Scottish Islands Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland 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.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Collaboration Archive

1. The additions of Eilean Fladday and Eilean Tigh are now fixed courtesy of Finavon, but Eilean Trodday is more problematic. Measured at 42ha from the OS this is the first (and presumably last) occasion when we have come across an island that is not tidal and >40ha. Leave it at 42 ha with explanations, or call it 39 ha to avoid contradicting the assumptions of the main published source?
2. Fraoch-eilean and Eriska are both inhabited but to date no population numbers are available. Should they not be added to the main list to make the total 99 rather than 97 even if we don't know the actual totals? Ben MacDui 10:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's another anomaly. Eileanan Chearabhaigh at grid reference NF866476 is a sort of tidal version of Eileanan Iasgaich. It's easy to see why H-Smith's definition cuts out a lot of complication. It's possible that using our definition it is, from time to time, an island of 40 ha plus, although there is probably no way of knowing without hiring a hot air balloon and hovering over it from time to time. Probably worth an article in due course, but in the absence of positive evidence I don't think it can be included as a single island of >40ha. Ben MacDui 17:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to separate into islands at high water (west: 31 ha; east/; 22 ha.) and join a very watery Benbecula at low water (when the combined area is about 100 ha). Finavon (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - I'm assuming you are, in the absence of evidence, not proposing it be added to the area list.... Ben MacDui 14:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct. It is essentially part of Benbecula and might deserve a mention there. Finavon (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_20#Category:People_from_the_Isle_of_Mull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_20#Category:Mull

are two discussions - one completed - regarding the name of categories to do with Mull SatuSuro 06:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 25#Category:Skye_Villages (proposed renaming). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A very good New Year to all - hope you have a great 2010. In tarting up the List of freshwater islands a few pertinent issues emerge.

• There are a fair number of such islands not named by the OS, even in the 20 ha range.
• There are about 15 mainland lochs, 10 rivers and 45 island lochs with named islands, the vast majority of the last being in the Outer Hebrides. Although the average number of islands per island loch is smaller than the mainland, freshwater islands, it turns out, are to a considerable extent an offshore island phenomenon.
• Lochs on offshore islands have few articles (see new Category:Lochs of Scottish islands) and the source material is not very extensive either. There are islands with numerous large lochs barely mentioned in the island articles.
• The river island images are colourful and varied, and exist for a good percentage of the islands concerned. So far I have found only one photo of an offshore loch plus island (Finlaggan). Geograph has a few, but the settings are mostly low lying and the locations treeless, which may in part explain the apparent lack of interest in these complex waterscapes.
• Dunglass Island in the River Conon at NH533546 is over 40 ha. I make it about 60 ha and a second opinion is hereby requested. Ben MacDui 10:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only entry that is truly unreffed is Catherine-Ann MacPhee with whom I am unfamiliar I am sorry to say. Ben MacDui 10:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think the Broch of Clickimin is the best article to be redirected to. There needs to be another article created for a more exact match. Bo98 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What would this cover - its surely just an area of Lerwick? Ben MacDui 11:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just had this oddity pointed out to me.

Sumburgh is a disambiguation page pointing to Sumburgh Head and Sumburgh Airport. It also doesn't appear on ((Shetland)). However... I'm sure there's actually a village of that name - I drove through it yesterday! - & it's definitely named on the OS map. Is this just one of our little lacunae which I can go ahead and fix up, or is there some complicated subtlety about Shetland place-naming I should be alert to? Shimgray | talk | 16:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The settlement is tiny - barely more than a hotel and a farm. I've added it to the dab page although I am not convinced it merits an article. Ben MacDui 11:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The settlement article has now been moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have only just noticed that Stein was moved from Stein, Skye to Stein, Isle of Skye some time ago on the grounds that this was consistent with other villages. In fact they Skye villages are about half and half and as far as I can see, and no attempt was made to amend the relevant links. Its my intention to move it back unless there are objections.

