Talk:Scotland/Archive 11

message: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations are just about to go live. If we want this article to be considered then is now the time to do a Wikipedia:Peer review? --Mais oui! 09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland. Would be good to get this article to featured article status too. thanks/wangi 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following my grumpy complaint yeaterday, we have actually received some (very detailed) critique. This is an excellent development, and we should follow up the advice given in reply to my Talk page moan, and advertise this peer review more widely. Apparently 2 weeks is a typical duration for peer review, so patience is required (not one of my prime qualities). --Mais oui! 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <grin>, you don't say... -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review? 

message: "a constituent country... The country..." is just bad style, an explanation of why I was reverted would be nice. Thanks. --Lo2u (T • C) 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mais oui. Of course they're not necessarilly the same thing but the article hasn't (at least at this point) specified in what sense, other than as a constituent country of the UK, Scotland might be called a country. Do you not think that, regardless of whether these words are technically different, the opening lines of an article that you want to give featured status should not sound awkward because of repition? Also there's no real need to use the term "country" here - it's fairly ill-defined (and country wasn't even linked) so it adds relatively little to readers' understanding of the political status of Scotland, especially when "nation" and "constituent country" are being used. The next few lines explain exactly in what sense Scotland might be considered a country so nothing is lost by this word's omission. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense - the lead should not go into such level of complexity, it's all explained fully later on. I'd go for that. /wangi 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country 

message: I reverted the following addition:
:It has to be said however, that tensions between the two groups have waned in recent years, and both Rangers and Celtic are making substantial efforts to curb sectarianism.
The language just isn't right - far too conversational and without this addition the section stands fine... and who says? References? Thanks/wangi 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It has to be said however...

message: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. The following doesn't seem correct:
:Scotland continues to constitute a separate jurisdiction in public international law and private international law.
What the associated reference actually says is that for the purposes of English law, Scotland is regarded as a foreign legal jurisdiction. However the paragraph seems to imply that the UN and foreign countries regard it as a separate country - at least for legal matters which is a slightly bolder statement that needs to be sourced. The paragraph may only need a small alteration/ clarification but I don't think it's quite right as it is now. --Lo2u (T • C) 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The crux of the matter is that Scotland treats England as a foreign jurisdiction, and England does the same to Scotland. The implication for countries outside the UK is minimal because they generally deal with the British government for extradition etc. rather than directly with the Scottish or English legal system. However if there are cases where an overseas legal system has to deal with a UK one, it had better deal with the appropriate one if it wants a satisfactory outcome. There would be no point, say, in applying to an English court to enforce a childcare order on someone living in Aberdeen. This was most recently seen at the Lockerbie trial where the trial was held by Scottish judges under Scots law on Dutch territory. In this case the overseas country involved, Libya, certainly regarded Scotland as a separate entity from England. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That's what I thought. I suppose the problem is that the paragraph is slightly ambiguous - the first time I read this I didn't think it meant that Scotland constitutes a de facto separate international legal jurisdiction from England but that international law applies to the two separately, as if Scotland could make its own treaties with France for example. I think it needs to be clarified even if it's not entirely wrong. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been reverted again. I'm aware the UK has three legal systems but my edit was perfectly accurate - Scotland's legal system is separate from the rest of the UK and my edit resolved an ambiguity that existed in the old version. --Lo2u (T • C) 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. Your edit implied that thereare two legal systems in the UK: Scotland and everyone else. That is not the case. There is no ambiguity in the current version. --Mais oui! 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I really don't understand. All my edit said is that Scotland maintains a separate legal system from the rest of the country. It didn't say anything about England, Wales and Northern Ireland having a single legal system. Nevertheless if you really think it's important that an article about Scotland should explain that Northern Ireland has a distinct legal sytem from England, let's refer to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland separately. But it's important to stress some causal relationship between this and Scotland's constituting a separate legal jurisdiction - firstly because the source we're quoting does and secondly because Scotland's legal system is the reason. It's a little misleading to write about these things as if they're separate matters. Judicial and legal mean something slightly different and legal in this sense is a bit ambiguous as I have said above so "judicial" is important here.--Lo2u (T • C) 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International law 

message: Why is there such a preponderance of lists in this article. One such instance is the huge list of authors in the subsection of literature. Surely such a subsection should use summary style to state briefly what is in the subarticle Scottish literature instead of just trying to escape an inferiority complex? --Bob 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Summary style much, much better than lists. We are too afraid of prose. --Mais oui! 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: I am aware that the military is the responsibility of the UK, but still, there is virtually no mention of the military in this article apart from the trident in the introduction (which is also misplaced and should not appear so prominently in the intro). --Bob 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... why should it not be so prominent? It is one of those raw, bare facts that actually makes Scotland significant in the modern world. Most of our other 'claims to fame' lay way in our past. --Mais oui! 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that Wikipedia:Notability is important here. We have to ask ouselves, especially when drafting the introduction, what is really, really important about Scotland, in an international, worldwide context? And one of the very few facts about Scotland which really marks it out in the modern world is the fact that it is the base for the nuclear weapons of one of the 'big 5'. --Mais oui! 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability is irrelevant in this instance. We have to ask ouselves, especially when drafting the introduction, what is really, really important about Scotland, in an international, worldwide context? If this was the most important aspect of Scotland, its history and people, then it really would be in a very sorry state. However, this is not the case. A quick glance at the United Kingdom, France, USA and other articles show that the info on nuclear arms is considerably less in the intro and is discussed elsewhere. Indeed, nowhere in the England article introduction does it state that the Vanguards are built at Barrow-in-Furness. Even the article on Barrow-in-Furness doesn't state that in its intro. If we want the article to come up to FA status, maybe we need to address this type of thing. See India for a WP:FA article. --Bob 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Possibly. Germany uses the phrase "Armed forces". I like the term "Defence," but it doesn't really apply when Westminster is still in control.  Canæn  19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish military

message: This is really getting way, way beyond a joke. After last nights' extensive additions the article is now at a ridiculous 63kB. This is approximately double the recommended size of 32 kB. Something has to give. And I do not intend this as a criticism of the User who added all the material yesterday, because some of it is certainly better/more worthy of a place in the article than what was already there.
Can someone please respond to this, because every time I have raised this issue I have been very pointedly ignored. We need to act on this if we are ever to get anywhere near WP:FA. Suggestions please. --Mais oui! 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at 64 kB, after the expansion of the military bit. Again, no personal criticism intended, but c'mon guys and girls: what are we going to cut to radically reduce the legth of this article? Suggestions please. --Mais oui! 11:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article length is irrelevant when it comes to WP:FA. Libya is 52kb, AIDS is 97kb, Australia is 45kb, South Africa is 57kb. If you want to reduce the article length, perhaps you could reduce the listcruft which is still very extensive within the article. Silly details like the smoking ban could also be removed. --Bob 15:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say article length is wholly irrelevant.  Raul, the Wikipedian who makes the final decision on granting FA status, has gone on record as saying that there are articles whose substantial length would not be a problem.  However, there are three important factors:
*Some FA reviewers will object to an article that is too long (50KB seems to be the breaking point).  Raul can choose not to overlook their concerns, but the fewer unresolved objections, the better.
*This article needs to be copy-edited.  Shortening sentences, simplifying language, and removing redundant words will help shorten the article.  -> Simpler, cleaner prose will shorten the article. :?)
*Most importantly, the article must obey rule #5: "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles."  Make a daughter article on the military/armed forces in Scotland.  Leave details like "25 miles west of Glasgow" for the daughter article.
*Bottom line: as my choral director says, the brain can only absorb what the butt can endure.  Can you read through the entire article, lede to references, without losing focus?  Does the article tell a coherent story?  If not, it's too long.  Chop away. Peirigill 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: Hmm, MoS says:
:There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.
These are events that had international ramifications beyond the Scotland article, an article about what happened in 1005 is useful for contextual purposes. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly support the recent edits delinking years and centuries. The links add nothing to the article. By the way, you have also reverted (I presume accidentally) other minor, but good, changes, like changing "per cent" to "%". --Mais oui! 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I didn't realise my reverts went beyond the first paragraph or I would have relinked more selectively. (Sorry, I'll be more careful next time.) I generally don't like date linking unless it really does put events into a wider historic context (and I believe the first one did). By the way, all of this original delinking was done on the grounds that MoS said something it didn't say. I made precisely one revert that wasn't a date relink and that was the per cent thing you mention. In that case I agree I was probably wrong but it's not as if there's much in MoS to support either version. By the way, you may have done this already, I haven't checked yet, but if you like I'll go through the links I relinked and delink a few. Best. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, it's done. Check this diff to see what I left in. Hope it's not too much of a problem. Best --Lo2u (T • C) 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking years