Template talk:Garioch, Aberdeenshire places

Definite article not required in day-to-day usage and not consistent with existing Wikipedia usage

(re. "fix grammar" comment and template move; reverting now for consistency with Wikipedia and RL official usage)

The related Wikipedia article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garioch not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garioch in the same manner as it is Highland (council area) , not The Highland (council area) (even though their council's home page *does* have "The Highland Council" in their logo, neither they do not use "The Highland" everywhere in common usage).

High level areas meetings are held by Aberdeenshire Council for Garioch Area Committee, not "The Garioch Area Committee", recycling points are in Garioch, not "The Garioch", etc. Same picture for the NHS ("Garioch", not "The Garioch") and even the name of the local running club.

Thanks, David. Harami2000 19:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you're saying that Highland Council actually represents "Highland" ? I always thought that it represented "The Highlands". So we would say "The local government body for The Highlands used to be Highland Regional Council". The difference is that the first Highland is a noun whereas the second is an adjective. Similarly a Mearns man comes from the Mearns. And a Garioch man comes from the Garioch. If we were to treat the Garioch in the same way that we treat the Highlands we should have the council area at Garioch (council area) so as to avoid confusion with the geographic area.

There's nothing wrong with using "Garioch" without the article when its use is adjectival (eg Garioch Area Committee) but when it's a noun use you should always used the article. So in the sentence "The representatives for the Garioch sit on Garioch Area Committee", you should use "the" before the first "Garioch" but should not use it before the second.

Going through your other examples, I have no problem with the Aberdeenshire council usage since the committee is the "Garioch area committee", not the "area committee for Garioch". Admittedly it doesn't seem agree in the second example at first sight. But then it's not really talking about the Garioch. It's actually talking about Garioch Recycling Points. And there you don't need to use "the". In any case the recycling points are in "Garioch area" which includes the Garioch but also includes some adjoining regions which are not historically part of the Garioch. So adjectival use, therefore no problem with the lack of an article there either.

Similarly neither your NHS example nor your running club examples cause me to think twice since the hospital is the "Garioch Life Centre", not the "Life Centre for Garioch". And the Garioch Road Runners, who doubtless all live in the Garioch, merely show good grammar skills when they tell us that they are based at the Garioch Sports Centre. Unfortunately they don't shed any light on the matter since they don't actually talk about the Garioch itself.

I did find a website that gave some evidence for your idea but even there the webmaster seems to be in two minds: on the one hand www.inverurie.com bills itself as "Heart of the Garioch" but on the other hand it then calls itself "Gateway to Garioch". So besides not being sure what the motto of the site should be the webmaster seems unsure whether to use "the" or not. Still even so you'll find plenty of places where "the Garioch" is used throughout the site as well as a few where it should have been.

For better examples take a look at Garioch Rugby Football Club - which tells us that they "serve rural Aberdeenshire -- particularly the Garioch". or Electric Scotland's PDF of an older document or their more recent article or Flickr or North-east songs or Garioch and North Marr Community Safety Group or any number of other instances.

The usage is well attested. And not just in old documents. Garioch men and women are setting up websites about the Garioch, here there and everywhere. It reflects no credit on Wikipedia in their eyes if we can't get it right too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply and examples, Derek.

If there was such a "burning issue" it would've been good to have seen that resolved when the article for (The) Garioch was first published rather than a couple of years down the line. No-one else has complained about the "Garioch" article until you added your note on the Talk page following on from this.

In everyday usage, either "Garioch" or "the Garioch" will suffice; as was the case when I was in Inverurie last week and discussed that with people living there.

(clip)There's nothing wrong with using "Garioch" without the article when its use is adjectival (eg Garioch Area Committee) but when it's a noun use you should always used the article.(/clip)

The relevant headers on Aberdeenshire Council pages invariably use "Garioch" not "The Garioch" and the definite article is notable by its absence throughout the area overview page, http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/statistics/area/garioch.asp . (The left sidebar menu also has "Garioch" as opposed to "The Garioch").

If one were being pedantic, The Sudan, The Lebanon, The Netherlands, The Ukraine, etc., should all have their Wikipedia entries moved to follow the example set by The Bahamas and The Gambia. As one of the few people left who refers to "The Sudan", I'm not going to push the point as I have no problem with the "standard" approach of dropping the definite article for indexing/dictionary/encyclopedia usage unless the name is invariably associated only with the definite article. Aberdeenshire Council's own website menu bar, as referred to above, has "Garioch" not "The Garioch", regardless of the history/background.

Best wishes, David. Harami2000 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've pointed out the facts. I've tried to fix the problem. I see no point in edit-warring with you over it. However since you don't believe that it's a burning issue, I take it that you will not revert the next person's attempt to fix it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary vs Other Settlements

What is the rough guide for deciding whether a settlement is Primary or Other in this box?

For example Insch only has a population of 196 going by its page (ref is 2012). Where as Kingseat (not listed) has a population of 750? (Full disclosure: I've got a draft page for Kingseat pending review).

Should it be a minimum population size? Or largest settlement within a community council area? Is there an existing agreement or guidelines already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gav barnett (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather from Template_talk:Aberdeenshire_places: "Selection of "primary settlements" in each area was carried out using an indicator population of 500 in the 2004 Settlement Population Estimate, but with a few exceptions for the more sparsely population areas where smaller settlements (still ~300 at least, or historically much larger) are more significant."Gav barnett (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]