I believe that the general convention should be to use "Village name, Island" unless some kind of disambiguation is necessary - which I doubt would often be the case. Ben MacDui 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I've checked over a number of village names, project wide, and there are various anomalies but as the number of articles increase it would be good to avoid random styles being repeated. A conundrum is posed by Carbost. There are two on Skye and Carbost, Loch Harport, Skye and Carbost, Portree, Skye are clumsy but maybe helpful to those unfamiliar with the territory. "Carbost, Loch Harport" and "Carbost, Portree" would be easier to use and remember, but maybe have a less obvious meaning to the uninitiated. Its my guess that they attract pretty low levels of traffic and that the shorter names would work just was well. Ben MacDui 09:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Latter done.Reply[reply]

A Top importance article is currently blanked due to coyvios . See Talk:Lord of the Isles. Ben MacDui 08:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now resurrected, alebit in truncated form.

Sarah's Island has made an appearance. It is 0.4 ha in size , pretty non-notable and there is no sign of any WP:RS mention of the name. I have left a note on the talk page. Ben MacDui 08:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just added a new table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Islands by population density. As to date I am the sole author the data should be checked before use - and please note the caveats in the usage section. It would enable a density field in the infobox. Some of the information is quite surprising. Rùm is not the least densely populated island. The most densely populated should be easier to guess, although I thought it might be Bute, which it isn't. I'm amazed by the third in rank and will check this is accurate asap. Ben MacDui 15:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uninhabited Islands of Scotland: Rockall, Gruinard Island, St Kilda, Scotland, Staffa, Hirta, Mingulay, Barra Head, Stac an Armin, Ailsa Craig by LLC. What better present for a friend than a paperback edition of - the island articles you wrote on Wikipedia for free - and yours for only £9.93. Ben MacDui 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it?!--MacRusgail (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I can't say for sure as I don't have a copy, but I found myself purchasing something by the same publisher and in the same style on an unrelated theme not long ago and that is what it was. Ben MacDui 18:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think these Shetland maps are a massive improvement, Ben you should be grateful that they actually highlight the island. If anything I'd suggest removing the pin locators and just having a map for them if you are worried about infobox bloating. Dr. Blofeld 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the infoboxes should have a standard appearance - the pin map achieves this and shows the overall location. The extra maps are good and show more detail of the island (but at differing scales). They would be better outside the infobox (provided the article is of sufficient length). Finavon (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to agree with Finavon. The maps themselves are excellent and a big improvement on the earlier generation but as a simple infobox locator I prefer the existing as it highlights the area for someone unfamiliar with Scotland, and would tend to seem them as proving more detail in the geography etc. section. Ben MacDui 08:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say that strikes me as a more appropriate way to use them and was my initial intent (the locator being a supplementary map, whilst a location map is used in infobox). A locator map of Balta, Shetland is pretty much useless for instance.

More sensible would be to have location maps for smaller areas (like each island group), and then using an inset to show the location in Scotland in a manner like File:Shetland UK blank map.svg, as this provides more useful locational info: The existing pushpins just show an island in the Shetlands is in the Shetlands, and where the Shetlands are relative to Scotland; a closer map and an inset would show where the island is within the Shetlands and where they are relative to the whole. Larger islands could then use a locator instead of the location as appropriate (would need recoding the template to allow that break).

This could be done by using the Shetlands political map and the locators, but would be better with relief map equivalents (someone with right skills could generate a relief map equivalent to the political one).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Scottish Islands articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has anyone else noticed that the Garvellachs are missing from Google maps, and from the satellite picture?

There's sort of a smudge on the satellite image, but if you zoom in there's no detail, though neighbouring islands are clear. Nor is there a message saying that no image is available at this resolution.

Should something be done about this?

Kognos (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the "heads up", although I generally use the Ordnance Survey maps myself and I fear that in any case we carry little weight with Mr. Google. Ben MacDui 18:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed move of various village articles in the Outer Hebrides- see Category talk:Villages in the Outer Hebrides. Ben MacDui 16:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a related discussion that originally began on the above date (or was it 28th?), a proposed move of Category:Villages in Mull is located now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_5#Category:Villages in Mull. Simply south (talk) and their tree 21:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monro's Hebrides is now available via the main navigation box. This has all the islands on Monro's 1549 list and attempts to identify them. There are numerous unidentified ones, and all those who speak English, Scots, Latin and Gaelic should have fun attempting to track them down. The original aim was to make it easier to identify the islands and thus lift Monro's comments and put them in articles and Template:Monro is also provided to assist with this. The larger island names are mostly straightforward, but whilst the descriptions of for example "The Pigmies Ile" and "Senta" are vivid, the modern names are hard to place. Ben MacDui 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, hadn't seen those, I'll see what I can do. Some are obviously badly parsed Gaelic - 183 for example Naneache is "Eilean nan Each" without any doubt. He's just not recorded the Eilean/Innis bit for some reason. Where do you want comments? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you've got the gist. Anything longer could go on the talk page. Ben MacDui 19:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've commented on a few, more next time :) This is fun Akerbeltz (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The insular geography of Orkney never ceases to amaze. It is now nearly two years since the last "discovery" of an inhabited island, but I can now offer two more possibilities.

• Holm of Grimbister in the Bay of Firth near Finstown is an unlikely contender. It does not have its own article, is not listed by the Census and not counted by H-Smith as it is tidal and c. 20ha and even the name implies pasturage rather than inhabitation. However, step forward Mark Jones, Tory Candidate per SIC nominations. There is more elsewhere on the web on Mr Jones and his working farm. Geograph also provide this and various other images.

  

• Inner Holm in Stromness harbour is similarly linked to Mainland by a causeway and clearly the location of a des res- although it may be a holiday home.

  

Ben MacDui 12:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See new Scottish Gaelic task force. Ben MacDui 10:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've dropped an essay into Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Origins of the Uí Ímair and the Earls of Orkney and comments/edits are more than welcome. Some of the reasons it is not (yet) an article are explained on the talk page - I also think it needs some input from those much more familiar with the relevant history than I am. Ben MacDui 15:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The much used Occasional Paper No 10: Statistics for Inhabited Islands was moved to a new page by the General Register Office for Scotland a while ago and is generating dead links. Template:GRO10 is now available as a quick fix. Ben MacDui 18:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I doubt Eilean Loain is permanently inhabited although this image is pretty convincing evidence for a summer retreat of some kind. Painting here looks cute, but not too many ghits on an initial trawl. Ben MacDui 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curious. Haswell-Smith (p. 30) seems to think it is inhabited too. Ben MacDui 18:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vclaw has unearthed this freshwater island at NH460557. It is c. 20 ha in size, but more interestingly if the OS is correct, it is probably inhabited. No images on Geograph and none that I can see on Commons. Ben MacDui 08:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contin Island. Ben MacDui 11:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see recent edits at Fuaigh Mòr + my talk page comment. Ben MacDui 12:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Corry, Highland#Corriechatachan. -- Trevj (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor questioned the workings of this at the talk page of Scarp. Its existence wasn't cited and I can see no sign of a reference to this parliament in Haswell-Smith, Murray (1966) or Thompson (1968) and nor are there any ghits. I have removed reference to it for the time being. Any information gratefully received. Ben MacDui 08:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Parliament of Scotland former constituency infobox, Template:Infobox Scotland council area and Template:Infobox Scottish island have been proposed for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 28. Ben MacDui 18:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox Scottish island is still under discussion. Ben MacDui 19:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voted to keep it. Ridiculous to delete it. Highly useful, and also has some essential parameters not in island box.--MacRùsgail (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The statistics from the 2011 census are now available as a pdf at - Statistical Bulletin: 2011 Census: First Results on Population and Household Estimates for Scotland - Release 1C (Part Two).

I have created Template:NRS1C as a successor to Template:GRO10 to use as a reference. See also BBC report "Scotland's 2011 census: Island living on the rise".

The tasks are:

• create revised population table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Populated Islands
• create revised table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Islands by population density
• amend lead to List of islands of Scotland - might be better to create new section on inhabited islands after the lead?
• amend the island infoboxes and articles.

Any assistance gratefully received - especially with the third once the new table is done. Ben MacDui 09:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite a few interesting changes - three new inhabited islands and several islands that did not have residents on 2011 census day but are apparently classified as "inhabited" for official purposes. Ben MacDui 09:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am working on the 4 red links that the census has created and I can't find any a "meaning" for Eilean dà Mhèinn. Island of the mine? Translations and references gratefully received. Ben MacDui 19:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two Mine Island or Island of Two Mines assuming the spelling is correct. I'm not watching many articles on the English wiki anymore, Ben, but you can always ask on my talk page if you need help with Gaelic. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go raibh maith agat. Ben MacDui 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (category A), as recorded by Historic Scotland. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in Scotland, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by Historic Scotland. These use pre formatted templates (eg NS header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the Historic Scotland database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

