Talk:South Ayrshire

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails on the referencing, all of the primary source must be removed, and the text masquerading as a reference must also be removed. this means 85% of the references must be removed. This is not acceptable referencing. See

The information with only primary sources will also be removed unless it can have a third party reliable source, and its notability can be established, then that information will also be removed. Sport and politics (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright of the used images from the council is questionable and needs further justification and explanation, claiming fair use, and free distribution is not enough it needs further explanation. Sport and politics (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The individual councilors are also not notable simply because they are councilors, and just because they are group leaders of political parties on the council, or leader of the council, or an officer of the council, need to be individually notable for inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on the council and notable information, and history of the council. This is not a directory or information repository, that is fr the council website itself. This article needs to focus on the history of the council and notable information of the council. At the moment, there s very little apart from information dumps from the council website. This is not what Wikipeida is about. Wikipeidia is for independent and reliable information which is notable. The majority of this article is failing on this. Sport and politics (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond to Sport and politics complaints about this article in one section of the talk page given the excessive nature of her complaints.

On referencing, primary sourcing is fine given the objective nature of this article and said references (where they relate to the appoint of individuals into certain offices, election results, schooling etc). South Ayrshire Council is the subject of this article and therefore a valid primary source to be used in this article where these references are used in an objective manner. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter should not be the establishment of notability as everyone would have a page if that was the case which is why primary sourcing for this article is such a big issue. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Ayrshire Council is an accountable administrative body which provides services to tens of thousands of people - it is not a private individual or abstract concept. So in that respect, the subject matter is the establishment of notability as this is an administrative body. Any information published by that administrative body within the context of its operation is therefore perfectly valid to be sourced within this article. If you feel so strongly about the matter then please provide more secondary sources to this article, rather than obliterating half of it. Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is supported by the cited

Primary sourcing is not fine when they are the only source being used, and the article is in some parts verbatim dumping information in to the article from the council site. one of the sources is just text masquerading as a source and must be removed. The sourcing is so woeful, and independent third party sources are desparatley needed. This article relies too heavily on the council and that is not acceptable. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly acceptable to reference from South Ayrshire Council directly as it is an accountable administrative body and the subject of this article. I again take you to

WP:Primary and this passage of the article: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

On copyright, everything should fall under open government license so no problems there. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation given of 'everything should fall under open government license' is not good enough. It must be shown without any doubt that it does or it will be removed as a potential copyright violation. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This exposes the fact that you're just looking for problems with this article: if you have a problem with a specific image then tell us which image it is so that we can verify its free use or replace it. South Ayrshire Council's copyright is

Open Government License (see here), meaning any images from the Council website (including the logo and coat of arms) should be free use. Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

In simple terms violations of copyright must be removed, this is not looking for problems, the article is fundamentally broken enough already, there is no need to look for problems> there are enough Prima Facia issues already. The council's own guidance states "ensure that your use of the Information does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003" that hurdle must be overcome. Simply going this page says it does is not enough, the council have not released the images in the public domain for unlimited use. Sport and politics (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information in question is used fairly, lawfully, adequately, accurately and in line with Open Government Licence meaning that it does not breach the Data Protection Act 1998. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 is not applicable in this instance as the information is not being used for marketing purposes or by a private business and is available through Open Government Licence. Brythones (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the purpose of the article, councillors, education and the council's executive team are all responsible for the operation and running of the council and important related services. These fall in line with other Scottish council area articles. They are notable parts of the council and its operation. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose you are asserting is the purpose of the council and not the purpose of a Wikipeida article. A Wikipeida article must be an article on a notable subject which contains notable information and encyclopedic content. The list dumping of schools is not encyclopedic. The council leaders and officers are not notable. Top name two examples. this is not an encyclopedia article this a promotion article for the council.Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have laid out my position to this: education is a fundamental service provided by the Council. Councillors and the Council's executive team form a significant part of the day-to-day operation of the Council and should be mentioned in this article as accountable public servants in the operation of the Council. I completely disagree with you there: this is a factual article on South Ayrshire Council. Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the services provided and actions the council does are routine and not notable. This information fails to meet the

WP:indiscriminateSport and politics (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

As I've said this is a factual article about key parts of the operation of South Ayrshire, of which the executive team and councillors form a key part of. I will look into the wording of passages of this article potentially being taken directly from the South Ayrshire Council website. Brythones (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And on the writing standards of the article, which is very subjective, I would say it's perfectly fine. I am concerned by Sport and politics constant editing over regular contributors to this article, which may well breach Wikipedia's policies around

