Talk:Local government areas of Scotland (1975–1996)

message: I note that the legend to the map at the top of the page says "Western Isles - not shown", yet they clearly are - they just seem to be lumped in with Highland on that map. Perhaps the map needs a tweak? Grutness...wha? 11:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map legend wrong

message: I have just tried the link to Angus in the list of districts. There is info in that article about the county of Angus and the unitary authority, but I am seeing nothing about the district, which may have had boundaries differing from either or both of the other areas. (Whether county and unitary authority share the same boundaries is not clear from the Angus article.) Thinking maybe I should go through all the links in the list, and if the linked article does not actually contain info about the district then I should change the link to a protolink, eg Angus. (The Caithness link will not need this treatment, because it goes already to Caithness (district).) Laurel Bush 11:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. We are just going to end up with a vast quantity of unused stub articles that no-one will be interested in editing.--Mais oui! 12:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why would it be easier creating a large number of stubs, when you could simply introduce a short section stub in the articles that currently lack any mention of the old district? The subdivisions and historic subdivisions of Scotland are in a bit of a mess already, it really does fill me with horror thinking about a whole screed more articles. We are actively under the process of merging the historic subdivisions of Scotland, not splitting them up. Fair enough, create some redirects if you like, but please reconsider this "protolink" idea: it may be an "immediate remedy", but please understand that it will be a long-term headache, that may well end up at Afd.--Mais oui! 14:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to point out that many of the existing articles that cover the district areas are in themselves stub articles: we could end up with, literally, hundreds of pretty-useless stub articles about many different sorts of historic subdivision, instead of concentrating on creating quality articles about the modern 32 council areas (many of whose articles are frankly a bit pathetic at present).--Mais oui! 14:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it makes sense to have seperate articles, even if they are stubs, about the districts whose borders aren't used now as council areas or pre-1975 as counties.  But Caithness (district) I don't agree with, and having stuff like Scottish Borders (region) would be odd too.  I think there's a good case at pointing the Inverness link somewhere else though.  Morwen - Talk 16:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re links in list of districts 

message: I've only ever seen the regions described as Regions outside of Wikipedia – although admittedly, usually as part of the full name, e.g. "Grampian Region". Might it be correct to use the same rules one would use for the word "university", and capitalise it when referring to a specific region, e.g. "Grampian was lorem ipsum. The Region benefitted from lorem ipsum..." ? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 12:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: I note "" has been added recently
It is not clear to me that it really belongs
The regions of the article are historic local government regions, 1973 to 1996, and there are now Scottish Parliament electoral regions dating from 1999
In fact, it is not clear to me that Scotland has regions in a sense that is directly comparable to regions of any other European country, and I believe there EU contexts in which Scotland as a whole is a single region
Appears to me that the navigation box is misconceived
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation boxes 

message: It appears to me the article might be better placed at Local government areas of Scotland 1973 to 1996 as potentially one of a series of articles about Scottish local government areas
The new position would make clear that the article is about local government areas, rather than other senses of Scottish region, and that the areas are historic
Other periods might be 1889 to 1930, 1929 to 1975, and 1994 to present
I can see a need for the periods to be overlapping
Laurel Bush (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article? 

message: I believe there were various changes during the 1973 to 1996 period which are not yet accounted for in the article
Some I know of, changes to district names in the Strathclyde region, would not have required secondary legislation, and tracking down relevant references might be especially tricky
There was also at least one boundary change, in the Highland region, which would have required secondary legislation
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes during period