After stub-sorting current headliner Erraid Davies and doing a bit of work on her article, I felt inspired to create Delting (as "Delting Dolphins Swimming Club" got a mention and was a red link), and from that I went on to create Voe, Shetland and Voe, Northmavine, to disambiguate the two "Voes" at List_of_United_Kingdom_locations:_V#Vo and add them to the dab page at Voe (as one does, when there are more important jobs one ought to be getting on with!) But I'm no local expert, so I hope that someone more knowledgeable about Shetland will build them a bit further. (Well, the minor Voe seems from the map to be a single house, so there may not be a lot to say about it...!) Over to you lot. I'm not even sure I've named them appropriately, but it's better than just two redlinked "Voe"s. PamD 18:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. Delting was a serious omission, and the larger Voe is clearly a genuine settlement. I wouldn't have bothered with the second one myself - its clearly tiny - but no matter. The great machine has room to absorb it! Ben MacDui 17:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 3,000th article assessed by this project was Finn-men created by User:Jamesx12345, so many thanks to him and indeed everyone involved in creating and assessing these articles. Ben MacDui 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created an article on Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Although clearly it will talk about what's going on now, It could also do with some historical relevance.

JASpencer (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before a DYK appears that states "Did you know that the Stoor worm of Orkney derives its name from Old Norse Storðar-gandr, a kenning for the Midgard Serpent..." I am advocating getting this info pulled from the article. Please leave your considered input at Talk:Stoor worm#Stoorworm etymology dispute feedback. The reliability, due weight, etc. of this info has been a matter of ongoing dispute, and I apologize for the messy talk page there.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is now about 18 months since the last find but there are, it seems, a few more tiddlers out there. I came across a University of Notts PhD thesis that, on page 70, has an aerial photo in which the author contrasts "a modern intertidal island dwelling on Grimsay" with two nearby crannogs. He describes it as NE of Loch Hornary, although it is NW of there. It is pretty much clear from the picture that there is a substantial house on a tidal islet connected to the 'mainland' by a causeway. Of course we can't be sure it is permanantly inhabited so I'll add it to the "occasionals" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Populated Islands. Two further issues arise. First of all, it is not connected to Grimsay by a causeway, but rather to Fraoch-Eilean. If the census people can't be bothered to mention that it is not likely they are going to catch up with this islet anytime soon. Secondly, it is tiny and unless someone knows a local sennachie it does not have a name. It is at NF858577 and the thesis is a downloadable pdf here. Ben MacDui 09:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC) PS I should also add that the photographic evidence notwithstanding, the OS do not seem to think it is an island.Reply[reply]

PPS The aerial photo is much more suggestive of the place's original insularity but there is a photo from Geograph (bless 'em), now included above.

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Scottish island about the format of the existing infobox that is principally about the balance that needs to be struck between consistency and the unique nature of different island chains. Co-oincidentally (so it seems) a similar topic was raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands today. If I came across as a little grumpy, those of you who know me will understand that I find it easier to respond positively to offers of help when they are explained in advance rather than as is sometimes the case, agreed somewhere else in advance and implemented without any warning. Ben MacDui 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A persistent editor keeps changing this article saying that the changes are true but providing no source. Would a member of the project have a look at the changes and assess their verifiability please? Britmax (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is the Lerwick article written in American English? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone knowledgeable help out with this? The ranking for population is clearly missing some settlements, but I have not yet worked out how to extract such information from the Scottish census pages. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Scotland regarding WP:UKPLACE for those who are interested, in particular @Mutt Lunker: @Deskford: who have had recent involvement in this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that the islands everyone knows as the Small Isles (Canna, Rùm, Eigg and Muck) are not labelled as such on OS maps (I don't have sheet 39 to be quite sure) but some tiny islands off Jura are.[1] As you might expect, this has given rise to discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15#Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides. Thincat (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a proposal to rename Noss to Isle of Noss. Clearly nobody thought to notify this project. Please comment at Talk:Noss --Deskford (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deskford: It is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands/Article alerts and User:Crouch, Swale/Island names. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expert input needed at Talk:Glims Holm#Requested_move_14_January_2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made some drafts for some islands, see

