Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:SCOT)
WikiProject iconScotland Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2024 Scottish government crisis, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. There is a proposal to merge this article into Bute House Agreement. Clyde1998 (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ae Fond Kiss...#Requested move 1 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The article Robert Gordon University – Garthdee campus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality discussion at Talk:Snow Patrol[edit]

There is a discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Snow Patrol regarding a controversial change in the band's nationality, which may be of interest to project members. The discussion is titled Change Snow Patrol from Scottish Rock Band to Northern Irish Rock Band. Thanks. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James V of Scotland#Requested move 7 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ae Fond Kiss (song)#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at RSN: The Telegraph on trans issues[edit]

Hello! There is an RFC at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding a subject relevant to this Wikiproject. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UK sub-national geographic flags discussion[edit]

I've opened a new discussion at WikiProject:UK geography about sub-national UK flags, including historic county and council area flags. Anyone is welcome to participate. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bloating in Gaels articles[edit]

I’ve become aware of similarities in some problematic aspects in various articles regarding notable Scottish Gaels. The major concern is the inclusion of large passages of material which, though arguably broadly related, does not really apply directly to the subject of the articles in question, making the articles bloated and unfocused. As a recent example, I’ve just removed these sections from the Alexander Cameron (priest) article, which included original research about the subject’s not being covered in popular culture but that a beach connected with him had been, as well as much material about the historical period but not directly about the subject’s part in or relation to it. I haven’t tackled this long section of the article yet but it appears to directly feature the subject only occasionally. Other examples are Dòmhnall Ruadh Chorùna, which included various off-topic passages and this material at Iain Lom.

Outwith the category of notable Gaels, inclusion of material such as this at Catholic Church in Scotland may be related. That the source material relates to an organisation that is most notable for their hostility to the subject of the article but does not in fact regard the latter is an impressive find.

Accompanying common characteristics are editorialising language, reverential, adulatory or POV phrasing, questionable capitalisations of terms, questionable ENGVAR spellings and terms (e.g., variously, “Meanwhile,” “However,” “the Bard”, “’’posse’’ of Redcoats”).

It may be circumstantial but each of these articles has been edited extensively by User:K1ngstowngalway1, so pinging them as a courtesy.

The articles I have listed may benefit from further attention and pruning but I am concerned that there may be others similarly affected. Has anyone else noted such? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair - various sections. Ben MacDui 15:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that rings a bell. Looks like I may have clocked this in 2020 but didn't address much and the issues have amplified significantly in the interim. Also to note, the earlier campaign was by User:Kingstowngalway, without the inclusion of the two number "1"s, per the current editor's similar handle. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some highly partial and choice phrasing throughout. "the Whig single party state's apologists"! I've also seen this unfounded claim in other articles: "It is widely believed that Whig poet Robert Burns was the first Poet Laureate of Scotland." To my knowledge, this is never claimed, the post being non-existent, and Burns notably expressing as much in the way of Jacobite sympathies in his works. The bulk of the article comes across as pretty questionable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this edit, summarised "As my use of period spellings and capitalisations has been cited as a problem, I have corrected them in this section." is in reponse to the above, it shows an erroneous understanding. Quotes should be represented as they were. Secondary to the the issue of the lack of discrimination in the large quantitty of material being added as it is, this issue is with your own text, where you routinely use non-British and culturally inappropriate terms and spellings and you capitalise terms which do not require to be.
As I become more familiar with the edits, I am increasingly concerned about issues of neutrality with these articles. The articles are essay-like, a "case" appears to being built, those on one "side" are referred to reverentially, those perceived as on the other with contempt, contemptible though many of them may be. I suspect the sourcing may be partial and original research, not warranted by the sources, appears to be being inserted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest a way forward with the problems in these articles as the task of sorting through all the material would be considerable?

I've taken a look at the lead section of Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair alone and it's a vast a miscellany of material about the subject, in no particular order and in no way fulfilling the function of "an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". Much of the material therein would be of questionable pertinence to the main body, let alone the lead.

Much of the material that has been added, largely by one individual, may of worth and pertinence and well sourced but it's difficult to assess this, the articles having been swamped, the tone reverential, the structure incoherent. (On sourcing, as a tabloid, is The National regarded as a RS?)

The best good start would be if User:K1ngstowngalway1 could cease the addition of any new material until they have gone over what they have already added, excising off-topic material, addressing the tone. and removing material not supported by their sources, or synthesised from them. Failing that, it seems drastic but would reverting to versions before the swamping of the articles be acceptable to the community? Is putting them up for assessment a suitable way of formally noting deficiencies and indicating appropriate action? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is, after all, a collaborative project and I am certainly okay with that fact. I do believe that history is nuanced and complex and I do try to bring that across when editing
whenever possiblIf, as often seems to be the case about important figures in the Scottish Gaelic literary canon, the limited sources I have are only reverential in tone, it can be difficult to convey nuance unless I find it in other sources over time. Sometimes canonical poets live lives that are inspirational and other times contemptible, but we are all trying in our edits to be as objective as humanly possible and to correct bias whenever we see it. With regard to Alasdair Mac Mhaighstir Alasdair, I have included that he was unfaithful to his wife and was also obscenely dirty, and I mean filthy and borderline pornographic, in a number of his poems. I have chosen not to attack him morally for those facts and to simply reported them impassively as possible. I have also also added, however, that repeated expurgation of those same poems over the past 200 years has attracted very harsh criticism from a number of literary scholars, including the late John Lorne Campbell, despite the latter having been a very staunch adherent of Traditionalist Catholicism. Regarding Dòmhnall Ruadh Chorùna, I personally find his expressed desire in "The Song of the Poison", for the complete annihilation of the German people by fire from heaven to be horrifying, which is why I found it so ironic to learn many years into researching him and expanding his article that his first experience of poison gas was actually in a friendly fire incident. It certainly brings home how badly that war was fought by both sides and how wasteful and unnecessary it was, but even so I added that information to put the poem into context while trying not to judge Dòmhnall. I am trying to take your concerns into account and am looking forward to working with you to improve these articles. Best Wishes.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)e.[reply]