Talk:List of counties of Scotland by area in 1951

message: Where did these figures come from? Some are wrong. For instance, Morayshire, is a lot larger than is stated. 
A 1937 gazetteer  gives the figure of 304,931 acres, is this obviously refering to the post-1890 administrative county, and not the traditional county. The real figure I imagine is over 400,000 acres. I will try to find the real figures, but if these were taken from the 1911 britannica, the chances are that many will be wrong. 80.255
::The figures came from a wide variety of gazetters. Obviously some will be disputable, as even gazetteers from the same era tend to disagree. Hopefully we can get the right figures give or take an acre here or there. Owain 18:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that  would be able to provide the most accurate figures, although calculating them, especially for the larger counties, might take some time. I'll have a look and see if I can come up with an accurate OS figure for Nairnshire a bit later, perhaps, and we can then compare it with the figure given on this list. 80.255 18:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did these figures come from?

message: Was that gazetteer really used as the only source for the list, in contradiction to the above claims?  The only figure for the area of Cromartyshire I can find on VoB is 220,586  : hardly "an acre here or there". Morwen - Talk 10:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, the figure Bart gives for Argyll is 2,092,458, Inverness 2,616,498 : these figures evidently did not come from Bart.  Morwen - Talk 10:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a wiki. Change it then. Owain (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and you reverted me, can I remind you?   Morwen - Talk 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so facetious. You didn't edit the CONTENT, just removed the sources as I was adding them. I agree that the Cromartyshire figure was wrong, as I incorrectly added some of the detached portions to the total itself. Owain (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You added a source which the article was not based on and in fact disagreed with, which is tantamount to academic fraud - if you are going to replace this with an actual valid list based on the source cited then the time to cite that source is then.  This is to say nothing of the utter dubiousness of composing the article by taking figures from random gazetteers, which made such a nonsense of the list - and of the similar list List of English traditional counties by area that you should be ashamed.  And if you were doing maths to make this list, it sounds like Wikipedia:original research to me.  Morwen - Talk 10:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was based on it, but disagreed because of a misunderstanding of the figures. Academic fraud? Original research? Get a grip! I added together a detahced part to another figure I though represented the main body but in reality represented the total. This is not academic fraud or original research, because the figures came from the same article in the same gazetter. Errors creep in, that's why we have multiple editors scrutinising articles. Get off your high horse and FIX IT. Owain (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just Cromartyshire that's at issue here.  I checked three figures against Bart and none of them agreed.  I imagine some might.  The article says 1,990,471 acres for Argll: this is the figure the 1911 encyclopedia britannica gives, but the figure Bart gives is 2,092,458.  Bart doesn't give a figure for Cromartyshire that I can see, so this presents a fundamental problem in using him as a source.  Using figures from different source distorts the ordering - as shown by the mess on the English article you made, - when looked at the actual 1831 census figures the ordering was different!  it just compares apples with oranges.  Why are you telling me to "FIX IT" whilst at the same time telling me not to edit the article in edit summaries?  Mixed messages somewhat?   I'm certainly not going to edit this article until you explicitly withdraw that edit summary rather than saying two different things to me at once.  Morwen - Talk 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Areas

message: So, looking at this, it seems Bart is excluding inland water and foreshore.  I am vaguely concerned about the quality of the OCR of the gazetteers: the figure Groome gives for Perthshire is evidently wrong, but would we notice an 8/9 misreading?  Morwen - Talk 11:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's go for the 1971 list. Do you have that data? MRSC 18:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can get this out from the British Library no problem : it's recent enough they have it on the shelves.  Poking around VoB, for some reason it looks like the data is weird.  omits Aberdeen(shire),  lists Aberdeen city but not shire.  Morwen - Talk 08:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New table

message: For which year is this figure? Are the other figures correct by this source? MRSC • Talk 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clackmannanshire

message: I've moved the county town data over to Counties of Scotland as it seems more apt there, and also created List of counties of Scotland by population in 1951 to compliment this article. There is still a problem with Aberdeen which needs to be resolved: VoB seem to have got confused with the shire and the city. Going forwards, if it is possible it would be good to get a List of counties of Scotland by area in 1971 to compliment List of counties of Scotland by population in 1971. MRSC • Talk 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the census of 1951 and 1971 to my reading list for the next time I'm at the British Library, with luck that will elucidate the Aberdeen figures. MRSC • Talk 10:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes