Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland المصدر: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland

This talk page is for discussing the core work of the WikiProject, ie. our drive to improve the quality of our key Scotland-related articles, focussing on Wikipedia 1.0 and beyond.

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate! Guide to WikiProjects Directory of WikiProjects

WikiProject Scotland

(Rated Project-class)

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Points of interest related to Scotland on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Archives

Old discussions from merged noticeboard Archive 1, approximately September 2005 to December 2005 Archive 2, approximately January 2006 to February 2006 Archive 3, February 2006 to March 2006 Archive 4, March 2006 Archive 5, March 2006 to April 2006 Archive 6, March 2006 to August 2006 Archive 7, August 2006 to November 2006 Archive 8, November 2006 to June 2007 Archive 9, June 2007 to February 2008

A Requested move discussion (rename article) has been initiated for Cutty-sark (witch). Please join the discussion here. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not convinced that the inclusion of North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in the private sector section of Template:Sustainable development in Scotland is right. The organisation was specifically a public body, as there was political unease at private companies being responsible for the management of such natural resources at the time, and a number of private schemes were voted down by the Commons on that basis. There is not a "State sector" section in the template, and I wonder if the "Private sector" section would be better as "Organisations". I raise the issue here rather than just altering the template, as I am not sure that it will get spotted if I put it on the talk page for the template, and I think it deserves discussion. Who looks at such talk pages anyway? Any thoughts? Bob1960evens (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the absence of comment, I have created a Public Sector list within the template. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm refreshing my attempts to get an article together on Draft:Glasgow Life the charitable body that manages cultural and sports in Glasgow. I've incorporated previous feedback from my previous efforts on this draft. Alas life got in the way and wasn't able to work through to requesting review in 2021, but really hope to do so over next wee while.

Would appreciate any further feedback from any Scotland based editors. I genuinely feel there's a strong case for this charitable entity to have its own Wikipedia page. Have endeavoured to make that case in the reviewed opening paragraph,

Rleyton (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I have some problems with references in Mansfield Place Church. Can someone help me? Thank you in advance. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

problem solved. Anyway the article is a stub, if someone would improve it, will be good. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbroath has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]