• User:Crouch, Swale/Risga, although there is content on the fact that the name includes the Old Norse word for island, what does the first part mean?
• User:Crouch, Swale/Small Isles, Argyll and Bute, should this be disambiguated as Small Isles, Jura or Small Isles, Argyll? per the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 20#Category:Small Isles, Inner Hebrides. As far as I can see it shouldn't since it isn't on Jura (but rather is near it) and disambiguation by council area is sufficient in this case.
• User:Crouch, Swale/Soyea Island, although it seems "sheep island" is what most sources say the name means, sow or pig island or sea island. Although there was no consensus at Talk:Handa, Scotland#Requested move 16 September 2018 to use tautological names, it does seem in both cases this is common use.
• Draft:Guillamon Island, a source for its name (presumably there isn't since a source I have found says the origin is "obscure").
• Draft:Shieldaig Island, its presumably uninhabited but we need a source for that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Scottish islands for if we should use things like "populated places in Skye" or "populated places on Skye". Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move at Talk:Harris, Outer Hebrides that is presently at "no consensus" and may need your help to assess future consensus. Please come and add your rationale. Thanks in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I created a portal last July for this topic, Portal:Scottish islands, but never quite finished it to my satisfaction and thus appear never to have got to the stage of advertising my efforts here -- apologies! The article/image selection is done by hand, but all the extracts (including the introduction) are transcluded from the article leads and so should not go stale. All the other material (DYKs, news &c) is entirely hand coded. The unfinished areas are Selected biography, Selected human geography article & Selected natural feature, where I had trouble finding sufficient relevant articles of the correct quality with an associated attractive image. There's a lot of suitable content for the Biographies but little illustration, and the other two could be combined under a title such as Selected geography article.

The portal should need little ongoing maintenance, and I am happy to do anything necessary.

I'd welcome comments from project members as to whether such a portal is of use, and if so, how members would suggest further developing it, and whether it would be acceptable to add a portal link to some of the articles within the project scope. Thanks in advance for your thoughts, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there consensus within the project on what sections ought to be included and in what order, notwithstanding that some will not be required in respect of for example smaller islands. If there is, is it set out - have I missed it? If there is not, might that be seen as a goal and moved forward. I ask specifically since I'd intended to beef up the geology content of various island articles; some already have a 'geology' or 'geography and geology' section (though some of the latter contain no geology) whilst others contain no reference at all to their geology. For myself I'd have thought this material wants to be near the start, not for reason of my personal interest in it, but due to it underlying and thereby influencing (physically and perhaps metaphorically) much else that might be written about an island, certainly it will likely predate most other material. thanks Geopersona (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands#RFC "on" v "in" categories regarding if categories on islands (and other landforms) should use "on" such as Category:Villages on the Isle of Bute or in such as Category:Villages in the Isle of Arran. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

Attention wikignomes! Having been out of action for some considerable time the Cleanup listing is back up and running. It now works, courtesy of CleanupWorklistBot by generating an off-wiki page. The currnet version is here. Ben MacDui 11:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 14:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lunga, Firth of Lorn to Lunga, Slate Islands is proposed. See Talk:Lunga, Slate Islands#Requested move 6 June 2020. Ben MacDui 16:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and as a PS, it seems clear that Dùn Channuill is mis-named and needs to be moved to Dùn Chonnuill. Ben MacDui 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've commented to support the first move, and I've made the second move as it seems uncontroversial, though there are spellings still to fix in that article. Warofdreams talk 13:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had a look at the Up Helly Aa Wikipedia page and some of the photos look rather dated (I assume they're archives from the 1970s). I have my own photos of Lerwick Up Helly Aa jarl squads from 2015 to 2020 and their galleys from 2013 to 2020 but I'm not sure if I should upload them or are there rules for uploading your own photos. SarahTHunter (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can certainly upload your own work and indeed the more the better. See here. Good luck. Ben MacDui 09:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can this be redirected or merged somewhere? It doesn't seem to be independently notable. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's certainly a bit iffy and could be included in Tong, Lewis. Ben MacDui 11:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we get some help for this wee stub? Bearian (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated St Kilda, Scotland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated List of Shetland islands for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to ((WikiProject banner shell)), which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to ((WikiProject banner shell)), and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass ((WPBannerMeta)) a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Shapinsay for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]