Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 5

message: I requested Tain, Scotland be moved to Tain, moving Tain to Tain (disambiguation). See Talk:Tain, Scotland - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that there are tens, if not hundreds, of Scottish examples like this of frankly stupid disambigs. I could happily spend a week working on them, but life is just too short. But maybe if we compile a list, here, we could work on them collectively? Eg, a prime example is Paisley (it cannot be moved back to where it should be without an Admin's intervention, which may well require a week-long vote). --Mais oui! 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, I didn't know there were examples like that. We should prolly wait to see the outcome of the Tain move. If it's moved, then we can site it as an example which might be needed owing to the drasticness of mass moving. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move - Tain 

message: :Add any additional comments
* Separate template for Northern isles perhaps. And different template for places whose official name in English is the Gaelic name (but wiki doesn't seem to be adopting that). But different templates for "Lowlands" (all the area not in the Gaidhealtachd? All the area not in Highland Council? All the area not in beyond the 18th century "Highland Line"? Is Galloway lowland, or highland? etc) is not appropriate in the 21st century. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find the possibility of a Northern Isles template interesting, with the inclusion of the Norn placename? --Mais oui! 14:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know how easily these things are available. Would that be three placenames then, or would Gaelic go? How often are the Lowland Scots names different from English? Would they go to? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scots and the English names are identical in nearly every case, indeed that is pretty much the point: the modern English language simply uses the placenames of the pre-existing Scots language. Are there many Gaelic names for places in the Northern Isles, or just for big, important places like Kirkwall? --Mais oui! 15:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I'm aware, just the larger ones, or those in Orkney nearest the early modern Gaelic coast of Caithness. Theoretically, the Scottish parliament should be able to talk about every place in Scotland in Gaelic. Maybe An Siarach might know better. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this possible? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, its possible, though possibly a bit complicated to setup. Template:Infobox Conditionals has an example of how to do this. Vclaw 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "... why not have a settlement's founding times field - ancient, bronze, iron, roman, modern?" - that's actually not a bad idea! --Mais oui! 16:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah it is; dating impossible; too demanding on the editor too. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, because I don't have a 'way', and I don't praise polls before discussion regardless of the outcome. I will  ask you again to assume good faith and stop attributing motives to people. --Doc ask? 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey again, how are you? Yeah, I'm sorry for not having that much faith. It's just that, you're making an issue out of something a neutral wouldn't care about; and I just know you're gonna have the same conclusion no matter what the arguments or votes are. So, you'll have to forgive me Mr Doc, I'm an old cynic. But, everyone here knows that, so we needn't get our pants in too much of a twist over it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF? What conclusions are you propheticaly assuming I'll reach? I've stated my views clearly above and they are that we need to be pragmatic and there is no meta conclusion to be arrived at. I'm interested in the content of an individual article, I have no desire to attempt to enforce my preferences across every geographical article in Scotland. I've only expressed my opinions on one article, to which I have contributed, and intend to contrbute more. I've never claimed to be 'neutral' (who is) but I try to stick to facts rather than pushing political agendas. --Doc ask? 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey again Mr Glasgow. You're talking about the opinions expressed in Talk:Rutherglen, yes? No, you've definitely been a model of objectivity. It's such a shame scoundrels like me with their "political agendas" me have to take up your valuable wiki time limiting the scope of your objectivity. It's just that, I don't think many people will see what exact "political agenda" lies in listing the Gaelic and Scots names in these infoboxes. I don't understand why this is information you so passionately want to hide. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not hide; and by constantly painting that picture you are misrepresenting the views of others.  The information should be in the correct place in the correct context - it is where that place and what that context is that should be being debated, not trying to misrepresent others views for your own gain.  SFC9394 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk about misrepresentation! What, d'you think I'm on commission from some secret Gaelic society or something? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   What about it?  You used the word hide - an emotive word which appears nowhere else in the infobox proposal, nowhere else on this page, and nowhere on the Rutherglen talk page.  Nobody has used the word hide - yet that is what you accused Doc of wanting.  Pretty poor show.  SFC9394 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haha. Well, sorry I ain't entertaining you enough. As for the hide stuff, that seems to be the desired consequence. I'll get my fairy servant to deliver you a $1 million on her flying pig if you can find me saying that anyone said "hide". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tone it down. You accused me of having information I 'passionately want to hide' (see just above). You have repeatedly accused me of wanting to remove information from the Rutherglen article, when I have repeatedly said that the Gaelic should be included. Can we debate the real issues, and not conspiracy theories and strawmen. --Doc ask? 18:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, it was SFC throwing the conspiracy theories. At any rate, I still haven't heard why you want to hide it. The infobox, being an infobox, is supposed to give information, and the Gaelic names are information, and important information. Bottom line. Now if you want to continue offering pretences for getting rid of them, I'm just too cynical to take them seriously. At some point, you should stop being surprised and indignant, and just accept that I'm a cynical git. ;) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Entertained?  I am here to help build a good quality and accurate encyclopedia, nothing more than that - if I want to be entertained then I will switch on the TV.  Are you going to debate the proposed issues or just misrepresent others views?  SFC9394 18:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see what there is to debate. Everything I've already said here and on talk:Rutherglen still applies. What, do you want me to paste it again for you? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So let's be pragmatic: one template, without the names in it. The name is, after all, the article title, and all other names which editors think should be included (Gaelic, English, Scots, Norn, Latin) would appear in the first sentence. Duplicating the names in the infobox template is redundant. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about Latin. Many of the Latin names are based on the English, but if the place is big enough, or has a significant Latin name, e.g. Sweetheart Abbey, I suppose it should be included. With Falkirk it is interesting to compare the different versions I suppose. --MacRusgail 05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in agreement with Angus McLellan above. This is the English wikipedia, and so English names are given precedence. Names in other Scottish languages can be added to the text as appropriate to the individual places. ::Supergolden:: 10:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Angus. A uniform template without alternative place names in the box, not a multitude of infoboxes for different areas. Any alternative names should go in the opening sentence in the lead. No need to overcomplicate things, and these infoboxes are already very large and intrusive on small to medium sized articles. KISS (That's not an offer to anyone BTW ;-) --Cactus.man ✍ 15:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point Cactus, I have found myself adding a couple of infoboxes where the article itself is not even reaching beyond the map - obviously that should be a good encouragement to add more content, but on some smallish towns with no great historical or current claims there isn't a lot you can directly add without it looking like a lot of padding and filler.  On the size of the infoboxes, there are situations existing (the West Lothian ones that I have been adding to for example) where there is a great deal of redundancy occurring, with Council area, Lieutenancy area and Former county all pointing to the same page - again a bit of field suppression might be enacted here to thin out duplication.  I don't know if that might create problems on non-uniformity between infoboxes, which could obviously be a bit of a negative (browsing user asks, "does xyz have a former county then or not?".  SFC9394 16:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Armadale is a fine example. Field suppression definitely needs to be investigated to restrict the scope of info in the box, related to redundancy and article size. I would say that the Armadale infobox for the article as it stands only needs the map, Statistics and Ordnance Survey sections. Some of the other info is redundant because it's in the article, the rest is just bloat on such a small article. How about a show / hide feature similar to the TOC, or is that just a Mediawiki software feature? Do we need a template guru? --Cactus.man ✍ 17:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm missing something obvious, but why not just have a template with optional fields? For example, in :Template:Cite journal, the coauthors field only affects the output if it's filled in. Why not have a template with optional parameters for Scots name, Police force, etc., which could be used when appropriate and ignored when not? I agree than in English Wikipedia that English should take precedence. --Craig Stuntz 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we're both making the same point, but with different terminology. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are then I inferred slight differences.  I presumed that Cactus was suggesting a show/hide ability so the info would still be there but could just be 'folded up' so the layout would be from the top: map | Stats | OS grid ref | other info header (with show button).  Whereas Craig sounds like he is suggesting just not entering things for articles that are quite short.  It does make sense for the police force not to be shown in Armadale by default, but it would be a shame if it was just dropped altogether (so if an un-informed user dropped by the article he could at least find that out by using a show button, but if it was just not even there then that would leave the user a bit confused).  Whether the 'folding up' can be used depends on whether anyone knows of implementation, it is not something I have seen, but sounds like a very handy option to compact articles when required.  SFC9394 12:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What I meant was that where I used "field suppression", the intention was really the same as "optional fields" that do not appear if left empty. At the moment for example, using Armadale again, both Gaelic: and Scots: are empty but the fields still appear. That's plain daft. The show / hide idea was really just an afterthought based on the TOC feature. I have no idea whether or not this can be implemented in a template. Anybody? --Cactus.man ✍ 13:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since we are now having splinter infobox templates created by people who don't want the two extra placename fields, can we attempt to move this to consensus before we lose continuity on the situation?  Field suppression (as you describe it above) seems like the best thing to implement right now (the show/hide is a good one to look into in the long term, but not necessarily needed immediately).  That would at least avoid having new infobox templates created.  The question then arises as to when the fields should be used.  In places where gaelic is spoken in any significant numbers it makes sense, elsewhere is makes no sense (in the infobox - I am always happy with it in the article body) - it should be clearly defined where it should be used, otherwise edit wars will just ensue. SFC9394 12:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think that it is fairly clear that we have reached consensus on retaining a single Infobox for places in Scotland (plus a near identical one with a map). As Cactus man suggests, perhaps we should pretty much repeat this exercise as regards "dynamic" boxes which can hide things etc. Could I ask Cactus man, or anybody else interested, to start a new Request for consensus process, similar to above, with the options laid out for us to mull over. I would do it myself, but time short next couple days. Ta. --Mais oui! 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll draft something up tomorrow unless somebody beats me to it. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mais oui! that there is probably concensus to use only the two "standard" infoboxes,  and , but not for whether the Gaelic and Scots names should be in the box, or confined to the text in the lead section. I think this issue needs to be resolved before we get into questions of which other parameters could be optional and complicated collapsible formatting. Therefore a poll below. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus reached

message: The Gaelic and Scots names should be excluded from the Infoboxes entirely and included in the lead section text on the article page if necessary.
*Support The infoboxes are already overlarge for some articles, and this information belongs in the lead section, no need to duplicate it in the Infobox. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1: