Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:14, 4 May 2008

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

	Scotland has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 29, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept May 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 2, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 25, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Template:LOCErequest

Archives

Previous discussions from this Talk page are archived here:Archive SummaryArchive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Template:V0.5

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please observe official Misplaced Pages policy on No personal attacks. In particular, please note the clear instruction: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor... or using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Any such personal attacks will be immediately removed from this talk page (see Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks). Using ip sockpuppet or meatpuppet addresses, or edit summaries, to make personal attacks is particularly frowned upon. Please log in to your account.

Just the facts Ma'am

Rules for this section

1. Only facts are to be included, No dialogs or pleads or explanations, FACTS only.
2. There is the caveat to this section, if you do not produce a fact or want to chat you must put them into the Passionate factless comments section
   • If you do not they will be placed there for you.
3. Try to link your views to relevant articles and cite as much as you can. Use the following format for the link <ref>place link here</ref>
4. If a fact is already given do not list it again, it is a fact not a repetition. You can add citations to a poorly sourced fact
5. Facts can be opposed but place the rebuttal fact below the original one. (eg # * )
6. You CAN group these into sections if the list becomes unwieldy
7. Facts can be removed if they have no supporting evidence or are vandalism
8. You cannot remove a true and cited fact from a verifiable source Remember Facts CAN oppose each other; Facts can be given that seam to oppose each other but are talking about minute differences. If agreed by most in play only <s></s> strike out that fact.

Just the facts

FACTS:

1. Scotland is a part of the UK
2. The UK has no single written constitution. So unlike the United States Constitution the names of the subdivisions of the UK are left constitutionally undefined.
3. Scotland is a former independent kingdom
4. Scotland is called a home nation
5. Scotland is called a constituent country of the UK
6. Scotland is called a country
7. Scotland is called a nation
8. Scotland is not a Nation state.
9. Scotland is not an independent country
10. The word country has been known to be misinterpreted to signify an independent state
11. The word nation has been known to be misinterpreted to signify an independent state
12. Scotland is not a nation in the eye of international law, but Scotsmen form a nation.
13. Scotland is a kingdom within the UK

References

Passionate factless comments

Previous comments archived here.

Slight edit to present intro

What does the page think of the edit here - I think it should be roundly uncontroversial, tidies up the referencing, groups geography and political status in the same sentences (thus, I believe, clarifying both points) and improves the sentence structure.

As you can see, it has been reverted without justification, so I'm basically seeking some consensus in favour. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is something that others have requested above. I could live with either version though. I suspect, however, others will be opposed or aligned to this along the usual divide. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not really involved myself in the debate or by any means read the entirety of the arguments presented here, but it is simply a reordering of information rather than any change in content. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the version as edited by Breadandcheese. Regrettably I :think ANY edit is probably 'controversial' at this time, in the sense that it will stir up debate. However I wouldn't either take it personally or criticise the reverter. Let's spend a little time testing the water before remaking the edit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a variation of that offered by User:UKPhoenix79 is my preference:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Scotland's capital city is Edinburgh, which is the 2nd largest city in Scotland and the 7th largest city in the UK. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Seems to cover everything, for me anyway. 80.41.216.180 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, nothing wrong with that in my view. Only thing I don't like, and it's not central to the dispute, is "7th largest city", which is unnecessary — article isn't about Edinburgh — and misleading — means of defining city boundaries and of measuring city population are arbitrary and vary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :0) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.Looks like another edit war on its way, me thinks I'll step back again! --Jack forbes (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checking that "successor state" is technically accurate/verifiable. To my humble knowledge UKGBNI didn't succeed GB - Ireland joined the union, then part of it seceded. Do please correct me if I'm wrong. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it almost entirely, but taking account of a few points raised here [Emphasis on alterations:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England to the south. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Scotland's capital city is Edinburgh, which is the second largest cityin Scotland and the 7th largest city in the UK. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and subsequently, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As for successor states: I don't believe it is accurate, although I am prepared to be corrected on that. It is a particular legal term which can be easily omitted until accuracy can be demonstrated. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dislike constituent part linking to constituent country its almost an easter egg the link should go to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy also to lose the "7th largest city". The "successor state" to the Kingdom of Great Britian was indeed, as the CIA Factbook confirms, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, given that the current state only came into being in 1927, perhaps the insertion of the word "eventual" or "modern" or "current", or some similar qualification, would provide sufficient clarification, or alternatively:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The above would leave no question as to Scotland's status. The "successor state" is included in the wiki-page (although needless to say not "reliable"), but a definition can be found here and here. 80.41.216.180 (talk)

Nice! It will help this article to be the first UK country to become WP:FA and hits all the major points that we need in an introduction per WP:LEAD. What do others think?

80.41.216.180, 80.41.252.104, 80.41.231.246, 80.41.255.137 your ip keeps on changing any chance that you might register? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We're nearly there. The only slight problem I have is that we need to mention the fact that the UK is a sovereign state. It just needs to be really clear. Some people mightn't know what the UK is and therefore the meaning of the sentence will be lost on them Eg. Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country which is a part of the sovereign state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Do you see what I'm getting at?Wikipéire (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If others agree to that I'll be ok with it, though I do believe its rather clunky and unnecessary. I would just like to note that there is little precedence I have found for making such a statement. Just look at the examples I have given above. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about something a bit less "clunky":

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Loaded with more compromises than the 'Good Friday Agreement', but hopefully something which will lead to a stable article. 80.41.214.75 (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Loaded with more compromises than the Good Friday Agreement LOL!!! So would that make you Tony Blair? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect.Wikipéire (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Breadandcheese (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Very happy with that, and preferable to what we have now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Still worried about the sentence beginning "Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland....". UKGBNI isn't a successor state of UKGB, whilst Scotland's former status is mentioned later in the lead. Remember, we have four paragraphs to play with, not one. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The end of the paragraph says "Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." In view of this, do we need "within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. " at the start. Why say that its part of the UK twice? 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

do we need "within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. " at the start. We definiely need that bit at the start. I think its perfect. It removes all confusion. The bit at the end just explains the history behind it all. There's nothing wrong with it. This is all in my opinion of course.Wikipéire (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why Scotland is part of the UK is mentioned twice this is just repetition also country should not link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Sorry, but don't see this as an improvement and think the use of sovereign state is fluff and superfluous. Who would say that "Alberta is one of the sovereign state of Canada's prairie provinces or "California is a state located on the West Coast of the sovereign state of the United States". Why is it necessary for the United Kingdom to have to be described as a sovereign state, everybody knows it is— for pete's sake it is one of the best known countries in the world, permanent member of the security council of the UN, used to have an empire. Let's get realistic here.-Bill Reid | Talk 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we absolutely need the mention of being part of the UK as far upfront as possible, because it is something non-Brits are often confused about. If we think it's repetitious we should drop the second mention, or move it further down the intro. However I think the second link adds to what is said in the first, because it gives some history.

Bill, you would be surprised how many non-Brits don't know whether England or Scotland or the UK or whoever are the 'sovereign state'. I have talked to many educated North Americans who don't know what countries are what in Britain. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point William, and indeed I do sympathise with your views but the problem here is all the people who think Scotland is a part of England! I myself recently had guests from Scotland to our house on the continent. They mentioned many Europeans and Americans thinking Scotland to be part of England! Totally ridiculous of course but nevertheless an important fact. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is well known, but internationally the UK is widely known as Britain or even England so the fact that its a part of the UK needs to emphaised as well as the fact that is a sovereign state and it's not some state called England or Britain that Scotlands a part of.Wikipéire (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia not geography for idiots, if people think Scotland is part of England reading the article will prove them wrong. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I think the article makes this quite clear. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you there. It doesn't say anywhere that the UK is actually a state. It only hints at it. Considering it Scotland is a part of the Uk this fact is very important. This newer version only adds four words to the first sentence and it adds a huge amount of clarity. There is absolutely no confusion with the newest version which is want you want for the article to progress.Wikipéire (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check out every other country's entry; how many are described as "sovereign state". Bill Reid | Talk 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of this consensus building is that Scotland and the UK is very different from anything else! If it weren't loads of other things wouldn't be mentioned either such as the fact that it is a 'country'. Anyway an answer. First ccountry I looked up was Ireland: http://en.wikipedia.org/Republic_of_Ireland It says sovereign state.Wikipéire (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree very much with Wikipéire. Republic_of_Ireland says that because a) it is true and b) there is a certain amount of confusion over what 'Ireland' is, just as there is over UK, Britain, Scotland etc. We should keep the statement in for exactly the same reasons.

Barryob you are underestimating the amount of explanation required. The people who don't know about Scotland are not idiots, it's just something they don't know (can you name the states of India?). Because it's a widespread confusion it needs to be cleared up early in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again I must agree with DJ Clayworth...the explanation ought to be in the first part of the intro for minimum confusion. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No I dont know the states in India and the wikipeida article on the subject States and territories of India does not list them in the intro, neither does over-explaining Scotland's relationship with the UK in the intro the Government and politics section explains this --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, I should have said federated country. Ireland in no way is a comparable state. Scotland is described as a country because .... that's what it is. My point here is that using superfluous terms adds nothing to the article. If people come to the article and read Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom, what is confusing about that— if they are still confused they just follow the link and they find out; that's what links are for.-Bill Reid | Talk 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, perhaps we could cram the whole article into the first paragraph, that would avoid confusion! :) --Jack forbes (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) When comparing like entities you must not compare the topic with unlike entities. Scotland is not a Sovereign State as declared in Talk:Scotland#Just the Facts Ma'am so using the Republic of Ireland is a false comparison. One must compare with Subdivisions of a Sovereign State like Quebec to see if the comparison would be accurate. So far I have not seen any subdivisions that says the country it resides in is a sovereign state, it only states that it is a part of that country and links to the countries article. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The similarity with Republic of Ireland is not in the their status, but in the level of misunderstanding about the names. Many people don't understand the difference between Ireland the state, Ireland the island and Northern Ireland the consitituent country. Likewise many people don't understand the relationship between Scotland, England and the UK. That's why both of them get the status mentioned early. There is not the same level of misunderstanding over France or Australia, which is why they don't get their status mentioned early. It's all about serving our readers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: It's an extra four words. This newest introduction seems to be closest we have come to a consensus. The reasons for having it there (ie there is a lot of confusion about the UK outside Britain and Ireland) outweigh the argument that it 'over clarifies'

UKPhoenix79 I never compared Scotland with Ireland I compared Ireland with the UK. Your have contradicted yourself by comparing it with Quebec. That's not a country. Scotland is unique. There are no other 'countries' outside the UK that reside in a sovereign state so it needs to be clarified.Wikipéire (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No not contradiction just facts we must compare with like entities. If you feel that Quebec is not similar many in that nation would be very angry with you and throw their begets in your general direction (not quite monty python I know) But I'm sure that there are many other examples such as Bavaria or the Flemish Region. But I have not really bothered to research for other former kingdoms inside a modern state. So when comparing please compare entities at the same level internationally. An independent State gets compared to an independent State, a subdivision of a State gets compared to another subdivision of a State. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, don't mean to be boring, but what is wrong with the way it is now.Sorry for shouting, must be getting to me. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with what is there now, but I think the new version is better. Unfortunately with passions running high even tiny improvements require huge amounts of discussion. That's the way things work on pages like this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds fine, but as I'm sure you know not everyone agrees with your " tiny improvement. " As you say there is nothing wrong with the way it is now so why don't people use a little bit of commonsense and avoid another edit war. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I say we use it now and fiddle with it in the talk page for later :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said you can't compare Ireland with the UK. However Quebec is a component bit of Canada but it doesn't need repeating that Canada is a sovereign state. Bill Reid | Talk 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again there isn't the same level of misunderstanding (except possibly among members of the Parti Quebecois :-) ). But even in Quebec everyone knows that Canada is a sovereign state - I hate to say it but that's not always known about the UK - many people think the sovereign state is called England. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I'm also a Canadian citizen and may I add that Quebec has never been discussed as a country nor as Bavaria of which I have spent many weeks in. The UK constituent countries are unique so mentioning the UK as a sovereign state is necessary to avoid confusion of how a country can be in a country. You are backing up your opinions with articles that are very different. You will need proper reasons why not to mention these four words.Wikipéire (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that Quebec was a country? But somebody else used Quebec and i followed up on it but as a federated country Canada is comparable to the UK; so are the United States and Australia. Are you saying that the general mass of people who come to WP are incapable of following links to the main article? Putting "sovereign state" in front of the United Kingdom is just unnecessary -Bill Reid | Talk 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Uk is the only place in the world where there is a 'country' within a country!! There is no confusion about the status of those other countries you mentioned but there is plenty of confusion around the world with the UK. They don't know what is is so simply adding four bloody words removes ALL the possible confusion.Wikipéire (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And you don't think saying Scotland is part of the UK does that?--Jack forbes (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't as saying the word country instantly causes confusion. Again as lots of people don't know what the UK is so we need to establish what it is while talking about Scotland. Also people may just read country and assume it to be an independent country (none of the independent country pages say independent country just country) and read the UK as some kingdom witout realising its a state. Just adding the four words saying that the Uk is the sovereign state while Scotland is a country inside it removes all confusion.Wikipéire (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From my experience living in Australia for a number of years it is actually Britain they are confused about, not United Kingdom! --Jack forbes (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Woooooaaaaahhhh there!!! We're in danger of descending into the same quagmire that surrounded the map issue. There is NO repeat NO version with which we will all be 100% satisfied, but for the sake of the article and the readers, can we not agree on the version proposed here? There are things within it which if it were down to me alone I would strip out, but there would only be arguments put forward by others for their reinsertion. I am happy that what is in the proposed version, and although not my first choice, it is something which I could live with in the hope that the Scotland article becomes a stable article and FA candidate. If you ask 50 people their view you'll get 50 responses, however we can't have 50 articles or have one article changed 50 times over. We're going for clarity and accuracy as opposed to brevity here in order to achieve the Holy Grail that is concensus. The one point I feel I must comment on is the use of "modern successor state". This isn't a newly created phrase, (a Google check nets in excess of 500 hits), but as Jza84 pointed out the UKofGB&NI is not the "successor state" to the KofGB, but it is the modern successor state, which is why I feel it should be included. For the sake of a sentence or two either way, I think it reads well and contains facts, whole facts and nothing but facts, which is pretty well what it should contain. (Even if repeated in one instance). To remind all without trawling back up the page what is being proposed:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Perhaps it would be easier to ask those who, despite their no doubt justifiable misgivings, are not able to live with this version to make their objections known, with a brief explanation as to why they find this version unacceptable under any circumstances. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets see, United Kingdom a few times, Great Britain, constituant part, sovereign state, United Kingdom Of Great Britain and N Ireland........my god, how did you manage to fit Scotland in???? --Jack forbes (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all the points raised by jack horrible intro--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your criticism is there, Jack (or Barry). Are you saying it's too detailed? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First things first, user 80.41.246.79, if I have made a mistake point it out to me, do not call me a liar. I would appreciate an apology from you. --Jack forbes (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

?????? Either someone has hijacked my IP Address, I've got amnesia or Jack, you've been on the sauce! What (can anyone tell me) do I owe you an apology for, exactly? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) PS I'll be logging off at 2300BST/2200UTC - if you can reply by then...

A thousand apologies, I jumped in to quick, it was actually ip 78.16.212.101. Sorry again, I think I should go on the sauce! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. My sanity having been restored, I'm off. G'night all. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm feeling a little bit foolish right now, so I'm off too. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO The current first paragraph is better than the above proposal. There is no need to say twice that Scotland is part of the UK . The Acts of Union are mentioned in the third paragraph and do not need to be in the first as well. The discussion of successor state is too technical and contains more detail than is appropriate to the opening para of this article. If required, this should be in the body of the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely.-Bill Reid | Talk 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As do I. I am afraid the above version reads a little as if it might have been extracted from a Conservative Party election leaflet circa 1950 something. On the other hand 80.41.246.79, despite your inexperience, you seem to have grasped many of the fundamentals of Misplaced Pages. I have no doubt you will go far. Ben MacDui/Walk 07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

May I add that there's been huge discussion on why the current opening is unsatisfatory to a lot of people and current proposal has been the closest version to getting a consensus. Whatever opening is used it certainly won't be the current one.Wikipéire (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

80.41.246.79 asked that anyone who objected to the proposed change should give their reason(s). A number of people have done so. Can I ask that those who object to the current intro give their reasons (again if necessary). Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're taking the piss, there has been loads of discussion above. Read it. My personal main issue along with a good few others is that declaring Scotland a country was horribly misleading. There were many other problems with it too. You can read it all above. All the objections to the current one is about facts and that the its inaccurate. 80.41.246.79 says who can't live with it? You and 1 or 2 others moan on how its too factual and is too detailed. Well its not really longer in terms of words and it satisfies all the discussion which you can read above. Can you honestly say you can't live with it?Wikipéire (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't moan. 80.41.246.79 asked why we couldn't live with the the proposed changes and I answered as clearly as I could. The only objection to the current intro specifically mentioned by Wikipéire is to the description of Scotland as a country. But that is also in the proposed change. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I compromised!!!! I said if the word country is used then within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom should follow as people would be horribly confused to how a country can be another country or they might think Scotland is independent or something. This is all about compromise. I've done it. What about you?Wikipéire (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone asked me about Scotland and I replied it was a country within the United Kingdom where would the confusion be? I think you massively underestimate the intelligence of our readers. If they read just another paragraph or two they will find all the information that you think is so necessary. As for compromise, if you remember, many people preferred the term nation (including myself) but this was dropped in favour of country because people came to a compromise!! --86.147.38.250 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to sign on!--Jack forbes (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the problems with the proposed change (IMO) is that it makes the relationship between Scotland and the UK more difficult to understand. Introducing concepts such as sovereignty and successor states which are technical terms in public international law complicates things. For example, there are those who argue that the current relationship with the EU means that the UK is not a sovereign state anymore. Saying "Scotland is part of the United Kingdom" is simple, clear and understandable. The final paragraph of the current introduction already says "Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state".

If you would like an alternative compromise, how about adding "and is no longer a separate sovereign state after United Kingdom and making the final sentence of the 3rd paragraph read "The place of Scotland within the UK continues to give rise to debate.

The first paragraph would become Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and is no longer a separate sovereign state. It shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides.

