Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Scotland:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Portmahomack

Could we have a few eyes on the Portmahomack article please? A discussion about a supposed Roman fort has re-emerged with an editor continuing to add information that is rejected as speculation by (afaik) the majority of archaeologists interested in the topic. There is info about the background on the talk page but the article is currently just turning into a series of reversions. Ben MacDui 14:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See also Coll and Talk:Coll. I suspect, as a general issue, there are too many articles with too few eyes on them. I don't mean to imply that my approach is always correct but these little ding-dongs involving only two editors who disagree seem to becoming more common. Ben MacDui 11:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. I have assessed and commented on both. With Coll, I did a large copyedit and have attempted to improve the article a little. There are lot of Scotland articles with unreferenced text and that needs improved by all. Helping other editors better understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is always half the battle! Coldupnorth (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

& Thanks for your assistance. Ben MacDui 10:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Featured article review of Infant School

The article infant school is currently going through a featured article review. Parts of the article are relevant to Scotland. Any comments would be appreciated. Llewee (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ben Nevis

Ben Nevis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Seagull Trust Cruises

I'm on the fence about sending it to AfD in the near future. It's got coverage in BBC, but it's about the waterway. I welcome input. Graywalls (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Bloating in Gaels articles, again

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland/Archive_13#Bloating_in_Gaels_articles this previous thread, User:K1ngstowngalway1 continues to engulf articles, largely regarding Scottish Gaels, with masses of ill-considered material. I had been trying to keep an eye on certain affected articles but recently had little time or access for a couple of weeks and, on return, the mass of additions is simply too much to assess without the allocation of considerable time. I thus can't say for certain but there are indications that the edits display the very same problematic characteristics as before. The use of edit summaries is still vanishingly rare and I see that they have been picked up, for a recent example, for the use of peacock terms (thanks @Boredintheevening:), so it would seem likely that other characteristics continue as before, notably, and to quote myself from the previous thread, "the inclusion of large passages of material which, though arguably broadly related, do not really apply directly to the subject of the articles in question, making the articles bloated and unfocused", use of primary sources, assertions not supported by sources given, highly partial phrasing, the repetition of large sections of peripherally-related text across multiple articles (rather than, e.g. a link to a main article on the subject), as well as WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS issues. I also suspect that material that had been in dispute and removed by myself and other editors has been restored but there is simply too much to keep up with it all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I just spent some time browsing the editor's history and taking stock of the ongoing problems. I'll try to keep an eye out for other instances. Completely concur with your assessment, and honestly quite baffled that this disruptive behaviour is persisting. Boredintheevening (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth taking this to the admin noticeboard? The editor does not seem to use edit summaries other than occasionally, which for an editor with 33k edits is a real problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I previously lodged Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_112#Bloating_and_neutrality,_largely_in_Scottish_articles and, as a consequence, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1163#Multiple_editing_issues,_largely_at_Scottish_articles_Slow_warring_at_Alexander_Cameron_(priest). These were to no particular effect, doubtless not helped by my repurposing the ANI, after a misunderstanding. I'm happy to support any further submission to ANI but, per lack of sufficient time for scrutiny of the campaign of changes, not sure I can devote time to leading one, currently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a particularly disruptive edit and, no surprise, not a word in the summary. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I've left the editor a note re edit summaries. Let's hope they listen. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough but I won't hold my breath. If you search their talk page for the term "edit summar" (for singular and plural instances), mentions are in the 20s. From a previous version of the talk page in August (before the page history was lost in some puzzling attempt at redirection), further mentions of the term are in the 30s. In their previous incarnation as User talk:Kingstowngalway, 10 mentions on the talk page, stretching as far back as 2010. If this individual is genuine about their repeated resolutions to comply re edit summaries, there is a chronic competence issue.

That they are "trying to plough through a lot of information" for "those who use this site to seek the truth" encapsulates their campaign well, alarm bells ringing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And here's an example of WP:EDITORIALISING, typical of their edits. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding their latest resolution to use edit summaries, that's going about as well as their previous promises. Of the 85 edits since, 17 have had some sort of summary but many are as uninformative and misrepresenative of quite significant changes as "little fixes". Even that frequency is tailing off, with two in the last 37. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a further 63 edits since the above, a grand total of 2 with edit summaries. Time for that ANI, @Espresso Addict:? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Poetry Association of Scotland, formerly the Scottish Association for the Speaking of Verse

Any help with this would be appreciated. It was recently prodded, and I've been trying to find more sources to show notability and reference the article. It looks as if the association went under recently (2023?) and the website is dead. Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Seeking Input on early Stewart/Stuart Scotland for Border Reivers Article Rewrite

Hi all, I’m currently undertaking a comprehensive rewrite of the Border Reivers article, aiming to provide a balanced and thorough account of their history, culture and society. As someone of Borders descent with mixed English-Scottish heritage, I’ve worked hard to bring in both perspectives. I’ve done a thorough job on the English side and tried to incorporate as much of the Scottish context as I can, but I find myself lacking sufficient texts on the pre-Flodden Borders, particularly from the Scottish side.

For the so-called "Heyday of the Reivers" (1513–1606), which I haven't yet started, I have plenty of texts and knowledge covering both sides of the old border, but earlier periods—especially the Scottish Border laws, notable figures, and their integration with or resistance to the Crown—are areas where I’d greatly appreciate input.

If anyone has expertise, resources, or suggestions for further reading, I’d love to collaborate or hear your thoughts. Please feel free to reply here or reach out directly. Thanks in advance for any assistance!

Lategreatanddead Lategreatanddead (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That you wish to co-operate is heartening but co-operation entails paying heed to concerns about your editing, placed on (and blanked from) your talk page, not warring to restore material that has been contested or removing maintenance templates before a consensus has been reached to do so. You are making very significant additions and changes to this article, so please engage with editors who are expressing concerns. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand the point about co-operating and take it seriously. But co-operation works both ways. If someone adds a tag or calls something "LLM gobblygook," they should at least check the references, read it properly, and explain. Throwing around comments like that is lazy and rude.

It’s easy for some editor I asked for help to make accusations like this, I mean I do it myself without reason - I don't know how it'll stand. But if you’ve got the time to accuse, you’ve got the time to check. Every source is real. You can see for yourself how much I’ve worked on this—fixing grammar, spelling, and rewriting sentences again and again. This isn’t what you get spat out of a machine; it’s effort, plain and simple.

If tags can be added lazily, why can’t I remove them the same way when I know they’re wrong? I’m open to proper discussions if there’s a real issue. But all I want is for the page to be accurate and balanced. Co-operation means everyone putting in the same level of care and respect.

I have found all of you Wikipedia editors extraordinarily rude and unhelpful. Lategreatanddead (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what co-operation looks like. You are not being "accused". Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not accusing you of anything but some fella who went to with questions just came along and slammed a big LLM sticker on 'my' article on Border Reivers without checking the sources. Everyones free to check the sources, but I'd hope some effort is made before thrusting these stickers like away supporters with their team badge. Lategreatanddead (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Arnage, Aberdeenshire

I came across this locality in relation of U.S. history. The draft I developed was declined so I would be glad to have help expanding it and having it added to mainsapce. The barony and history of descendants is pretty interesting. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)