Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland/Scottish Gaelic task force

I guess it's not that important on one level - but on another, a catchy logo is not unimportant. While I have no bone with the St Andrew's flag, in a sense it's already taken by the over-arching Scotland project. How would people feel about adopting the bìrlinn as a logo in some form? I came across this rather attractice version, it scales down neatly too: Akerbeltz (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scanned all the Scottish Gaelic wikipedia articles and

We can use this string to warn about people crusading. Currently, that would be Talk:Montrose, Angus‎, Forfar, Arbroath, Brechin and Inverbervie. The usual "Gaelic was never spoken here" trash. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen these discussions. I believe these discussions are best settled by reference to reliable sources. Are there reliable sources for the frequent use of the Gaelic names for any of these places? --John (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this on various talk pages before. The only agreed factor is the existence of a reliable source. The actual number of speakers/modern day usage is not regarded as relevant across Wikipedia, especially not on European pages when it comes to indigenous names of places where a certain language is indigenous or was once indigenous. For some reason, this only flares up in articles related to Turkey (Kurdish names) and Scotland... there were less than 3% of Welsh speakers in Llantwit Major in 2001 (don't have the newer census data on here) but is there an edit war over the Welsh name? No. There are at best 2% Manx speakers but do we have this debate on Douglas having Doolish in the lead? No. A war on Nantes having Breton Naoned in the lead? In an article referring to a city that hasn't been part of Brittany or the Breton speaking area since the middle ages in language-loving France? No. Clogherhead in C. Louth perhaps, where Irish speakers can be counted on one hand? No problem. Surely there's no Irish in NI article, say Strabane. Wrong again. For some reason, only on Scotland and Turkey related articles do we get people get all upset over an extra word or two near the lead, with most arguments against ranging in the barely-knows-a-thing about Gaelic or Scottish history range. Wonder why I sound frustrated? If we spent all the time arguing about the handful of Gaelic words in these articles tidying up Scottish articles in general, we'd not have a singly refs missing tag left on Scottish article. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in two minds about this... on one hand I can understand objections to the prominant use of a gaelic form in an article about places that have had no significant gaelic population in modern times (the First Statistical Account (c1791) frequently makes claims that no Gaelic is spoken in eastern parishes). On the other hand, articles about towns are supposed to cover more than the current day.

The lead is supposed to summarise the contents of the main body of text. If there is a section on toponymy in the article (or it is discussed in the history section) and there is any involvement of gaelic, then this should be summarised in the lead, and a simple mention of the gaelic form would (IMHO) suffice. If there is no discussion of toponymy, then... well, there really should be.

Given that most of the places under discussion actually are derived from Gaelic, that alone should be justification enough. And I still don't see why amongst all European countries Gaelic in Scotland should be confined to the infobox (which, incidentally does not always even have a field for Gaelic). What makes Gaelic so much more second class than Irish, Welsh or Breton? The places I mentioned have had "no significant populations of speakers of X for just as long, if not longer). Akerbeltz (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. For mainland Scotland, where there is evidence that the name came from another language such as Pictish, there is often historical records of an intermediate gaelic form (as is the case, for instance, with Arbroath). Of course, there is also the question of what level of usage can be considered "significant". Despite the claims of the Statistical Account, even the east coast lowlands can boast levels of gaelic of 1%.

The situation in Shetland and Orkney is somewhat complicated though... Gaelic was never an intermediate majority language there, with Norn giving way to Scots in the 18th century. I suggest it would not be appropriate to attempt to argue the case for inclusion of Gaelic placename variants there.

To add a gaelic field to the infobox, just add " | gaelic_name ="

Jim and the soapdish 13:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Also see the discussion on Gaelic names for railway stations here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland#Scots and Gaelic names on railway station articles. --Vclaw (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ther's a related discussion about Gaelic and Scots names on my talkpage. ~Asarlaí 14:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have consistently advocated not having Gaelic in Orkey and Shetland related pages, I think the only exceptions being the names of the islands themselves and a single island which has an attested Gaelic name as well but not for any of the settlement names. But we're not talking about Orkney here, this is about places which are known to have been Gaelic speaking at one point or another in the not too distant past. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these discussions are best settled by reference to reliable sources. Are there reliable sources for the frequent use of the Gaelic names for any of these places?--John (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding how often a name is used would be almost impossible. I don't think it matters. In my mind, if the name has a reliable source it should be in the article. Look at