(I think the current intro is better than this proposal, but in a spirit of compromise ..." Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Most definitely not. The use of the word country suggests that Scotland is independent. It only says its not about 6 lines down. Not good enough really. Either use the word nation that is part of the United Kingdom or a country within the sovereign state of the UK.Wikipéire (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the statement "is no longer a separate sovereign state" does just that? --Jack forbes (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It does but its 6 lines down. You can't say its a country and then a couple lines down - oh by the way its not a sovereign state. What Scotland is should be clarified in the first sentence.Wikipéire (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would'nt exactly call it a by the way! Its the sentence immediately after. --Jack forbes (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Still as the term country 99.9% of the times means independent country Scotlands status needs to br clarified immedialtely after if the term country is used. Somthing like switching round the 'northern part of GB' bit and 'is no longer a s state' bit would do the job for me.Wikipéire (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, let's see your version. Bill Reid | Talk 10:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My version?? Scotland is a nation within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom would be my version. It's all very factually correct, but somehow I know you disagree.Wikipéire (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Bill meant if you were switching things around as you mention above how would it read.(if you did'nt mean that Bill let me know). --Jack forbes (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I am asking Wikipéire if he would provide his interpretation of the opening paragraph. - Bill Reid | Talk 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that Wikipéire needs to understand the difference between the terms "country" and "independent country" - they're not the same thing - it's really not that difficult! Most readers are intelligent and English-fluent enough to know the difference. Scotland's status as a country really isn't debatable. Changing the intro just to appease the less-educated who think that the word "country" automatically means an independent sovereign state is just plain silly. Also, could someone remind me where I can find the "debate" which led to the "consensus" being reached to remove the reference to Europe in the first sentence??? I would be most grateful, as for some inexplicable reason, I seem not to be able to find any discussion on this much-debated and mutually-agreed removal of a descriptor which has been part of the article for a very long time. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I accept that there is no reason to say 'Scotland is not a sovereign state' - there is no misconception on this front, and it is our duty to report what something is, rather than what something is not - the latter very often compromises NPOV in my experience. I am happy with the present 'country within the United Kingdom' (I don't even think 'sovereign state' needs mentioned) but also if there is to be clarification, I would suggest it returns to 'constituent country of the United Kingdom' or 'constitutent country in the United Kingdom'. But yes, generally I don't think such clarification is needed.--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still arguing about the word country. There are literally hundreds of good references, from 10 Downing Street to the UN, saying that Scotland is a country. You may not like it, and you may find it confusing but you cannot shy away from the fact that Scotland is a country. Surely this is a done deal. Let's move on and consider how we are going to present this fact to our readers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Em, who is arguing about the word country? -Bill Reid | Talk 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked him to present his version of the opening paragraph so I could try and understand what he was saying but he seems to have gone FTM. -Bill Reid | Talk 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear he doesn't think Scotland should be called a country, but we need to knock that notion on the head. Country is massively documented and well accepted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland isn't a country in the political sense so don't get all uptight as if the whole world agrees that Scotland is a country. In most ways its not. Other than the politically biased downing street source there isn't a whole lot of sources out there that say it is.

The definition of a country: In political geography and international politics, a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government.

Scotland fails. Look at this article entitled 'Scotland is not a country' http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm It doesn't say 'Scotland is not an independent country' but 'Scotland is not a country'

More: Note the lack of saying 'independent countries' but just 'country'

http://www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm

http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/howmany.html

This last one says this: In the UK most of the population consider England and Scotland to be different countries, and Wales to be a principality. However, when it comes to international relations, they are all represented by the UK government, so according to many definitions they aren't countries or even nation states.

Getting the idea yet? Where does it say that a country doesn't have to be independent to be a country and ignoring the biased UK web page sourced and mislead British people where is Scotland called a country?

This UK government site certainly doesn't http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/index.htm : The full title of this country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK.

The Misplaced Pages list of countries says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_countries :::This list of countries, arranged alphabetically, gives an overview of countries of the world. It includes territories that are independent states (both those that are internationally recognized and generally unrecognized), inhabited dependent territories, and areas of special sovereignty.

Such inclusion criteria means the list does not treat the word "country" as synonymous with "sovereign state," as one may often find in colloquial usage.

This says that the countries in the list don't have to independent countries at all. And guess what Scotland isnt there!!!!

All I was looking for was a compromise about its status within the UK. Clearly now with all this evidence the term country cannot be used.Wikipéire (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out sites that call Scotland something other than a country, or fail to list it as a country is irrelevant. If a site says "DJ Clayworth is a Misplaced Pages editor" and doesn't mention that I'm Canadian does that make me not Canadian? The "geography about" contributor is expressing his own personal opinion, and using his own definition of 'country'. He's entitled to his opinion but it certainly isn't binding on us.

We have, as I said, many authoritative sites calling Scotland a country. Please can we move on to something else. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. If you show a few respective (not blogs by some idiot or anything) non British websites that say Scotland is a country I will back down.Wikipéire (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should you want a website as verification when you can have loads of published books as sources? - Bill Reid | Talk 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

...and why on earth should you want to look at non-British sources? Are the British somehow incompetent to decide what their own country's geography is?

Anyway, I've already posted such sources, including one from the United Nations and one from the UK government. I posted the UN one on 14th April, on this page, and the Downing Street one a few lines above it. So are you going to back down now? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I'm sorry Wikipéire but I do have to agree with the majority on this one. Adding that extra line is rather repetitive and unnecessary. As for the other points please read Talk:Scotland#Just the facts Ma'am it might help you on your quest for facts.