As for the writing style a simple look at the Manual of Style shows just how far from being encyclopedic this article is , it reads liek an advert going in to lists and way too much detail such as on the play stratagy and on other cruft of a similar nature. this is not a place for minute by minute reporting of the activities of the council. it must be of factual and neutral information and not promotional style writing. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the content and not the contributor, this is not the place if you wish to make contributor comments user talk pages are for that and will not be engaged with by myself on this page. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As in my response above, I have set out why I disagree with this. This is a neutral and factual article. Pointing out the fact that you may be edit warring is not a personal attack. Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article promoting how the council runs this is not encyclopedic. The council its self being used for 24 of the 29 sources as a primary and only source is unacceptable. Sport and politics (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained before it is perfectly acceptable to reference the South Ayrshire Council website on this article. This is an objective article about the running of South Ayrshire Council and is in no way a tourist brochure. Brythones (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All-in-all I think that Sport and politics complaints are unreasonable and I am prepared: to disregard them if other contributors to this article agree. Brythones (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the article which violate policy of Wikipeida simply cannot be disregarded, in particular copyright violations. This article could if not improved be a candidate for deletion, as failing to assert notability. Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you could kindly point out those copyright violations so that they can be resolved rather than fought over? Brythones (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those photos of the officers of the council, and the copying of large chunks of the council website straight on to this article. Sport and politics (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained in my response the photographs comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 and and the Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, although if you would like a more thorough review on individual images you can apply for that yourself. I will also look into any potential plagiarism on this article from the South Ayrshire Council website. Brythones (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my previous comments the education section of the article seems fine. There was some plagiarism from the South Ayrshire Council website in the Provost and Chief Executive sections of the article which I had to fix. Brythones (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of schools and the lists of early years centers these are not notable information and fail the inclusion criteria. they fail

I have taken your feedback on board in this matter and have removed the list of educational and out of school care establishments. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so why do you keep adding them back then? This is not your article alone, please stop acting like it is. This is not notable, please do not add back yet againSimply-the-truth (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When have they been added back? Please, I strongly advise you to actually read what has been said before attempting to cause an argument with other users. If you actually read it carefully, you will see I had agreed to remove the list of educational and out of school care establishments as opposed to the text content. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good of you to agree! But its not your article alone, you dont decide what is in it. Get consensus before adding any more, it is excessive and not relevant at allSimply-the-truth (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is adding more, we're just keeping to

WP:BRD policy and reverting to the original article before consensus is reached on this talk page. Please set out what you want to change on this talk page so that it can be discussed in a civil manner rather than treating the page as your personal property. Brythones (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Should the cleanup tag on this article be removed? If not, what criteria should be met to remove it? Brythones (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to see how a GA is done, because this one is a mess. Why so much detail about education, what Schools are being worked, what after Schools there are etc. Really not relevant to the article and not neededSimply-the-truth (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, other UAs in Scotland have sections on education, though I agree it is a bit excessive here. Brythones (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is undergoing a a dispute over the use of primary sources as heavily as it does, to the detriment of reliable independent secondary sources. Sport and politics (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In line with your concerns, would it be possible for you to find some secondary sources to improve the article? Brythones (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something of a problem when we only have two people discussing this in the talk page, only one of whom is actually willing to contribute to the article and try to resolve the issue. As I've said I still believe the use of non-primary tags is far too excessive as this is a descriptive article where primary sources are scarce, but your input would be nice. Brythones (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"South Ayrshire would have become the third city to be an "area based" city, with the other two being the City of London and the City of Westminster." This statement, despite being based on an external source, is clearly nonsense. The City of London in particular has been a city within its present rather small boundaries for many centuries. A better example might be the City of Canterbury, which now covers an area far beyond the historic city of that name, encompassing a number of what were formerly quite separate local authorities. --rossb (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the point may be in an external source, but the author of that source would not appear to be an authority on city status. Virtually all places with city status have a defined boundary, usually being a local authority (e.g Brighton & Hove, Wrexham, Carlisle, Dundee), or a parish / community (Ripon / St Asaph). It's much rarer to find a city which doesn't have a defined boundary, as appears to be an issue for Inverness. Now removed the point from this article. Stortford (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t [ˈʃirˠəxk aːɾʲ ə tʲes̪], and not [ˈʃirˠəxk ə tʲes̪], the correct Scottish Gaelic pronunciation for “Siorrachd Àir a Deas”? Compare “