ROI articles, NI articles, Mann articles, Wales articles and Cornwall articles. They all hav their Irish, Scots, Manx, Welsh and Cornish names – even wher ther ar barely eny speakers. I don't see why Scotland articles should be the exeption. ~Asarlaí 18:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I was talking more about finding whether a name has ever been used. If there is no evidence that a name has ever been used (and I mean in the real world, not on hobbyist or advocacy websites) then we should not use it. Scotland is a different case from Ireland or the Isle of Man and so arguing by precedent won't work. Per

WP:V, unless we can show that a name has been used in a nontrivial way, we should not be using it. Seems relatively simple to me. --John (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh don't be ridiculous, Scotland is NOT different from the IOM or Ireland. And pardon me, where is the evidence for all those fake-looking Scots placenames that we so graciously accept as being legit somehow or other? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, you can't cherrypick your sources the way you do. The fact that they are a placnames organisation (just like many other languages have) does not make AAA an advocacy website. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinions, Akerbeltz. Let me be clear that I am equally concerned with removing Scots as well as Gaelic placenames if there is no evidence of their use in the real world. WP:V is not about cherrypicking sources, it is about using reliable ones. Are you seriously saying there is no difference at all between the Isle of Man, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland? I don't want us to get distracted or side-tracked, but this claim, if pursued, is likely to make your position look somewhat marginal. Again, if there are better sources we could use, I would be happy to see them, but an organisation which exists to promote the use of Gaelic names is not a good way to verify their use; quite the contrary, as if these names were in popular use there would probably not be a need for such an organisation to exist. --John (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer ignorance one can encounter on Wikipedia can be quite baffling. Let me spell it out to you why a body like AAA exists. In the comfort of your millions-of-speakers language, the spelling of placenames has been long established through practice and bodies like the Ordinance Survey. Languages like Gaelic do not have that kind of budget, having been persecuted for the last few centuries. As a result, most placenames have developed divergent spellings, been otherwise corrupted or forgotten once the last speaker in an are had had the language driven out of him or her. But when a council or Scotrail want to put up a Gaelic sign, they don't really want to put Port Rìgh/Port Ruigh(e)/Portruigh/Portrigh/Port an Draoidh because that's slightly impractical. The fact they work to research the most accurate forms of placenames and make these forms available does not make them hellspawn. Even if they also work towards promoting the use of Gaelic placenames, that still does not disqualify their data from being solid. Unless you will disqualify the OED by the same argument cause they're obviously out to promote English and sell their books. How insecure to you have to be to feel threatened by a placename?? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portree is a nice example, although I doubt that Scotrail will be putting up any signs there any time soon. It's easy to source the use of the Gaelic name for this settlement. For somewhere like Livingston, on the other hand, this would be harder to do, and so we would not use the Gaelic name. I appreciate the passion with which you are advocating for Gaelic but Wikipedia (and this is the English-language edition) follows the sources, it does not lead them. See

WP:NOR. --John (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh stop throwing around NOR like I've not come across it before. NOR applies to the editors. It does not mean that if someone else out there does research you may not quote it. And just because you are ignorant of sources/published research does not mean we all have to be. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John: "Scotland is a different case from Ireland or the Isle of Man and so arguing by precedent won't work." But you happily overlook NI, Wales and Cornwall, also listed in the sentence to which you refer. "Per

WP:NOR." Livingston is referenced by AÀA , whose unreliability as a source is obviously only your POV, so there is no OR. --Thrissel (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• It's worth acquiring a familiarity with WP:V, it's a really important policy. I was thinking of "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" and also of "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." --John (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where does AAA fall short of that? Objectively that is. If you check the entries where they have added the process details, you see they work like any other onomastic body. It's published online. Big deal if it's not on paper, no Wiki Policy says it has to be. If you'd like to donate money so they can publish on paper I'm sure they'll welcome your contribution. Their material is deemed suitable by public and private bodies ranging from Councils to the Parliament, Scotrals and whoever does the roadsigns in Scotland. And just what makes you a better judge of the reliability of their work than acceptance by these bodies of the work done by AAA? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic was given formal recognition as an official language of Scotland by the Gaelic Language Act (2005). Bòrd na Gàidhlig was set up as the official body responsible for implementing the act, and Ainmean-Àite na h-Alba (AÀA) is the advisory body for Gaelic placenames, funded by Bòrd na Gàidhlig. It's pretty far removed from a hobbyist list... I would personally regard it as a reliable source.

• Should Category:Education of Scottish Gaelic be changed to Category:Scottish Gaelic education? Not quite sure why but the original strikes me as oddly worded while other similar categories are "Category:X education".
• Should Category:Gaelic punk be changed or moved to something more like Category:Scottish Gaelic music, or at least create that category which will house a lot more articles than just punk music?

]

Ya, makes sense to me. Though perhaps on the first one, Category:Gaelic in eduction might make more sense. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've also noticed that

talk softly, please 03:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, I have changed the following:

• Category:Gaelic-language films → Category:Scottish Gaelic-language films
• Category:Gaelic punk → Category:Scottish Gaelic music
• Category:Education of Scottish Gaelic → Category:Scottish Gaelic education

talk softly, please 13:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Both Chuidir

Talk:Balquhidder--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian in Residence: National Library of Scotland

In case anyone's missed the posting on the main project, the NLS are recruiting for a Wikipedian in Residence - a four months funded full-time residency, working on projects to support Wikipedia/Wikimedia using the NLS and its collections.

I've spoken to NLS in the past about the possibility of using this post to work with Gaelic material; if it's something that might interest you, please do take a look. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balquhidder pronunciation

After a good faith edit introduced an attempt at rendering the Gaelic pronunciation of Balquhidder (as "Bo hoodja"), cited with a file of audio, I've just made an attempt at rendering it into IPA but would appreciate someone better qualified checking it/correcting it/ditching it, whichever they feel appropriate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ScotWiki Mailing List

Thought this might be of interest: Wikimedia UK have launched a ScotWiki mailing list to help encourage more Wikimedia events in Scotland and hopefully to establish greater contact between Wikimedians throughout the country. You can sign up here - any/everybody is welcome to join! The goal is to spread the word about Wikimedia events or projects in Scotland; you can also promote or organise your own, or join in general discussion - the usual mailing list stuff! ACrockford (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goidelic languages listed at Requested moves

Gaelic languages. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —  AjaxSmack  02:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Creag-An-Sgor

Can anyone help me with a translation of this racehorse's name, which certainly looks like Scottish Gaelic to me. I'm working on an article atm. Google translate comes up with "Rock Score" but there may be more to it than that. Tigerboy1966  13:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL GT scores again... not. sgor is a gash/cleft/fissure kind of thing, I'm guessing it might be based on this place in Aberdeenshire 57.261875,-3.037765, literally the "craig/cliff/rock of the cleft". It would be a weird name for a horse from a Gaelic point of view, which is why I'm thinking placename. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the prompt response. Creag-An-Sgor was a racehorse and a very good one as the article will show. It did sound like a placename to me, and of course, many racehorses have weird names! Tigerboy1966  15:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearances

The term clearances has redirected to Highland Clearances for many years. Someone is proposing to change this to a disambiguation redirect, but doesn't seem to have notified any of the projects concerned, so I am posting this to each of the projects. If you wish to comment, please do so here:

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_27#Clearances

--188.30.171.198 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say, old man

I have been busy preparing an upgrade for the island of Torsa - the draft is here. It's a small place and I have resorted to some etymological speculation. The two issues I'd like some help with are these statements about Sgeir a' Bodaich and Clan Maclean:

• There are various small offshore islets on the west side of Torsa including Eilean Fraoch (Heather Island), Glas Eilean (Grey-green Island) and Sgeir a' Bodaich. (Sgeir a' Bodaich - possibly "skerry of the old man" or "skerry of the clematis".^[1])
• Caisteal nan Con - the Dogs' Castle - is a ruined
  byname used of Clan MacLean by their enemies - Clann Illeathain nan Con.^[3] (Illeathain may be a typographical error for Gilleathain as the Gaelic name for Clan MacLean is MacGilleEathain. Clann Gilleathain nan Con would thus have the literal meaning of "clan of the dog servants of (Saint) John".^[4]
  )

Taking a peep at the islet in question my suspicion is that clematis would struggle to grow there - but who knows what story may be behind the name? Here a' Bodaich&f=false it suggests that Bodaich means "Carls", which I presume is in the meaning of "churls".

My re-interpretation of Gillies is very speculative but I can't otherwise make sense of Illeathain in this context save that it may just be an alternate spelling of MacGilleEathain in which case it should just say "Clann Illeathain nan Con, which has the literal meaning of "clan of the dog servants of (Saint) John". [Or something like that.]

Any assistance much appreciated. Ben MacDui 14:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC) ^[1][reply]

1. ^ "Bodaich". Am Faclair Beag. Faclair.com. Retrieved 24 June 2020.
2. ^ Coventry (2008), p. 388. sfnp error: no target: CITEREFCoventry2008 (help)
3. ^ Gillies 1909 Chapter IV - The Slate Islands: Luing, Torsa, Shuna
4. ^ "McLean Name Meaning and History". Ancestry.com. Retrieved 28 June 2008.