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh is the second largest city in Scotland, and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I personally think that this is a great improvement on the original and helps this article on its way to the WP:FA Status we all want. We have to keep that goal in mind and I am happy that people are actually trying to cooperate with this task. So I think we should put it up. What say you all shall we start the improvement and the drive to make Scotland the First article to become a Featured Article or what? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipiere would be interested in this: Our own article on country states that "Definitions may vary. It is sometimes used to refer to both states and some other political entities." It is also sourced (see the page) by a Commonwealth Act (foreign was on your checklist, was it not?) stating that: "Foreign country means any country (whether or not an independent sovereign state) outside Australia and the external Territories". There are also multiple other sources, citing thus...you may wish to read through all of them. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read that and in the list it provides Scotland isn't there!!In other words it says Scotland isn't a country independent or not. It says there are two methods of determining what a country is. The BBC uses one way: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/default.stm Under country profiles Scotland isn't there, but it is under territory!! You can't just pick and choose to say Scotland is a country just because it suits you when there are thousands of instances when it is clearly not applicable. If you want to use the term country the article has to clarify damn well that Scotland is not sovereign. If it doesn't then you can't use the wrod country. We had a perfect intro except people thought it was too detailed. The word within doesn't help either.Wikipéire (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And America calls their subdivisions states but they are not States... Think of Shakespeare "A Rose by any other name" Well everybody calls their subdivisions different names but they all mean that they are a part of a larger unit. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire, nobody denies that we have to explain carefully that while Scotland is a country it is not a sovereign state. Are you going to stop arguing that Scotland is not a country if we do that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. Regarding the current "international" version with multiple references; we've got the breakfast, now can someone provide the dog... The reason I kicked this whole thing off was to try to provide a more suitable intro to complement the map which, by a de-facto concensus, (and contrary to my own personal choice I might add), changed to that showing Scotland's place within the UK. Fine, if that's what the majority want, I'd like to think of myself as a Democrat. Now, given the visual reference to the UK, I thought the opening paragraph might benefit from a makeover to describe, in one sentence, Scotland's relationship with the UK, for the benefit of the reader. Now we've ended up with another edit war which, if truth be told, if I'd realised would be the end result, I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. The reason, as was asked previously, that I don't like the recent, (as opposed to current), edit was that it was about as well written and informative as the instructions for flat-pack furniture from IKEA. What I had hoped to have in place of it was something more informative which tied in with the map, in that it set out clearly and concisely what, where and why Scotland is what it is and how the UK, which is after all shown on the map, fits in. Therrefore my preference is for this:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh, and in addition to the mainland Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This, IMHO, ticks all the boxes. I'm aware the very mention of the UK strikes terror in to the hearts of some, but if I/we must now live with the map showing Scotland in a UK context, it makes sense to me, (with my wiki-editor hat on as opposed to my political hat), to tie both together for the sake of clarity. I'm trying to keep my politics for the bar, the canteen at work and for any poor soul who is prepared to listen to me spout forth, (or should that be froth), about Scotland. Is it too much to ask others to do likewise? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly ticks all the boxes for me, but you will be surprised, or maybe not, the amount of people who will have some reason to disagree with it --Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And Idon't think the argument over the the map is over with! Its an argument or discussion for another time!! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well my box is decidedly unticked. I feel the last sentence is not required in an opening paragraph. I believe that it should try to describe the country, as precisely as possible, what it is today. IMO, the rest of the lead section is the place for historical snippets. In fact, can anyone tell me what precisely is the problem with the existing lead? -Bill Reid | Talk 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading and uninformative.Wikipéire (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For example? -Bill Reid | Talk 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just try and read this whole talk page mate. That thing at the top that says the same stuff is discussed over and over again wasn't lying.Wikipéire (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that the intro does need to be worked on so that we can work towards WP:FA. Right now I think everybody can agree it can be worked upon since[REDACTED] is an evolving encyclopedia it is natural that improvements are suggested and work to help articles accept other policies in[REDACTED] like WP:LEAD are implemented. Can we include the intro now so that we can have the editors who briefly visit the article make improvements as they naturally edit? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What intro there are umpteen different suggestions on the talk page each more half baked than the one before it. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mate? What exactly is misleading and uninformative. Please point these out so they can be addressed. Bill Reid | Talk 07:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand Wikipeire's objections, unless he is referring to the ones that he has already raised and have already been countered. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

This one Mr O'B:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh, and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Okay with you and Mr Reid to try it out for a period to guage reaction? As with the map, if there is a majority against then I'll be happy to concede. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my feedback is I still don't like it. I feel this version is, editorially speaking, a retrograde step. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor I. -Bill Reid | Talk 07:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted on both counts. Your feelings towards the proposed revised first paragraph mirror my own with regard to the current map. However, in the same spirit of the map proposal, (which according to some is an as yet unresolved issue and yet the 'rv' edit war has thankfully ceased for the time being), would you be prepared to allow the paragraph, as detailed above, to be placed on the article for say a week or two, with editors invited to place comment here? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps before it is placed in the article, it might be a good idea to ask those editors who feel it is a backward step to point out the deficiencys in the proposed paragraph. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no need to say that Scotland is part of the UK twice in the opening paragraph. The rather arcane sentence about the various kingdoms is better in the third paragraph of the intro. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the United Kingdom. It is located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest.

Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves in the European Union. Edinburgh, the capital and second largest city of Scotland, is one of Europe's largest financial centres. Scotland's largest city is Glasgow, what was once one of the world's leading industrial metropolises, and now lies at the centre of the Greater Glasgow conurbation which dominates the Scottish Lowlands.

The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until May 1 1707, when the Acts of Union, despite widespread protest across Scotland, resulted in Scotland becoming a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Though Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, the constitutional future of Scotland continues to give rise to debate. The Scotland Act 1998 established a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers, the first elections to which were held on 6 May 1999 with Parliament sitting for the first time on 12 May that year. There are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), elected by the additional member system. The Scottish Government is led by a First Minister who appoints ministers with devolved portfolios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipéire (talk • contribs)

Main points I disagree with country should link to country nothing else, constituent part should link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the latter link should be fine, but country should really to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. With the alternative use of the word 'country' the link clarfies that it is a country but not an independent one. That link clarifies Scotlands position and removes confusion. It is better for all parties than 'within the sovereign state of the UK' that was suggest earlier don't you think?Wikipéire (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm finished with this thread. Nothing I'm seeing here remotely improves the article and have better things to do with my time. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I see nothing that really takes this article forwards. I'm decidedly against this proposal and any of its simillar guises. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, try again:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands, including the Hebrides and Northern Isles. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves within the European Union.

Edinburgh, Scotland's capital and second largest city, is the seat of the Scottish Parliament and one of Europe's largest financial centres. Glasgow, "second city of the British Empire" and largest city in Scotland, lies at the heart of the Greater Glasgow conurbation, which dominates the densely populated Central Belt.

A former independent state, the Kingdom of Scotland was united, despite widespread protest, with the Kingdom of England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Despite having ceased to be a separate sovereign state as a result, Scotland's constitutional future within the Kingdom of Great Britain's modern successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, continues to give rise to debate.

References to be reinserted, needless to say. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The "land border" bit shouldn't be there, its a bit overkill. 'Bordered by England to the South' would be much more appropriate. Also country shouldn't link to country. Had we not established that the use of the word was similar to word 'state' used in Amercia and didn't actually mean country rather it was just the name of the subdivision?Wikipéire (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the border bit. However, following the comment by Barryob, I read the link to Country and it includes in the intro the mention of "dozens of non-sovereign territories (subnational entities, another form of political division or administrative division within the expanse of a larger nation-state) which constitute cohesive geographical entities, some of which are former countries, but which are not sovereign states. Most of these nowadays even have a great deal of autonomy and local governments but such do not constitute a nation as they are possessions of such states". Therefore the link to Country seemed altogether appropriate in Scotland's case, particularly with the constituent part link in the same sentence. (A link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom might open up the Nation not Country argument again).

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it is bordered by England. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands, including the Hebrides and Northern Isles. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves within the European Union.

Edinburgh, Scotland's capital and second largest city, is the seat of the Scottish Parliament and one of Europe's largest financial centres. Glasgow, "second city of the British Empire" and largest city in Scotland, lies at the heart of the Greater Glasgow conurbation, which dominates the densely populated Central Belt.

A former independent state, the Kingdom of Scotland was united, despite widespread protest, with the Kingdom of England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Despite having ceased to be a separate sovereign state as a result, Scotland's constitutional future within the Kingdom of Great Britain's modern successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, continues to give rise to debate.

Thoughts? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not agreed that any comparison to a US state is pertinent, and it is certainly spurious. A state (US) is an explicitly arbitrary creation of the US government, and is subordinate to the US government in all forms and forever, and has little or nothing else relevant to itself apart from its relationship with the US government (such as history, a popular memory, a heritage, a future, or anything else). Exceptions of no great consequence include a few "older" states such as Virginia (remembering its colonial heritage), those with a pre-US history (eg, Texas and Hawaii were once separate entities), and the circumstances surrounding the US Civil War. In point of fact, this every-state-is-just-like-the-others attitude reflects the intent that there is no state that will ever be different from the others.

Moving from one state to another means having to fill out a bureaucratically different tax form next year, and little else. Even moving between places with different common law and heritage (eg, from Texas/SouthernUS to Louisiana/French/Napoleonic) means virtually nothing. One is more conscious of moving between urban and rural places (there are some lifestyle differences), regardless of whether a different state is relevant to the move.

That hardly applies to the issues surrounding this talk page. I would suggest (with respect) that comparing Scotland to a US state implies a lack of understanding, either of Scotland by some, or of the US by others.

Also, please keep in mind that there are others who are interested in the main article besides the debaters, and the (merciful) cessation of arguments on one word does not imply consensus. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Glasgow, second city in the British Empire" Don't you think this belong in the history section, ie: The victorian era. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that 80.41.202.188 has changed the text of its signatures above to imply that its contributions were made by 80.41.246.79. I have no idea why they would want to do this but it should be taken into account when looking at the edit history for these IPs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done so to enable those others who are contributing to realise they're dealing with the same individual. No conspiracy, just contributing from PC's at home and at work. Anyone would think I was trying to hack into the Pentagon the way you've worded that. Jeeze, paranoia anyone?

"comparing Scotland to a US state" is something I was unaware either I, or the passage I quoted, was doing. Where is the link I apparently missed?

Fair point Jack forbes, just thought it might explain why on the face of it, and without a reader knowing the whole story, Edinburgh had bucked the usual trend of largest city being the capital city. 80.41.242.49 (talk) - usually 80.41.246.79 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a good healthy dose of paranoia. Sometimes they really are out to get you, <grin>. Particularly when they start editing their sigs. But in this case, fair enough. Best way of making sure that people know that it's all the same person is to register a "throwaway" account, though. Editing sigs will always look dodgy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This may have been suggested before, (theres been so many I'm not sure where I am) but would replacing country with Country be any help and leaving the rest of the paragraph as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC) --Jack forbes (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is only one thing that should be clear by checking every other subdivision listed on[REDACTED] and that is this one thing, every subdivision whatever it was called, that name is linked to a Country specific topic about those subdivisions. That one simple fact is self evident and thusly the word country which is used to signify the subdivisions found in the UK would need to be linked to a UK subdivision specific article. If people do not believe that this is true I will be willing to pool up evidence just like I have in the past... but do I really need to do that? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that country followed by constituent part works well and puts everything into context. Other comments? 80.41.202.47 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) usually 80.41.246.79 (talk)

Not quite what I meant. If you check Talk:Scotland#Intro Comparisons you will see that each one goes to a Country Specific topic when the subdivisions name is used, not to the name of the subdivision. So state ≠ state, parish ≠ parish, region ≠ region, etc.

Each country has its own specific name for its subdivision as shown by the template above. So a country specific article describing the unique properties of these subdivisions are essential that is why it should link to either constituent country or Subdivisions of the United Kingdom either one would fulfill the necessary criteria. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right I was thinking of making a very small change to the current first two lines. As they are now:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.

These two lines mix up political term with geographical term in the first sentence as well as in the second sentence. Restructering them so that its a political defintion followed by a geographical term I think is a good idea. It will not change in anyway what the sentence say. No words will be changed or removed. New version:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England.

Anyone disagree that it is better? Again nothing has changed with the wording at all just moving geo and political descriptions together so that more clarity can be had instantly.WikipÉIRE\ 23:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough an anon IP had the same idea and then left a message on my talk page complaining that I had reverted his or her edit. Just out of curiosity, have you give up using socks? Ben MacDui/Walk 08:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope he/she has. --Jza84 |  Talk  08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

God you guys like avoiding the question asked of you. The person came my way too and I noticed the edit as at the time it was actually on the page before it was reverted. The ip editor appears to have disappeared so I suggested the same edits. Now your opinions on the actual matter at hand?WikipÉIRE\ 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, myself and others have already stated that we don't want this change. As I've said before, the preference you seek is, editorially speaking, a retrograde step. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly? How is it editorially speaking, a retrograde step There's no change at all in what it says.WikipÉIRE\ 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can convince others that this is the right way forwards then that's fine. Personally I'm out. I've said my piece, and their's little point discussing this over and over, particularly with a user who's used sockpuppetry in votes and circumventing 3RR. This discussion needs closing asap so we can concentrate on other aspects of the page and project. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The original IP is still here, but was not here, so to speak. Having initiated the whole thing, it may come as no surprise that I still think the first paragraph, as was, needed improving. However, there doesn't seem to have been a huge number in favour of change, except on the part of myself and one or two others, with about the same number of editors opposing. Happy to let discussion run however, there is no timer on such discussion after all. 80.41.201.61 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC) usually 80.41.246.79 (talk)

