue that we can be afford to be moderately profligate with space (wiki is, after all, not paper). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to use the lighter map, the black dot marker is fine (perhaps a tad large, indeed). There's no hurry for the large map (indeed, I wouldn't bother until we're all agreed what the little maps will appear). In the longer term, I'd feel more comfortable if your intermediate files (the adjusted heightfield, and presumably a config file that defines the projection and maps colours to contours) were safely on commons; unfortunately commons still prohibits zip files and other archives, which makes storing such source-material there problematic. And thanks for the info about the hydrology; if only OS data were uncopyrighted like USGS. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk
It's looking good. I would prefer the "larger mainland / boxed Shetland" version (but with a lighter weight line for the box), but could live with either version. The resized image renders perfectly well. --Cactus.man✍ 08:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
These examples look fine, though the black dot is on a lighter area and it's possible that a dot on the darker hill areas would look indistinct: could a lighter halo be added so that the dot is always against the light green background? Please keep Orkney and Shetland in their place: a friend from Orkney found her (London) office thought the ferry from Aberdeen wouldn't take long, as Orkney was just off the east coast. I welcome the proposal of a large base map with instructions so editors could crop, add a text layer and save as a new .png image (for me, using Photoshop Elements or Graphic Convertor), and have been on the lookout for such a base map to illustrate the Firth of Clyde. ..dave souza, talk 10:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Dave, see examples 1, 2 and 3 above by User:SFC9394, submitted 11:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC). The dot looks fine in the middle of the Grampians on the light green map. Just as well your friends colleagues wern't going to Shetland then :-) --Cactus.man✍ 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have experimented a bit with putting a white border or marker on the black dot, but it seems to conflict with the map scaling a bit too much. It seems that for the infobox the map is auto scaled to 115px width or 200 px height, whichever comes first. So for these maps the rendered infobox map will be 115x194. Below is the scaled original dot, versus a scaled white border dot for comparison:
Normal DotWhite Border
It appears to make a little bit of a difference, however the white surround becomes more of a problem when the full image is viewed Image:Scot loc white surround test.png, now the location marking is overlaying out to a radius of ~30 miles, which both clouds the 'actual' location, and masks all the relief underneath (which could be a significant problem in highland regions). So we then have a full size image that is less than 100% useful due to overlarge markings. I have experimented with crossing white lines and various transparent shadings, but the problem keeps cropping up that to make something noticeable on the infobox scaled image it is going to stick out like a sore thumb on the original image. SFC9394 13:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the white border is problematic, and in island locations it would obliterate large chunks of land. I support the simple black dot, light green topographical map, larger mainland with repositioned Shetland in a lightweight lined box. Comments please everone so that we can agree the final format and start to roll this out. --Cactus.man✍ 09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the version with the black dot and no white halo, though I'd go for the geographically-correct-Shetland version. Nice work on the topo map! ::Supergolden:: 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Black dot only. Geographically-correct-Shetland. Hellinterface 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Any more thoughts or is everyone happy with the consensus situation outlined by Hellinterface above? I will give it a couple more days to see if any more views are posted and then we can update the category page and start running these guys out into WP (a super duper high res version is next on my to-do list, but it shouldn't impinge on the standard rollout). SFC9394 13:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Support consensus outlined by Hellinterface. --Mais oui! 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, everyone seems settled. I have uploaded the set of HR maps to Scottish Location Maps. I have uploaded a new version of the St Andrews map just to check they can be overwritten without causing any probs, so Hellinterface's earlier work hasn't gone to waste. So it is just a case of getting this rolled out to everywhere it is required. SFC9394 14:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
(<-- Unindent) Brilliant! Image:Scotland (Location) Template (HR) (with dot).png works fine for me in PSP 7.0 The image retains transparency when imported and I can reposition the dot whilst retaining transparency. Will start to reapply to articles when I can. --Cactus.man✍ 16:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all this work.--Mais oui! 16:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As the final piece of the jigsaw I have uploaded the super high resolution version (3097 x 5230), which can be found here (I would post a thumbnail, but mediawiki appears to refuse to scale the image for some reason, probably due to it's size). The image can be cut up and annotated for use on smaller localised maps, or scaled for use as a Scotland map. I have included a height legend on the map, so that most location heights can be calculated (the colour scale is linear from light to dark, so if height resolution of <100m is required then the correct height can just be interpolated). If there are any queries with regards to map details I will be happy to help. SFC9394 20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Scottish Topics Template
I've updated the Template:Scotland topics to be more in line with the Template:England topics but of course changed the colour scheme. I'll put this template on more Scottish pages (the ones listed on the template) and if not wanted for any reason, just go ahead and remove it. Cheers, AntzUK 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well after what seems like hours, I've added the template to most pages listed on it (with a few exceptions). Personally, I find it much easier to browse Scottish topics. --AntzUK 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Does the colour have to be quite so fierce? --Bob 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Is this the case? The Scots and the English names are Rutherglen, and I am certain that there must be a Gaelic name.--Mais oui! 13:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The new highlighted article at Portal:Scotland is Scotland at the 2006 Commonwealth Games. Could people help out by creating stubs for the red-linked Scottish medallists? Also, please Watch and help improve these two articles:
We are doing really well so far, certainly far better than expected, and this is a great opportunity to present the best of Scotland to Wikipedia readers.
While we are on the topic, it really is time that we get the Sport in Scotland article underway. I would start it myself, but... you know how it is... I keep getting distracted. --Mais oui! 17:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Scottish Castles
I have a personal target of creating a full page for each of the Castles in Scotland - alone, this may take some time (esp. since I'm a few hundred miles away at the moment). I propose Wikiproject - Scottish Castles. If there is suitable interest, I would like to create a template to incorporate as much information as possible about each castle. I am still quite new to editing the Wikipedia so it will be a learning experience. Any takers? Slink pink 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a biiiig job. But go ahead. Anybody can start a Wikiproject if they want to and as you say it will be a good learning experience. For background information remember that Nigel Tranter produced the seminal book on Scottish castles. You may be able to get it through your library. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly take time, even with more than one of you. But I'd certainly be interested in joining such a wikiproject. ::Supergolden:: 09:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is a BIG job, but I would be interested in participating. I have a few on my ToDo list, no doubt this would give me a few more ... :-) --Cactus.man✍ 10:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to link it in to the main Wikiprojects page so that people who are browsing the Wikiprojects can see it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Castles is well under way, but I'd still like more people to help (otherwise it will take a very long time!). Feel free to jump in on the discussions as very little has been decided so far. Slink pink 12:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Kilt article clean-up proposal
The kilt article has been tagged for clean-up since January of this year. The main problem with it is that the article does not actually say what a kilt is as the term is used in the article. As a result, the article does not contain an adequate description of what characterizes a kilt, how it is constructed, etc.
I am now seeking support for the resumption of a clean-up effort which was initially begun about a month ago but which was interrupted soon after it began by the beginnings of an edit war. Given strong enough support from several people, I will proceed. The clean-up which I propose involves major revisions to the kilt article, including the creation of new articles based on the current content of that article. These changes, including additional material discussed below, could not be accommodated within the current article as it would then be too long.
What I propose to do is:
remove the material on kilt accessories as this material has already been incorporated into a new article of that name (kilt accessories);
remove the material on the history of the kilt and incorporate it into a new article of that name;
remove the material on contemporary kilts and incorporate it into a new article of that name;
define the word kilt as it is to be used in the article (meaning, roughly, the traditional Scottish kilt) and then describe the basic construction of the kilt as so defined.
The kilt accessories article is defined broadly as dealing with everything worn with the kilt other than the kilt itslef. It still needs a section on the Inverness cape. The proposed history of the kilt article will need expansion by the addition of information related to 19th century developments such as the various pattern books, the Vestiarium Scoticum, and the introduction of knife pleating. The proposed contemporary kilts article could be expanded by more detailed discussion of the actual construction of these garments.
Once begun, the entire task (apart from the additions and expansions noted in the preceeding paragraph) should take no more than about 15 minutes since the articles have already been written.
Please leave any coments on the talk page of the kilt article.
I think that JFPerry's proposals sound reasonable, in fact I would go further and say that they sound pretty good. I am not aware of the Edit war, but I will Watch the relevant articles. What do other SCOWNB participants think? --Mais oui! 18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Go for it JF. If you can accomplish that much in 15 minutes, more power to your elbow. --Cactus.man✍ 19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do. If you run into trouble like you did last time, let us handle it. It's a sad fact that on Wikipedia being an expert with good writing skills is not always enough. A stubborn (but tactful) streak is also required sometimes. And a few supporters don't go amiss either! -- Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
2 
3 
_Template.png)
.png)
Resized
_Template_(HR)_(with_dot).png){kind=link}
21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)