Completely agree with Jza84's comments above. Ben MacDui/Walk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So what your saying is you have nothing against it but you aren't going to contribute your opinions on what exactly is wrong with it? That's very helpful.WikipÉIRE\ 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is in the current for it leads to confusion with non-brits and this needs to be addressed. Since this is a global encyclopedia this confusion has been solved before by many other Countries (big s) inside this encyclopedia by linking the name of the subdivision with a country specific article dedicated to those subdivisions. This is what needs to be done here and I am at a loss as to why others think that this would be a step back instead of a step forward to FA status... Is there a reason that this should not be done? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Devolution

The lead section needs a sentence or two on the devolved government. Anyone? -Bill Reid | Talk 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No I don't believe it does. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What?? You don't think the biggest thing to happen in Scottish politics in a couple of hundred years is important enough to be in the lead section? --Jack forbes (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it wasnt in the first paragraph of, says, Bavaria. --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that maybe that was because its government wasn't devolved? --Bill Reid | Talk 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more or less, William. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that more or less, Cameron? --Jack forbes (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me Cameron, have you actually read the Bavaria article? -Bill Reid | Talk 07:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I really dont wish to argue but what exactly do you two understand under the term devolution? --Cameron (t|p|c) 09:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria like other German states was always an autonomous region (except under the Nazis). Its recreation after the last war was with its areas of responsibility already defined. Scotland lost its autonomy at the Union so the powers it got in 1999 were devolved from Westminster to Hollrood. -Bill Reid | Talk 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria does not have any devolved powers, Germany is a federal republic Bavaria's powers are guaranteed by the German constitution --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that a short sentence on the devolution structure would be positive.

--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scots removed

I recently added "Scots:Scotland" behind the gaelic word for Scotland. I was just wondering what consensus was like on this issue. Surely as a widely spoken language a mention ought to be kept even if the word is the same? --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The infobox gives the info that they are the same; repeating the name "Scotland" for what is after all a non-standardized variety/ies is pointless. If it was different, like Albanie or Schotland, that'd be different maybe. Why not Scotland (Template:Lang-gd; Scots: Scotland; Scottish English: Scotland; Orcadian: Scotland; Shetlandic: Scotland)? If the point of a wiki article is to give information, then that's enough. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the Scots name for Scotland is definitely "Scotland", but isn't the English name for Scotland, "North Britain" ? Perhaps we should retitle the article, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please , don't even joke about that! :) --Jack forbes (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish English is irrelevant as it is a form of English. I dont think this is being taken seriously enough. Scots is an official recognised language after all. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a scots language other than Gaelic and every insistence that there is is simply a ('canaanite') chauvanism against any nationless people in Scotland (that does seem to freak people out) as the dismissal of the English spoken in Scotland - the language everyone speaks - also shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromean (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as a scots language" - couldn't agree more. Next thing they'll be trying to tell people the world isn't flat! I ask you, some people these days... 80.41.213.40 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scots" is not a language; it is a dialect of English, just like American English. I certainly see no point in listing the name Scotland separately, especially when the name is the same. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scots is not a language" "like American English". LOL! Forgive me, but what is it then, other than a brand of porridge oats? Perhaps I can help you here, try reading the following, as I get the distinct impression you are confusing Scots with Scottish English:

Council of Europe

(You will note that the document in the link concerns the "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages" and NOT the "European Charter for Regional or Minority Dialects").

You might also like to look at the Scottish Parliament Language Policy:

Scottish Parliament (Version in English if you prefer)

And finally, and with particular reference to pages 8, 14 and 19, may I refer you to this:

UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Enjoy! 80.41.213.40 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Does anyone else feel giving the percentage of people who say they are affiliated to the Church of Scotland should be edited out considering the other major religions are not given any? Personaly speaking I would hardly give religion a mention if at all (maybe an effect from growing up in the west of Scotland). Perhaps a mention that the Church of Scotland has the largest affiliation would do with further mentions of Catholics and other religions. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a strong case that religion has been formative of Scotland and its culture, in a way that is unique. You can trace a route through which religion has touched and driven the politics - from John Knox via the Bishops' Wars to the Claim of Right; then from Thomas Aikenhead to Scottish Enlightenment, then from figures like Ebenezer Erskine or John Witherspoon through to the Disruption of 1843; then into the 20th century political and religious establishment with John Wheatley and beyond to Claim of Right 1989 - again prominently involving religious establishments. We may not be comfortable with all this stuff (I'm a staunch atheist myself) but it is probably as formative and relevant as anything in the endless to-and-fro about Kingdoms and countries which has dominated this article over recent weeks. AllyD (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You can't make a study of the culture of any nation without considering its religion(s). And you can't understand the history of Scotland without understanding Knox, Roman Catholicism, the Covenant, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know,Sigh, the both of you are right! Can't change history I suppose. I guess I've just got a hangover from remembering people being defined by their religion, although it's changing over the years. Living abroad as I did for a number of years gives you a different perspective. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the 2001 census statistics for affiliation are CoS 42.4%, Roman Catholic 15.88%, Other Christian 6.81% with no other religion gaining over 1%. There is a case to be made for mentioning the Catholic %age, although I don't think it's necessary myself.Ben MacDui/Walk 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And 28% stated they have no religion which may be one of the highest proportions in the world? (Certainly something which visitors from other countries (e.g. USA) have remarked on.) Possibly something heading for notability? AllyD (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Jedi myself, I consider this to be a lamentable state of affairs. Nonetheless, if you look at the pdf provided in Religion in Europe#No religion, although it is higher than the UK average (perhaps many Scottish respondents think it is a question about football?) and is on the high end for northern Europe, it is not so unusual. Ben MacDui/Walk 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually think you have to question the percentages given for religion in Scotland. If you stood outside Ibrox or parkhead and asked what religion they were you would'nt have to be a genius to figure out what answers you were going to receive. Now, ask them if they attended Church/Chapel and you would see a different picture. Asking people if they feel an affiliation for a certain religion is entirely different from being religious! I know we can only give official figures(what other type are there?) but I question the validity of the questionaires. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would add perspective to take a quick look at one of the Demographics sections that seem to be appearing in many US-related articles, with "race" and "ethnicity" replacing "religion" (these occupy a place in US history similar to what you describe for religion in Scotland) ... eg, Braidwood and its county of Will. The data is based on the self-descriptions of those who chose to fill in something on optional US census questions, and is unreliable for a variety of reasons. I think that it adds nothing (certainly not to an understanding of race and ethnicity in US history), but then it doesn't seem to take away anything, either. What can one infer from the assertion that of the 5,203 people in Braidwood, 1.04% (ie, 54) are classified as being multi-racial? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone disagrees with taking percentages away from religious affiliations in Scotland I will do so. I will wait for a week and if I see no disagreement I will change it --Jack forbes (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of First Minister

I would like to propose to the editors of[REDACTED] to put First minister Alex Salmond's name before Gordon Brown's on the right hand table. This is because the First Minister is a more significant figure in Scottish society than Gordon Brown. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. In my counrty (Canada) our provinces & territories have their premiers listed, not the Prime Minister of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a different situation, though. The way Canadian federalism is set up, the provinces are separate and equal jurisdictions to the federal one; in other words, there's no real heirarchy between a provincial premier and his/her federal counterpart. I don't believe that's the case with the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay for understanding my situation! You seem like a very real wikipedian Thanks again for supporting me! --Duckie for broadway (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There might be a little problem though; while there's a First Minister for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales? there's none for England. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Better get one quick then, hadn't they... 195.27.13.214 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to cause any severe arguements so I only am proposing First Minister Alex Salmond to be above Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the Scotland page not anywhere else or for any other country. Just the Scotland page. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns, I cannot see this happening in the near future. The PM (who is incidentally also Scottish!) remains the head government throughout the United Kingdom and is thus placed at the top of the infobox! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the PM should be removed from the infobox only the Her maj and the first minister should be there as the former appoints the latter who practially runs Scotland, I unerstand about the how devolved/reserved but using that logic the Welsh Northern Ireland and Sottish head of governments should appear in the UK article infobox. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 10:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind here, but would've thought that keeping the PM here would add value and information to the article, rather than take it away. I don't think it does any harm staying. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing the PM implies that the FM is the highest authority in Scotland. The (IMO) ought to remain!--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He is the highest authority in the Scottish parliament. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If the support here is to keep the PM then the heads of the devolved government should be added to the UK infobox --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the FM should be shown above the PM. After all, the article is about Scotland. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, that would confuse the hierarchy. The PM is above the FM. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps Barryob has a point when he says the FM's of the devolved parliaments be added to the UK infobox? --Jack forbes (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I remain neutral as to that. But that is beside the point here anyway; Such a change would be discussed at the Uk talk page. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just a matter of jurisdiction, is it not? The UK Cabinet - and therefore the PM - has jurisdiction over Scotland, whereas the Scottish Cabinet - and therefore FM - does not have jurisdiction over the UK. I suppose the constituent country FMs could be added to the UK infobox, though I don't know why; they have nothing to do with UK governance and it begs the question: why not then list mayors or council heads? Anyway, as Cameron says, that's a matter for the UK talk page. As for here, there just doesn't seem to be any getting around the point that the Scottish FM is subordinate to the UK PM, and the latter does have influence over Scotland that overrides the FM's - as far as I know. --G2bambino (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The First Minister does indeed have jurisdiction over part of the UK. Its called Scotland. The Prime minister as you say does have influence over Scotland but cannot always override the decisions made in the Scottish Parliament, as was shown when the UK treasury tried to stop them implementing their own local income tax. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You avoided, or missed, my point. If the setup is such that the there are limitations on the UK Cabinet's ability to legislate for Scotland, that doesn't eliminate the point that the UK Cabinet still has authority over Scotland. The limitations could be removed or overridden by the UK Cabinet, but the Scottish Cabinet could most certainly not create legislation that binds the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you are correct, but having the power to do something and being able to do it, as strange as it might seem, are two different things.--Jack forbes (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am only proposing Salmond to be above Brown in the table. I am not proposing to remove Brown, he is after all the prime minister. I agree with Jack Forbes on this point --Duckie for broadway (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that cause confusion around precedence? After all, the uninitiated reader might deduce from such that the FM of Scotland has greater authority than the UK PM, whether only in Scotland or otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This page is about Scotland not the UK. The First Minister has more powers over Scotland than the Prime Minister in most cases. The First Minister is more important and therefore should preceed Brown. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's just a POV, wheras the UK PM having status/power over the Scottish FM is not. --G2bambino (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a !vote would be called for!Would somebody like to list the options?--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to calmly say that Alex Salmond has more power and There fore should be above Brown. Others may say differently but this is the facts in Scottish society today. Brown possibly could be kept but I urge the editors to contemplate carefully. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since England doesn't have it's own First Minister? I'm supporting keeping the Infobox as is (UK PM above Scottish FM). GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually suprised they never came up with a better name! First Minister and Prime Minister essentially means exactly the same thing!--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you not agree there would be no confusion to the reader over who was Prime Minister, it does actually give you that information directly below his name. Still trying to think of an alternative name to First Minister, our leader does'nt sound quite right. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus regarding PM and FM

• Feel free to also take part in the above discussion!

• Option 1: Remove Prime Minister from infobox.

• Option 2: First Minister shown above Prime Minister.

1. Jack forbes
2. Duckie for broadway

• Option 3: leave infobox as it is.

1. Cameron
2. GoodDay
3. DJ Clayworth (talk)
4. Wikipéire

1. ^ "Countries within a country". 10 Downing Street. Retrieved 2007-09-10. The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
2. "Scottish Executive Resources" (PDF). Scotland in Short. Scottish Executive. 17 February 2007. Retrieved September 14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
3. "The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order". London: The Stationery Office Limited. 1999. ISBN 0 11 059052 X. Retrieved 2007-09-20.
4. "Information for Journalists". Edinburgh, Inspiring Capital. Edinburghbrand.com. Retrieved 2007-09-20. "Edinburgh is Europe's sixth largest fund management centre".
5. Devine, T.M (1999). The Scottish Nation 1700–2000. Penguin Books. p. 9. ISBN 0140230041. From that point on anti-union demonstrations were common in the capital. In November rioting spread to the south west, that stranglehold of strict Calvinism and covenanting tradition. The Glasgow mob rose against union sympathisers in disturbances which lasted intermittently for over a month
6. "Act of Union 1707 Mob unrest and disorder". London: The House of Lords. 2007. Retrieved 2007-12-23.
7. Cite error: The named reference Keay was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Cite error: The named reference Mackie was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• A-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles