Talk:Edinburgh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Freemason Hall, a place of Worship?

Is the Freemason hall located in George Street not counted as a place of worship? Aswell as a place of historical intrest seeing the influence of Masons on the development of the city. Gavin Scott 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes it is a place of worship, but probably not of vast historical interest. It isn't that old. There are, however, some very old lodges, and the one on Hill Street is very significant in masonic history. As for the impact on the development of the city, really the importance of ALL of the trades guilds would need to be considered (which is perhaps too much for a general article). As for buildings that relate to this, well probably St Giles is the most representative as the trades guilds pay a significant role in its history, and are strongly represented there, most notably in the north porch screen and the chancel clearstorey windows.

I find the whole notion of representing Edinburgh (or any old and significant city) in a brief Wikipedia article a very daunting one! To fully explore all aspects of the city would produce an encycolpaedia in its own right!Ewan carmichael 13:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Article focus

I cannot make sense of this:
"Edinburgh ... is Scotland's capital, and its second-largest city. ... It is situated ... in the City of Edinburgh council area."
It is the City of Edinburgh which has the city status
The article seems very uncertain as regards what it wants to be about, perhaps undecided between the now historic city of county of Edinburgh (historic since 1975) or the modern City of Edinburgh council area
Laurel Bush 10:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

City of Edinburgh (the council area) can generally be thought of as a superset of Edinburgh (the city itself). For example Ratho, Kirkliston and around are often refered to as "Rural West Edinburgh" (search the Council papers for refs) and do not have EDINBURGH as a post town. Thanks/wangi 10:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that "Edinburgh" is intended as an article about an area defined as a postal address? I dont think you are really seeing the issue yet. Where is the sense in a sentence which says, effectively, the city is situated in the city? What is the point of making the statement if it does not represent some unresolved confusion about what is and is not the city, and about the purpose or focus of the article? Please see also "Talk:City of Edinburgh#Article focus". Laurel Bush 11:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

All I'm saying is that people in Rural West Edinburgh would not consider themself inside the city itself. The council area is larger than the area the majority of people (inc the council itself) would consider to be the city itself. /wangi 11:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Edinburgh is a city. City of Edinburgh is an administrative region which, for reasons best left to civil servants, contains not only Edinburgh, but also the above mentioned villages, and some rural areas. It is entirely correct to say that Edinburgh is a city, located in City of Edinburgh. Applying the name 'City of Edinburgh' to a region may be silly, but that is what has happened. The second part of the sentence quoted above points out that 'City of Edinburgh' is the area, not the city itself ("...in the City of Edinburgh council area."). ::Supergolden:: 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. "Edinburgh is a city". Very unhelpful! Laurel Bush 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC).

Please accept my sincerest apologies for being so useless. ::Supergolden:: 10:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I do get a bit exasperated at times. And perhaps it is towards myself I should be aiming barbs - for failing to make my own intentions/questions clear enough. Laurel Bush 11:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

I don't really see any problem with "Edinburgh ... is Scotland's capital, and its second-largest city. ... It is situated ... in the City of Edinburgh council area." Contrast "Oban ... is a resort town in Argyll and Bute". There is no expectation that the Oban article is about its council area, Argyll and Bute, and similarly the Edinburgh article doesn't seem to imply it is about the council area called City of Edinburgh. Similarly London and Greater London, Manchester and Greater Manchester. Of course, if people add information to this article that is actually about the council area, it should be moved to the relevant article. If the name of the council area is really confusing, then a note could be added where it is first mentioned. The article can only document, not fix, bizarre naming decisions. Notinasnaid 11:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Edinburgh" states that it is about a city and, officially, the council area is the city. Laurel Bush 12:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

That's not what City of Edinburgh seems to imply, or do I misread it? But even if the areas are the same, I don't see the problem with the two articles. Notinasnaid 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked "City of Edinburgh" myself, introducing the expression old city, but the result is very unsatisfactory
If "Edinburgh" is about an old city, then I am left very much in the dark as regards how the boundaries of that city might be defined
Is it the county of city which was abolished in 1975?
And, if the two artilces are about exactly the same area, then which am I supposed to link to when working on other articles, eg about constituencies and acts of parliament?
Laurel Bush 09:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One is about the city, the other about the council. Link to whichever makes most sense in the context. Thanks/wangi 10:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not expect the article Edinburgh to define a set of boundaries. It is not a snapshot but a historical document and should discuss what has been historically meant by "Edinburgh" through history to the present day. If the city name is now synonymous with the council area, it can say so. If there is a lack of official definition, it can say so. Two articles can be about the same area without being about the same thing: I see no contradiction there. I'd expect City of Edinburgh since it is about a council area to be used in contexts where the council area is the context of discussion (e.g. talk of the council, administrative areas of Scotland etc.). Perhaps the article City of Edinburgh should be called City of Edinburgh (council region) if you think people can't tell the difference from context. People do seem to manage the difference between New York state, New York City, New York County and New York metropolitan area. Notinasnaid 10:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your New York examples relate to areas with clearly difined and different boundaries - "Edinburgh" and "City of Edinburgh" do not
Yes - "Edinburgh" should be about all uses of Edinburgh (except all but one of those now listed in "Edinburgh (disambiguation)") and, with respect to boundaries, giving history of how these have changed with time
I am seeing a claim that "City of Edinburgh" is about the council, not the area
If it is about the council then is should be at "City of Edinburgh Council"
As I am seeing it, it is more about the Politics of the City of Edinburgh council area
Either way, it should be moved, and "City of Edinburgh" should become a redirect to "Edinburgh"
Laurel Bush 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I note the 'main article' title "Government and Politics of the City of Edinburgh" is currently a redirect to "City of Edinburgh". "Government and Politics of the City of Edinburgh" is a much better title for the content of "City of Edinburgh". Laurel Bush 11:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

Burghs within the city area (formerly Canongate)

I am seeing a claim in "Canongate" that the district has history as a burgh. However, I am not seeing it listed in "List of burghs in Scotland", or an external source I have checked. Has it been a burgh? Laurel Bush 11:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

A quick search on some of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland website came up with:

David I granted to the abbey of Holyrood authority to build and enclose a burgh between the abbey and Edinburgh, 1128 x 1153. Canongate was subsequently erected burgh of regality (Bellenden of Auchnoule) in 1587, and again burgh of regality (city of Edinburgh), 1639. G S Pryde 1965.

There's more if you want to go digging... talks about the Burgh Cross...

Cheers. Want to cite the reference in "Canongate"? I will be mentioning in "Talk:List of burghs in Scotland". Laurel Bush 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

Another addition to my weekend to-do list ;) Thanks/wangi 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Topographical Dictionary of Scotland (1846) tells us:

The [City] council are superiors of the burgh of regality of Canongate ... The bailies of Canongate exercise the same legal jurisdiction within the limits of their district as magistrates of royal burghs ... Edinburgh is the only royal burgh; Musselburgh, Canongate, and Portsburgh are burghs of regality, and the county also contains Dalkeith, a burgh of barony, the town and port of Leith [etc]

It's got an entry as the Burgh of Canongate in the Edinburgh Almanac for 1850, with a handful of office-holders listed, but I can't find one in that of 1886 - presumably it ceased to exist as an organised body in the intervening years. Shimgray | talk | 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Eeek, Portsburgh too!? That'd been around the Grassmarket / West Port today? Thanks/wangi 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I confess I'd never heard the name, but West Port and heading out towards Lothian Road sounds about right.

Nearly parallel with the High-street, on the north, are, the street called the North-Back of the Canongate, and also the Calton, communicating with the road to Leith; and on the south is a line of nearly equal length with the High-street, reaching from the suburb of Portsburgh on the west, and including the Grassmarket, the Cowgate, and the South-Back of the Canongate.

The council are superiors of the burgh of regality of Canongate, and of the burghs of barony of Easter and Wester Portsburgh; over which they appoint certain of their number as baron-bailies, and also two burgesses of Canongate, and two inhabitants of Portsburgh, as resident bailies. The bailies of Canongate exercise the same legal jurisdiction within the limits of their district as magistrates of royal burghs; but the bailies of Portsburgh perform only the petty duties to which the bailies of all burghs of barony are now restricted ... The magistrates, with the powers of sheriff, preside weekly in a bailie court, of which the jurisdiction extends over the ancient and extended royalty, and the barony of Portsburgh.

1850 Almanac mentions High Constables of Canongate and then Constables of Easter Portsburgh and Wester Portsburgh. Nothing I can find offhand in 1886. If anyone has access to that lovely Historical Atlas West Port Books used to sell, we could probably identify it precisely... Shimgray | talk | 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Might be nice to have a list of burghs (and possible burghs) now within the city area. Can we construct one? Laurel Bush 10:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC).

One Royal Burgh (Edinburgh) and two Burghs of Regality (Canongate, Portsburgh) now absorbed; plus Leith, a burgh of some form. (Portsburgh is here, Leith here, if you want to see the old boundaries). Everything else in "Edinburghshire" seems to be a village or hamlet, except for the burgh of Dalkeith, which seems to be outside the current city boundaries (though I don't have a map to hand). All the burghs in West Lothian (Linlithgow, Queensferry, Bathgate, and Borrowstounness - ie Bo'ness) and East Lothian (Haddington, Dunbar, and North Berwick) are likewise outside the boundaries. Shimgray | talk | 14:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction - two Royal Burghs, since Queensferry was apparently absorbed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975. Shimgray | talk | 14:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Portobello too... ? /wangi 14:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Portobello was a "parliamentary burgh" only, it seems, not one of the "old" burghs. [1]. This calls it a village. Shimgray | talk | 14:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Portobello seems to have been a police burgh 1850 to 1896, and one of the Leith Burghs 1832 to 1918. Laurel Bush 09:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

I agree it'd be good to have a section within this article dealing with areas of Edinburgh, and the burghs that are now part of the city (Edinburgh, Canongate, Portsburgh, Leith, Portobello)... Areas of Edinburgh could be linked as the "main" article (it'll need updated too). /wangi 10:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we continue discussion here, and put some notice about it in "Talk:Areas of Edinburgh"? Or what? Laurel Bush 10:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

Or continue in "Talk:Areas of Edinburgh", create a list in "Areas of Edinburgh", with dates and other details, and then summarise in "Edinburgh"? Laurel Bush 16:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

Canongate and Edinburgh used to be separate burghs, i faintly remember doing a school project about it. And Leith is a town, not a burgh. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will see that Leith is no longer a town, but a district of Edinburgh. Tpacw (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination has failed

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of 13:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC), compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This article is very well written
2. Factually accurate?: There are very few citations in this Long article. There need to be far more. This article is not verifiable.
3. Broad in coverage?: This article is very thorough in its treatment of the subject.
4. Neutral point of view?: This article has no NPOV issues.
5. Article stability? This article is relatively stable.
6. Images?: The second image in the Viewpoints section needs a caption. No images are in need of fair use rationales.

Other Notes: I will nominate this article as an unreferenced GA. All it really needs are citations; it is an otherwise excellent article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --The Talking Sock talk contribs 13:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is currently 49 kB. Is that too long? --Mais oui! 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Article size#Readability Issues. this article is very long, 50kb. I don't think this is a big problem, just something to think about when editing --The Talking Sock talk contribs 14:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think 50kb is alright, but not much more, What areas can be cut down? What about the Famous residents section? It takes up a lot of space, I think. Also that demographics table is a bit ugly and space consuming, what about a graph instead, similar to the one on the Demographics of Scotland article? Globaltraveller 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the article needs a lot of support in the form of main articles. Get the main articles right (with appropriate refs/citations) and "Edinburgh" should almost look after itself. Laurel Bush 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC).

What do you mean by "main articles"? --The Talking Sock talk contribs 14:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Summary style. Joe D (t) 18:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

UK's 8th most populous city

Edinburgh is the 8th largest city in the UK by population. As per a number of other UK city articles on Wikipedia (London, Cardiff, Glasgow etc) I have included this fact in the introduction. In so doing, I have added to existing statements about the city being Scotland's capital and her second largest city. This is a perfectly valid, accurate addition to article which is consistent with all Wikipedia guidelines and with other such articles. Normalmouth 07:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For the top 10 UK cities at least- this information should be included in the intro. Clearly POV to remove. Astrotrain 08:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think this information is better placed in the demographics section. I'm also suspect of the source - for starters it's getting it's data from somewhere, but it doesn't say where (not a reliable source). Also this isn't a list of city population - it's a list of unitary authority population. I mean, is someone going to list Fife as the 12th largest "city"? Thanks/wangi 08:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't improve the article, we have managed this long without it. The fact the city is the capital and 2nd largest in Scotland is all that is necessary for the introduction. And the population figures used in the source do not match with official statistics. Globaltraveller 08:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Globaltraveller's objection is not valid. The point about Wikipedia is not to 'manage' as best we can, but to provide the clearest, most objective and comprehensible description possible. Any sch article about a major UK city such as Edinburgh should contain this information - an assertion evidenced by the fact that most other such city articles do the same. By all means include the fact that it is Scotland's second biggest city, but include the UK ranking as well. It's seven words, for pity's sake!

wangi, on the other hand, has a point. However, I have found a site that collates the city (not local authority areas) census data from England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Here it is [2]. It shows Edinburgh to be the seventh largest city. I sugest we use that, and encourage other city pages to use the same data source. Normalmouth 09:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it to the Demographics section, per Wangi's suggestion. --Mais oui! 09:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that suggestion, which is inconsistent with many other city articles, so I have moved it back.Normalmouth 09:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the city is one of the top 10 largest cities in the UK by population should be included in the intro. Agree with Normalmouth. Astrotrain 09:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So we move from the eighth largest city to seventh, if this had gone unchallenged. Even more dubious source, dubious reasons. Agree with others if it is necessary it will be moved to the demographics section, but not until there is a PROPER source for it. Globaltraveller 11:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a proper source for it. Calm down and check that source before hitting edit. Normalmouth 11:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry it doesn't agree with anything else I've seen officially wise. Check National Statistics please. Until then it isn't going in Globaltraveller 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

please cite your conflicting source. Tks. Normalmouth 11:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Edinburgh City Council [3] population 448,624, General Register Office for Scotland [4] 448, 624. Your source claims about 430,000 for the same year.Globaltraveller 11:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

448,624 is the accepted population of the city by government and civic authorities in Scotland. Scotland ranks ahead of the United Kingdom in this, therefore that is the only acceptable basis for comparison. Globaltraveller 11:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the population of the local authority area. That's not the same. Normalmouth 11:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Which comprises the entirity of the city. It is the accepted population of the city of Edinburgh by ALL official sources. Your source isn't official neither is it true. I'm sorry it is a fundamental flaw. It isn't going in. Globaltraveller 11:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to the official stats in the source. Read it. The 430 figure for the city is clearly listed. Normalmouth 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I'll take the two government sources, I provided, over yours any day Globaltraveller 11:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The 448,624 quoted in the wikipedia article and on every other offical source is the basis for comparison. Nothing else. Globaltraveller 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mine is a government source. It is the 2001 census figure for the city (not the authority) of Edinburgh. The two figures do not conflict because they are based on different areas. I urge you to follow the links on the cited page and see for yourself. Normalmouth 12:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough sorry. Official sources state the population of the local authority area - which is the same as the city - is 448, 624 at the 2001 census, nothing else. This is Scotland and this is how the population is counted here, which is different to that of England and Wales. It is the official population on ALL official sources (please do some research) and it is the basis for comparison. Globaltraveller 12:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, can we stop all the "rv vandalism" nonsense and just deal with this here on the talk page? Thanks/wangi 12:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Surley we can decide the most reliable source, and then use that as the basis. A List of cities of the UK by population article would also be useful. Agree with wangi that the "rv vandalism" nonsense should stop- and let discussions continue here. Astrotrain 12:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but until then, it is misleading and will be removed. P.S the last edit was mine, I forgot to sign in. Thanks Globaltraveller 13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Ok, perhaps we can try and take the temperature down a bit on this.

First up, I think we need to estblish what the objection to this edit is:

1. Is it the inclusion of a statement to the effect of "Edinburgh is the xxx biggest city in the UK?

2. Or is it the use of the specific source?

My view is that (2) is a legitimate basis for an objection. If that is the case, all we need do is determine if a means for calculating the populations of the UK's cities which is comparable exists and resolve to use it. Globaltraveller says there is only one figure for calculating Edinburgh's, namely the whole authority figure. He either won't read or refuses to accept the source I have cited that appears to suggest otherwise. Let's establish the provenence of that claim and take it from there.

(1), however, is not a legitimate complaint. Most other city articles have a similar reference in their introductory section and the statement was not at the expense of anything else. It is fully within what a Wikipedia article should be.

Can we first therefore agree that, if a reliable figure can be established it can be used as per my edit? If not, we need to hear what the objections are to including such a statement on the basis of a reliable figure.Normalmouth 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am suggesting that, instead of my source, we use the one proposed by Globaltraveller. It can be found here [5]. It lists six other cities with a greater population than Edinburgh (London, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow and Bradford). The statement will thus read "It is the seventh largest city in the United Kingdom".

Any objections to this source? Normalmouth 15:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I can't think why Globaltraveller didn't just change the source link in any case, since it didn't effect the actual statement (ie 7th largest city). Hopefully he will be happy with this. I've left a 3RR warning on his talk page with regards to the constant reverts throughout the day. Astrotrain 15:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Leeds is compared with the rest of England as is Sheffield. The Liverpool article says: "Liverpool is governed by Liverpool City Council, one of five councils within the Metropolitan county of Merseyside, and is one of England's core cities and its fifth most populous." As for Sheffield: "The population of the City of Sheffield is estimated at 520,700 people (2005),[1] and it is one of the eight largest English cities outside London that form the English Core Cities Group." Even the London article makes no mention to its size vis a vis the rest of the UK, so there is no consistency. As for Bradford it says: "The Bradford Metropolitan District (population:477,770 Source ONS 2003 Mid Year Estinate) is England's 4th largest district with city status. In terms of the population of its urban area area, which is the primary meaning of city in British English, Bradford is around the tenth largest city in England." There is no consistency here. I am aware of Astrotrain's behaviour on threatening users who don't agree with him and that is very sad. I am prepared to compromise, use the new source and add myself to the majority, that it should be put in the demographics section of the article. I think this is fair given that it is quite clear the majority of the ten largest cities in the United Kingdom make no reference to it in their introductions, as we were led to believe! Scotland as an entity ranks ahead of the United Kingdom. Thanks Globaltraveller 16:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a tour of which major cities mention or allude to UK rank by population in the intro or very early in the article:

1. London - no
2. Birmingham - yes (reference as second city)
3. Leeds - no (but reference is made to Core cities)
4. Sheffield - yes (as one of the eight core cities)
5. Glasgow - yes (in exactly the terms to which you object)
6. Bradford - yes (by England rather than UK rank)
7. Liverpool - yes
8. Bristol - yes
9. Manchester - no
10. Leicester - yes
11. Coventry- yes
12. Cardiff - yes

Th very best that can therefore be said is that a great many - almost certainly a majority depending on how you look at it - DO include such a reference in their introductions. Edinburgh should do the same.

I have no idea what you mean by "Scotland as an entity ranks above the United Kingdom". As I have repeatedly stressed, the edit mentions the UK rank after the Scotland rank. It is not an either/or choice. Normalmouth 16:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But Edinburgh already ranked itself by Scotland rank! The core cities are the English Core Cities Group and that's how they define and compares themselves in these situations, that's where the majority of the rank comes from, Scotland ain't included. As I said, I think I've been very fair in capitulating to its inclusion, in the article. After all it was my own perserverence that showed that you're initial edit was very badly flawed (and smacks of WP:Point as it was included despite being incorrect),and changed things a bit. We still aren't really comparing things on a like-by-like basis. Thanks Globaltraveller 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Utimately, my edit adds to, and doesn't subtract from, the information available about the city in a clear and concise way. Many readers, perhaps those less familiar with the British Isles than you or I, will glean more knowledge from my edit for hardly an extra words. You need to come up with a reason why that it bad. The onus is on the inclusion - not the exclusion - of this information. Normalmouth 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please let's come to a compromise (as I have), your edit is in the article. I'll accept it where it is, in the demographics section (as the majority users: wangi, mais oui! and myself think). I think I am being fair, as I honestly don't think it is a good inclusion. Globaltraveller 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm using the figures you have insisted upon. But I honestly think that to put the Scotland rank in the intro and the UK rank buried deep in the bowels of the article is inconsistent. Why do you say those 8 or so words in the intro do so much harm that you won't budge at all? Edinburgh is in the UK, whether or not you or I agree with that. So it's status as one of the UK's great (i.e biggest) cities should be there.

p.s two to three is far from consensus.... Normalmouth 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If Edinburgh was perhaps the biggest city in the UK or second biggest or third or perhaps even fourth I could see the merit in its inclusion in the introduction, but seventh? It doesn't add anything to the article and it isn't comparing like with like (as shown in the discussion previously). The status of Edinburgh as the capital city of Scotland, and its position is Scotland as second largest is premier in the definition of Edinburgh. It's position as the seventh largest city in Britain is in the article, but I honestly don't think it is of paramount importance, as I'm sure you'll admit the other cities that don't compare themselves against the rest of the UK eg Leeds, Sheffield and London (the biggest). Nothing more will alter my opinion. Bottom line do you accept what is a compromise and majority proposal Yes or No? Globaltraveller 17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S I have budged (a lot) because I wouldn't have the UK rank in the article at all (as it was previously). But it is there. Are you going to budge? Globaltraveller 17:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it adds to the article. It adds a lot in very few words. It adds the sense that Edinburgh is not just one of Scotland's major cities, but is also one of the UK's major cities. The idea is not to 'big up' Edinburgh' but to give a detailed and objective overview of the city. You cannot airbrush out it's UK rank because you feel it's too insignificant. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. I'm perfectly happy to place its UK rank behind its Scotland rank - that is reasonable. But I simply cannot see any substantive reason in your argument, other than an invalid aim of promoting instead of describing Edinburgh. The other argument, that a Scotland rank alone is sufficient is simply bizarre when the UK rank adds additional context and takes nothing away. It's like some kind of legalistic argument, and that isn't what this exercise is about - it's about producing readable and informative articles.

The bottom line is that is is simply inconsistent to have the Scotland and UK rankings separated by hundreds of lines of text. That is poor writing. They should be mentioned together. Look at Glasgow of Cardiff for good examples where both Scotland/Wales and UK rankings are mentioned together. Normalmouth 18:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we've been through this before laboriously, and I'm not going through it all again. I have initiated a compromise, which you don't seem to want to accept. After all the article has lasted for an extremely long time devoid of the UK rank. Globaltraveller 18:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have compromised in the use of your favoured statistics. Your compromise is to bury my edit. That is no compromise. Unless and until you can provide a plausible justification as to why my edit should not stand I will have to assume you have an ulterior motive which places your work outside of Wikipedia's guidelines. I am, however, more than happy to submit to a dispute resolution. Normalmouth 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a compromise, that was just getting the correct information. Your initial edit was factually incorrect anyhow using very dubious sources. Changing the source to a more reputable one is not a compromise, that's just good housekeeping. Your edit is still on the article. Accept Yes or No? Globaltraveller 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept that the source was dubious. Have you got a proper reason for not wanting my edit as it stood? Yes or no? Normalmouth 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. YES I have a proper reason for not wanting your edit where it was, I had several of them all elucidated above. Your original source said Edinburgh was the 8th largest city, now we've been bumped up to 7th. Globaltraveller 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Resorting to evasion is a bad sign. Your true reasons clearly cannot be stated without falling foul of guidelines. I propose we move to dispute resolution. Normalmouth 18:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One further thing: how come you added a Scottish ranking to a UK ranking elsewhere in the article (on tourism destinations)? If you were happy for those two ranks to be expressed alongside each other you ought to be in this case. Normalmouth 18:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going through it all again. I haven't resorted to evasion. I have given my reasons above, you may not like or agree with them but I have stated the facts, your original edit was facutally wrong, as is clear to everyone. If I hadn't challenged it it would still be wrong. I have compromised, you won't accept that and that is sad. Whatever happens someone should remove the block as it disrupts other users from editting. If Normalmouth wants to go to dispute resolution, he can. I won't revert or move any edits on this article. If he does that is his choice. Globaltraveller 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the scrutiny/collaboration (from Wangi btw, you were making bizarre claims about Scotland taking precedence at that point) that improves the source. That's is what makes Wikipedia great. Once we had agreed on a source, however, you continued to revert based on specious grounds. You cannot provide a plausible reason why this improved and latter edit cannot stand other than a notion that Edinburgh's seventh place is not prestigious enough. And that's no reason at all.

So it's not a question of 'going through it all again'. You haven't been through anything in the first place that stacks up as a reason. If you have that, please bring it forward.Normalmouth 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have given you innumerable reasons, you choose to ignore them or fail to understand them. I have pointed out the flaws in your edits. I have compromised. I can't do any more. It is clear from your recent arguments you are trying to make a point. Globaltraveller 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to make a point, namely that as well as Edinburgh being Scotland's second largest city, it is also the Uk's seventh largest. You cannot provide a single decent reason why this entirely objective statement cannot stand as is because, I suspect, your true reason violates Wikipedia's guidelines (and moreover you haven't accounted for why you participated in a similar edit on the Edinburgh article a few months ago). You have made the classic mistake of confusing an 'ought' (your apparent belief that Edinburgh didn't ought to be within the UK) with an 'is' (the fact that it is).

Fortunately, another edit has since taken place which does the trick. Normalmouth 07:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see my reasons again. Firstly you put an edit on to this page that was incorrect and misleading. You were wrong! Not a good start. The response to that was to include another source that didn't even have the correct population, and for YOU to argue against the facts as they stand, which was absolutely incredible, again smacking of WP:Point. Secondly I showed you that majority of the other cities did not make reference to their respective positions in the UK, as you said they did - again you were wrong - the result of that is that we were not comparing like with like. Thirdly I explained to you what I thought of the guidelines Scotland IS classified before the UK - the majority of English cities compare with English cities and having the seventh largest in the UK in the first paragraph was about as factworthy as having x largest in the EU or the world or whatever basis for comparison, after all this was a very new edit by yourself (pushing your own point again) and wasn't an established or intrinsic part of a well-established article. And lastly there appears to have been quite a lot of underhand tactics at work as subsequent evidence shows (WP:Point anyone?) that just undermines ethos of the project. I did offer compromise and went with the MAJORITY proposal when you tightened up your evidence source. You can insinuate all you want about my reasons, I've given you enough there and you and your co-conspirator's tactics are here for everybody to see. I've stated I won't revert and I won't. Globaltraveller 10:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

At least two people have broken the WP:3RR on this article today, and are still editing the article. This is ground for blocking Globaltraveller and Normalmouth for 24 hours. Since there are other involved, I am instead protecting the article from edits until a concensus is reached here. Joe D (t) 16:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's taking things a bit too far. In an article like this there are potentially many other edits this will block. Block those involved, perhaps (although things have calmed down), but an article wide protection is, I think, not called for. Thanks/wangi 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW both Normalmouth (talk · contribs) and Globaltraveller (talk · contribs) now have 3RR warnings on their tak page. Thanks/wangi 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Take the block off and don't penalise other users. I've stated above I won't revert whatever Normalmouth deigns to do regarding his "contribution". Whatever he does is up to him. The position has been set out clearly above and nothing more can be done. Arguments going round in circles when the positions are clear is counterproductive. In this light, it isn't fair to ban others when the dispute is between me and him, and I've stated I won't revert any further. His arguments and mine are there for everybody to see and form their own conclusions Globaltraveller 20:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected -- the protection has served its purpose of forcing dialogue. 24 hours have not passed since the 3RR violation, so any resumption of revert warring will result in an instant 24 hour block. Joe D (t) 20:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Normalmouth and Astrotrain coordinating in revert wars

Whatever the merits of this UK ranking thing, or EU ranking, or whatever, I do not believe that it should be the second sentence in the article: it is rather geeky subsidiary information, as most "list" things are. Apart from anything else the numbers do not tally with official stats, and the difference between 6th and 9th place is miniscule. Three contributors have voiced support for moving it to the Demographics section (Wangi, me and Globaltraveller), but the Normalmouth/Astrotrain partnership have reverted it to the 2nd sentence nevertheless. If we put it in the Demographics section where it belonged in the first place then this article block would not be on at the moment. Globaltraveller is a respected contributor to this article.

However, evidence of the Normalmouth/Astrotrain 3RR/revert warring teamwork can be found here: "What I will do is to put the articles you are having problems with on my watchpage, and I will help you revert any inappropiate edits he happens to make. Sometimes the best way of dealing with cases like this is to stick together." They have clearly been folowing me around Wikipedia since this:

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Normalmouth

and have targetted the Edinburgh article after my comment on the Talk page yesterday. In my opinion they both need Admin warnings. --Mais oui! 18:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of this paranoid nonsense is beneath contempt and unworthy of response. So I'll make just this point: find one example - just one - where I have either pledged to, or have, reverted anything on behalf of another user. Normalmouth 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

P.s this [6] is me 'following Mais oui! around; making polite appeals for him to try to work with me. Normalmouth 19:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not an innocent victim of manipulation. You should have responded: "thanks... but no thanks", but instead you made yourself party to the revert pact:

• "Thanks... Let me know if I can be of assistance at your end. Regards"

--Mais oui! 20:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Revert Pact? Where? It's a general offer of assistance, as is polite and courteous. Catch yourself on. While we're on the subject though, can you find any reverts I have carried out on behalf of Astrotrain or any other user? No? Didn't think so. That's because they don't exist. Your allegation is wholly false.

Ultimately, If you didn't behave as aggressively as you do toward other users, they wouldn't feel compelled to discuss your attrocious behaviour with each other. I've lost count of the number of people you've picked fights with, and some you appear to have driven away from contributing altogether. That's a shame, as from what I can see you do some work of value on Wikipedia.Normalmouth 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that Mais_oui! feels like that. However it should be pointed out that sections of the discussion reproduced above did not relate to the Edinburgh article. As far as I remember it was in response to POV pushing by Mais_ou! on the Welsh self-government page many months ago now. Astrotrain 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you all please kindly stop squabbling on this page, and keep it to user talk pages - This is the page for discussing the Edinburgh article after all. For my part, it seems sensible to put this 'UK rank' sentence in the demographics section. But frankly, there are more important things to deal with on this page, like getting the citations in to reach GA status. Come on guys, there's an encyclopedia to edit... ::Supergolden:: 15:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

I was very surprised to find that this article has no formal history section. Every city article I've reviewed (quite a few!) has this, even very short articles/newer cities such as Brasília. I also think that the article could easily be raised to WP:GA standard once a history section (and some relevant citations) is added. I also think having almost two screens and two sections about different names seems a bit much, perhaps it could be rewritten more concisely? The etymology was new to me, though - as a Northumbrian myself, I'd always been told it was Edwin's burgh! Walkerma 05:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. It is astounding that there is no History of Edinburgh article yet on Wikipedia (it is such a rich and complex topic, with gazillions of great reference material), let alone a wee section in the main article. This article really is very weak in its present state: it is a "gateway" article for so many topics, and we really should present our wares in the most positive possible fashion. I hate to say it (as I'm from the city), but the Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow articles are better! But we should not be looking to them for benchmarking anyway, but rather to the Wikipedia:Featured articles on cities, eg.:

• Canberra
• Seattle, Washington
• Sheffield
• Marshall, Texas
• etc.

--Mais oui! 10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of that but I am worried about the size of the article - this is a big article and it does lack important sections like History. Do we really need Famous Residents, Health, Schools and Places of Worship in this article? It all looks cluttered and takes up too much space. Opinions? Globaltraveller 22:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the size issue is very important. We cannot get this to FA status until it is below about 42/45kB, if I recall correctly: it is currently 52kB, which is fine at the moment if we are sensible with starting some spin-off articles combined with judicious pruning. It is, alas, far from FA status, and size is not so critical for GA status. As a person keen on biography I would like to see some key natives and residents mentioned: so many have had a large role in their fields, but as for details of health, schools and churches: nope, lets chop the flab. --Mais oui! 22:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth has this article still not got a history section? I find it astounding, considering that it is an elementary topic for any settlement. There is a massive resource in terms of academic work on the history of Edinburgh. Ideally we should start up the History of Edinburgh article, and just put a brief synopsis in this main article. --Mais oui! 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree, Edinburgh has a very rich and facinating history. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 09:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Other names

I'd like to propose that the whole of this section is cut and or merged with the Etymology section.

The other names section seems to overlap, duplicate and also contradict the Etymology section. It also contains allot of woolly language and weasel wording. E.g. "Some have called..." and "some hoped that..." Who is this "Some"? Citation or references are needed for this. The explanation of Dunedin given in the Other names section is Gaelic origin where as the Etymology sections sates it is "understood to come from the Brythonic Din Eidyn (Fort of Eidyn)". Reference and citation are needed for either explanation.

It's my understanding from other wiki pages that the name Dunedin or Din Eidyn predates Gaelic culture in Scotland. Though I accept that proper sources still need to be quoted — I will edit the Other names section to remove the contradiction. Rincewind42 07:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoroughly agree – "other names" would make sense as a sub-heading below the etymology section. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Climate Section - Units of Measurement

Is it possible the metric measurement for Mean total rainfall, currently shown as mm, should be cm instead? I think the numbers given are cm; multiplying 2.54 from the inches row below does seem to give the correct figure in cm. Either change the unit to cm or increase the metric row numbers by a factor of ten. I think the former is more preferable. papageno 22:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Major tourist destination

I'm currently looking for sources to back up the paragraph:

The city is one of Europe's major tourist destinations, attracting roughly 13 million visitors a year, and is the second most visited tourist destination in the United Kingdom, after London.

For the visitor numbers the latest reliable data is from VisitScotland (see http://www.visitscotland.org/edinburgh_city_2005.pdf) and lists 3.6M visitors, but 13.2M "bednights". Are we good to us "bednights" as the visitor figures, since it's a relative term? One for WikiProject Cities? Thanks/wangi 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bed-nights are neither visitors nor visits. They are important to the tourist authority and the owners of hotels/B&Bs since they correlate well with visitor revenue. However if we use them as the sole figure, our readers will be unable to tell whether 13.2 million bed-nights means that 1 million visitors visited twice and all stayed about a week in a hotel each time or that 60 million visitors visited once for a day each and about a quarter of them stayed in a hotel or B&B (the rest presumably camping or staying with friends or relatives).

In my opinion our readers are probably more interested in how many people visited Edinburgh (because it gives a measure of its popularity with others) than in how many beds were paid for, so it's better to give the raw visitor count or, failing that, the number of visits. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

the name

whys it prounounced like edinbro instead of edinburg—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I assume you are an American... It's not - you are mispronouncing it. Ta/wangi 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the previous comment will really have helped! The name is said in a few different ways. If you are a local then it is often pronounced Embra. The normal pronounciation, however, is more like Edinburu (reading both the letter Us like the U in umbrella). As for your original question: well you are correct that it is pronounced more like Edinbro than Edinburg, although I wouldn't say that the end sound should be 'o'. The word burgh has variations in various European languages (burg/borough/bourg etc) - this is the Scots language version and it has a distinctive spelling and pronounciation. Ultimately, it is the 'h' at the end of Edinburgh that makes Edinburg the wrong pronounciation.Ewan carmichael 02:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Guys, there is so much more work needing done on this article, so lets not dick around with daft wee flags etc. Please take a look at Talk:Vancouver#Request for Comment:Which flag(s) should accompany Edinburgh? and Talk:Vancouver#No need for any flag for an identical discussion recently on that article... Strangely enough involving Edinburgh. I have removed the flags completely since they add no information which isn't already obvious. Thanks/wangi 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wohhhhhhaa. Look at Munich, then on to Sapporo then Portland Oregon via Ashkelon and Sopot. These all have flags for twinned towns (and that is nothing like exhaustive as a list). You cite one article with a discussion but there are hundreds of place articles using the convention. Also BTW "dick around" borders on a personal attack. Pedro |  Talk  14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you read a similar argument at AFD what would you make of it — "We have a non-notable article for thing X, so we must have one for non-notable thing Y"... I'm unsure how you can read into "dicking around" as a personal attack; I'm describing an action, not a person. Reverting to-and-fro is dicking around - it gets nothing done.

Have a read of WP:FLAGS - it's an interesting essay on this issue. Can you tell me what those flags actually add to the section? Thanks/wangi 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind wikipedia is an international co-operative effort I'll drop the "dicking around" thing as you obviously don't find it as offensive as I do. If you look at the revert history there were two reversions and both of us desisted so it's hardly to and fro.

Personally I like the flags (but that is just a personal thing and of no weight here). Arguments at WP:FLAGS (all agreed this is not policy, yes!) include ;

• They add no information to the article that you can't get from reading it. How in the heck does the article Munich inform me that Sapporo is in Japan ?
• They are more difficult to read for visually impaired people. No they aren't. They actually assist as the text reader will read the flag image tag - and all the flags describe the country / region they are from.
• They make articles look like Pokémon trading cards frivoulous, but the article is semi tongue in cheek so fair enough.
• They certainly don't make the pages load faster on a slow connection 411 bytes at .png. Hmmmmm. Massive.
• Flags are not necessarily easier to recognize than country names. Granted, but that isn't true of every flag (as per They can be aids to navigation in very long lists of countries) although the cited examples are fair comment.
• Flags open the door to disputes unrelated to article content. Apparently so!
• Flags place unequal emphasis on location, especially in infoboxes. Agreed, hence the earlier reverts.

Now, the main thrust. As per above, there are numerous articles using flags in the twinned town section. WP:FLAGS says There are plenty of tasks that improve Wikipedia more than adding flags to infoboxes. There are also plenty of better things to do than go and remove them from every single article using them, and then getting involved in the ensuing row on the talk page.

A (I admit brief) run through seems that the use of flags is the norm not the exception. Therefore it would seem that for reasons of consistency if nothing else we should keep them. I do however take the notes at the discussion that this is all pretty trivial. I nominate wangi to start the removal process. Have fun with that mop and bucket !!!Pedro |  Talk  15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Embra/Edinburrie in Scots?

I know that you're not supposed to use wikipedia as a source/citation in wikipedia articles, but this change suggests that there is no evidence for use of Edinburrie or Embra among Scots speakers: is it enough that the Scots language wikipedia article uses both? --Philbarker 17:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to go that far: take a look in the infobox... -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it being called 'Embra' in very informal writing - in speech this is hard to verify as "Edinburgh" said quickly tends to sound like "Embra", which is where I thought the word came jokingly from. I've never heard of that being a Scots word before... Robin Johnson (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly against these kinds of colloquial expressions being introduced unless they are backed up by citations – which of course would need to meet Wikipedia's standards on the value of the cited work – or if they are clearly part of Scots language (although even then they're perhaps more appropriate in the Scots-language Wikipedia project). Otherwise they're just people's favourite slang terms, and as such, original research. – Kieran T ^(talk) 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard it called Embra/Edinburrie, and i live there. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I have added a 'needs sources' tag as this was the issue with the GA nomination. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

I have done some reformatting and copyediting today. From looking at the article there is still some further formatting that needs to be done for GA/FA status. The Notable residents section needs to be turned from a list into a paragraph as listing is generally unacceptable the higher the status level.

Some sections have too many one line sentences, particularly the Places of Worship section. I also think the table of contents is too long and so some headings will need to be deleted or changed to bold to cut this down, around 20 or less titles in the TOC is optimum in my view. I will try to return to this article again soon when I have time. Bobbacon 14:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Edinburgh also needs a history section to comply with WikiProject Cities who will probably not rate it higher without one. Bobbacon 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A map of Edinburgh

Prototype?

Hi, thanks to whoever replaced the infobox, I tried and failed before you. I'm here to ask if any skilled cartographers feel up to the job of creating a map of Edinburgh? I thought some thing along the lines of Image:Inner-canberra 01MJC.png would be great :) thanks — Jack · talk · 15:29, Tuesday, 3 April 2007

There is already a map in existance (see left), though as you can see it is quite basic and not at all pretty compared to your example of Canberra. This map already has code for adding dots through longitude and latitude co-ordinates (Template:Location map Edinburgh). If a better map can be found I can configure it and add it to Template:Infobox UK place. Bobbacon 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC

Indication of local authority boundaries, which are those of the City of Edinburgh Council, should be included. The shape created by the boundary lines is, in a sense, the shape of the city, which is somewhat different from the shape of the urban area. Laurel Bush 18:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

That's a good start, but like you say, not really article-worthy. I tried to superimpose Image:Shetland.svg over it, but at that size it just got all fuzzy. Any suggestions? Perhaps Image:Lothians RegionNumber.PNG will work, but they look oddly dissimilar, to say they're the same thing! — Jack · talk · 19:57, Tuesday, 3 April 2007

I am working on it. --Guinnog 09:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I have so far (Mark II). Any comments? --Guinnog 10:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's impressive :) well done on that! Only, if I can offer comments it would be that the text needs anti-aliasing, and there are some odd white lines where there should be roads — Jack · talk · 04:03, Monday, 9 April 2007

Thanks. I added a key, and rasterised the layers. I left some minor routes untraced for clarity, which is how the white bits come about. I've also added a larger (1500px) size. --Guinnog 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Much better. What'd you use as your source map? There isn't much info on the image page, and as always, I'd prefer if it was uploaded to commons. (WP:FPC geek) — Jack · talk · 13:34, Monday, 9 April 2007

I traced it from Multimap. I'll add more info to the image page and upload it to commons. I've added it to the article as well. Thanks for your comments. --Guinnog 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work. Sorry to come in late with a comment, but it's just this: the dotted railway line is unexplained. It would be nice to add it to the key or just render it the same as the other railways. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I hoped no one would notice! I can't easily change it as I don't have access to Illustrator any more; maybe I can hack it in Photoshop though. The dotted line reflects the map's origins from Image:Edinburghrailold.png and shows line added by the Caledonian Railway, if you're interested. --Guinnog 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I thought there was something odd about that! I just assumed it went underground (!) for that portion, as it does around Prince's street. If we're really gonna dig into this (sorry!), I think you missed when tracing the railway through Morningside. — Jack · talk · 14:08, Monday, 9 April 2007

I don't think so. I overdrew the dotted lines; I hope you think it is an improvement. --Guinnog 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mark II map looks incredibly detailed and complicated for a proposed thumbnailed infobox map. It's unlike anything else seen on Wikipedia. Might I suggest something a little more simplified (we do have impaired, young and foreign readers), such as seen in the Greater London infobox map? I'd be happy to help. Jhamez84 00:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, be our guest! Mark II is rather good, but if you think it's among the best of Wikipedia, please take a moment to look through WP:FP. A simplified version would be useful, especially for the template {{Location map Edinburgh}}. It'd also be ace if we could make a gallery at commons:Category:Maps of Edinburgh — Jack · talk · 05:27, Friday, 13 April 2007

A copyright question. Do we have permission to copy maps at Multimap or does this derived work break copyright? Mr Stephen 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know but it is a very good question. I'll find out. --Guinnog 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging it up. I have deleted it for now. It is too derivative of the Multimap work. I will redo it in a way which will be more original. The relevant policy would be [7] Thanks again, --Guinnog 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog, perhaps use OpenStreetMap as the basis? Thanks/wangi 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

new map

How's this? 129.215.149.98 (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Napier

I've removed the following as it is patently false: the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh is the largest computing department in the UK (RAE 2001)

The School of Computing at Napier University is also the largest computing department in Scotland.

—Michael Fourman 09:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

police and fire services

It seems impossible to add the name of the police force to the infobox, event hough there is a field for it. Why is this? Lurker 14:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That seem to be an automated feature. Perhaps because the articles Scottish Fire Service and Scottish Police Service don't exist to match Scottish Ambulance Service. Suggest creating them; see what happens. — Jack · talk · 01:29, Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Or, looking at Aberdeen, whoever deals hese services out to Edinburgh. Perhaps Lothian Fire Service and Lothian Police Service? — Jack · talk · 01:48, Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Got it! Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service and Lothian and Borders Police. Why they don't show up, I have no idea — Jack · talk · 01:52, Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Too many photos!

Woah, who's been out with a camera? The article needs a good balance of text and images to look presentable, and right now, it's way off — Jack · talk · 01:26, Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Agreed, as a first pass I think the following should be removed:

1. Image:Worms eye view of the royal mile.jpg — not really a worthwhile view of Edinburgh, an interesting photo, but...
2. Image:Blackford Hill Observatory.jpg — far too dark.
3. Image:EdinburghgeorgeIV.jpg — underexposed.
4. Image:Haymarket railway station exterior.JPG — drab and uninspiring.
5. Image:St Mary's 3 spires.jpg — not as iconic as St Giles.
6. Image:Scotland - Edinburgh - National Monument - Nelson's Monument - Calton Hill.jpg — too dark, silhouette effect doesn't really work due to perspective and dark clouds.
7. Image:Ross Fountain in Edinburgh.jpg — the last thing you'd want on the article!
8. One of the three panoramas.
9. The stadium photos.

Comments? Thanks/wangi 10:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, although I don't understand your rationale for point 7 — Jack · talk · 14:26, Thursday, 21 June 2007

In that it must be one of the most loathed "monuments" in Edinburgh, it's gastly and hardly ever working. I wouldn't waste the space on it! ;) Thanks/wangi 15:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should like to go visit this horrid fountain some time. May I suggest removing your photo of the traffic control tower too? Good image, ugly building. Also, I think this image of the Beltane fire festival would be very useful (I assume you were there?), but it's copyrighted, what can we do? — Jack · talk · 01:36, 23 June 2007

I did a trim, and also lost the gratuitous mention of Tartan Day which is not a major holiday in Scotland. Comments? --John 03:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A resident of Edinburgh is called...

I asked this question on this page 3 years ago and as far as I can tell nobody ever answered, so I'll ask again.

What is a resident of Edinburgh called? A person from New York is called a New Yorker, one from Berlin is a Berliner, one from Paris is a Parisian. So what is a person from Edinburgh called? This would be an interesting bit of trivia to have in the article, so its relevant in a minor way anyway. Harley peters 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• An Edinburghian or Edinburghensian. Alex 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of those. I'd say "an Edinburgh man (or woman)". I lived there for most of my life. --John 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a former resident (for many formative years) I'd say we always joked about the word being "Edinburgher", but never actually used that in polite or formal conversation — instead going with "Edinburgh resident" or "Edinburgh native", much as per John, above. – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a resident, and I think that I can safely say the only people that use "Edinburghers" are Weegies that like to pronounce it "Edinbuggers". Edinburghensian is from the latinised Edinburghensis; posh folks use it. When asked, I always say "Amfae Embro" Alex 17:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlike (I believe) French and German, English (even Scottish English) lacks a standard way of making a place name into an adjective describing people from that place. --John 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John: "Edinburgh man", "woman" or "folk" sounds most natural to me. But speaking as an Aberdonian, I wouldn't be too uncomfortable using "Edinburgher", so it's not just Glaswegians! -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Its surely "Edinburgher". Its certainly the only "version" I've ever heard. You can also see what similar examples are, such as Gothenburger, Hamburger and so on. - Duncan Sneddon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.246.219 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Im from Edinburgh, were known colloquialy as Edinburgher's. :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 10:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is etymology correct?

This has /ˈɛdɪnb(ə)rə/, whereas the burgh article has /ˡbʌʀə/. I'm no expert on IPA, but these sound differently, and the burgh in Edinburgh should sound the same. Which is right? Alex 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Both are right. Although the two "burgh"'s may be pronounced identically when someone is saying "The burgh of Edinburgh" slowly and deliberately, the "burgh" in "Edinburgh" is unstressed and thus its vowels tend to disappear or be replaced by schwas when "Edinburgh" is said at normal conversational speed. This never happens to "burgh" when it is used as a word though: only when it is the unstressed part of a compound. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. Bendž|Ť 09:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Listed Buildings

"There are over 4,500 listed buildings within the city, the highest concentration in the world." According to Wikipedia's own article, listed buildings only exist in the UK, which makes this statement a little less impressive. If Edinburgh has, for example, the highest number of listed buildings per head of population in the UK then this might be worth stating instead (provided of course a reliable source exists). Anyway, any thoughts any one? -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lowland Scots version

What no mention of "Embra"/"Embro"? "Edinburrie" was listed before, but it should be noted that's a literary form. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lowland Scots version of "Edinburgh" is "Edinburgh". This was the term used when Scots was the official language in Scotland. Lurker (said · done) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but both Embra/Embro are regularly used, e.g. Robert Garioch's poem Embra to the Ploy. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody actually says "Embro", and certainly not "Edinburrie". These are simply literary constructs with no currency in the spoken language. "Embra" has more weight, certainly a lot of Edinburghers call it that, but its been pointed out that this could just be saying "Edinburgh" quickly. If "Edinburgh" was good enough for Dunbar it should be good enough for us. ED: forgot to add - "burgh" is a Scots word is any case.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.212.48 (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reekin!

"Auld Reekie" is to do with smoke, not smell. "Reek" in the sense of "stink" is a recent import from England. "Reek" in Scotland always meant "smoke", and is related to the German "rauchen", and Icelandic placename "Reykjavik" - smoky bay! --MacRusgail (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Conurbation

Is there a conurbation surrounding edinburgh?Andrew22k (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. There's some discussion above about the difference between Edinburgh as a city and the area governed by City of Edinburgh council, but the area around Edinburgh is pretty much rural. --Philbarker (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:DYK nomination - Trinity College Kirk

I have self-nominated the new Trinity College Kirk article at Template talk:Did you know - see 7 March. I would greatly appreciate it if editors with some WP:DYK experience (I have none!) would review the article and/or the nomination. Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Electric power

Where does Edinburgh's electricity come from? Which is the nearest power station? 129.215.49.129 (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the nearest big power station is Cockenzie power station, about 15km east of the city centre. Though according to that article, it is run as a 'marginal station', so only generating in peak times. The next nearest (and the biggest in Scotland) is Longannet power station. Though as its all connected to the National Grid, a lot of electricity will come from the various hydro schemes in the Highlands, plus the nuclear stations at Torness and Hunterston etc. There's also a few wind farms around, I think the nearest to Edinburgh is at Soutra, though I'm not sure if it generates significant power. Also see List of power stations in Scotland. --Vclaw (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

EventsEdinburgh.org.uk

The above link, which I just removed, was previously added and removed back in February by the same IP. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I added this link in myself, can I ask why it was removed? It's perfectly valid, non-commercial (funded by the City of Edinburgh Council and thus the taxpayers of the City of Edinburgh (of which I am one)) and a useful resource. - Kris Kelly

It doesn't serve much purpose really. Are people going to look at Edinburgh's Wikipedia article to find out what's going on in the city today or tomorrow? If the consensus is yes, then obviously it can be added back. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia is a valid resource for visitors to the City and this website augments that resource with easy access to information on cultural attractions, some of which occur annually (i.e. the beltane festival and the fringe festival to name a couple). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.215.82 (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Edinburgh?

Just wondering if there is a WikiProject Edinburgh. If there isn't, there should be one I think. CraigJRichards (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I think there should definately be a wikiproject for Edinburgh, I'm in! :) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 10:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I also agree there should be a Wikiproject Edinburgh. I'm surprised there isn't one already, especially with Edinburgh being Scotland's capital. If we get enough consensus on this I might look into starting one. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Where did the map go?

Where on earth has the map gone? This article always carried a map showing Edinburgh's location within Scotland, the country of which it is the capital; as per the Glasgow article. What on earth happened to it? A map of the council area alone is plain daft in a global encyclopaedia. Please remember the readers! --Mais oui! (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I second this, the current picture puts Edinburgh's location in no perspective at all. Unless you knew already it's not even clear it sits on the east coast. PeemJim86 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture Gallery?

Hows about we have a picture gallery atthe bottom with most of the pics that are kind of out of place in, instead of the rather sporadic nature of the layout now? ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture galleries are generally discouraged per WP:MOS --Jza84 |  Talk  02:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok cool. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 15:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh bigger than Glasgow?

is Edinburgh bigger than Glasgow?:SAndrew22k (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Glasgow's bigger than Edinburgh. - Duncan Sneddon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.212.48 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Twin Cities section repeated

It's near the top of the article and then again near the bottom. 78.16.211.67 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Anon IP

Anonymous IP 89.241.141.16, who was reverted for vandalism shortly beforehand, made a long series of edits, the result of which is at least one change in the images on this article. I don't know if these edits were constructive, so I leave to the regular editors here. Rrius (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Drugs

I just copied scientifically supported evidence, related to Edinburgh, from WP: Temazepam to Edinburgh:Culture:Drugs. It largely proves that the people of Edinburgh are to two thirds toothless wonders, given to the abuse of bum pills. Please comment there. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In particular, can you confirm factuality of these claims? What is the real story? 70.137.153.69 (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the section on Drugs, the only reference to Edinburgh was from a study conducted in 1990-92, so it's well out of date. I also doubt the motives of the the editor who added it and posted the comments above. -- Phil Barker 11:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been dealing with anon 70.137 editor for half a year now. They recently slipped up and confirmed my suspicions and admited on wikipedia that they worked in research and development of drugs for 36 years (for a drug company, I suspect Roche pharmaceuticals). They deleted this material from the temazepam article and moved it over here. They insulted the people of edinburgh asking if they are toothless wonders etc all drug takers knowing that it would provoke emotions and result in the material being deleted completely from wikipedia. I have been dealing with these tactics for 6 months and it is driving me up the walls to be honest. I don't find this acceptable behaviour but unfortunately the admins of wikipedia don't have a problem with this behaviour. I am sorry that you got dragged into this. You sussed them out as having an agenda from their first post. At least someone can see the light. The editor has nothing against the people of edinburgh though. They have a different agenda and could care less about scotland. I have Scots in my heritage anyway.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Haa, I just read your talk page and see the anon editor was on your talk page trying to manipulate you into fighting me on the temazepam talk page to create an army of sock puppies. Good job for not falling for it. Take it easy. They have done this before with other editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

I've just had a quick look round Bristol and Manchester are shown in maps of England, Cardiff is shown in a map of Wales, Belfast is shown in a map of Northern Ireland, Glasgow and Aberdeen are in maps of Scotland. What's the problem with Edinburgh in a map Scotland? -- Phil Barker 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection (I reverted an edit that replaced the UK map with a Scotland map); I reverted that editor solely because they're a troll who's modus operandi involves, in part, repeatedly changing maps without any discussion. I tend to revert and warn the editor so that they can be quickly blocked when they hit 4 edits - this reduces the damage they can cause.

That said, I have no objection to the map, and in hindsight it's one of the few edits they've made that could have been allowed to stand. It would probably be best to discuss it here first though (which is, of course, exactly what you're doing).

Cheers,  This flag once was red  06:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, done it. I had noticed something was going on with the Scotland/UK maps. I know there's a potential for political point making with these maps, which is not something I'm interested in. I think the advantage of showing UK cities in maps of the constituent countries (England, Wales, Scotland, NI) is that the maps can then be developed to suit the geography of that particular country. Have a look at how the English cities like [Bristol] are shown in the map of England as an example of what I mean. I don't think there is a downside, I guess most people interested in Edinburgh know where Scotland is in relation to the rest of the UK and Europe in general. If they don't, this article is probably not the best place to show it. -- Phil Barker 08:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cycling

I'm an Edinburgh resident, a cyclist and a member of Spokes, so I'm sympathetic, but really there is way too much in here about cycling - and it reads more like a compendium of news reports than an encyclopedia article. I'll try to have a go at it later this weekend. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's had some changes since August, but right now the safety section reads like somebody (no doubt well-intentioned...) has an axe to grind. The comments are mostly referenced (although I've removed "Of course, if we had..." which failed the "inappropriate person" guidelines not to mention WP:NPOV) but they're very narrowly focussed. More to the point they're hardly what one expects when reading an (already long) article about a historic capital, or a specific modern urban city; they're more appropriate on a website dedicated to transport issues. If appearing on Wikipedia at all, they belong in a sub-article. I may seem to have gone overboard by adding four templates (importance-sect, unencyclopedic, inappropriate tone, and POV-section), but I hope they'll attract the attention of enough editors that we can reach a consensus on what should go in here. – Kieran T ^(talk) 03:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that there is much more about cycling in the transport section of the main Edinburgh article than in the Transport in Edinburgh article. I suggest swapping the text between the two articles (assuming the text in the Transport article is reasonably high quality, if not then maybe we should swap it and fix it). -- Phil Barker 16:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that someone seems to have an axe to grind, and they have added a lot of contents about how bus drivers are affected. This of course was only recently added. However, I feel that before these edits were made, there was already an issue. The line "One common complaint is that cycle lanes are often placed inside bus lanes on some of the major roads in central Edinburgh, such as Princes Street and Lothian Road. This irritates some bus drivers. (ref [45])". There is no ref given about it actually irriatating bus drivers. This, and some of the other content, is backed up by a reference stating this [8], which is completely irrelevant, talking about how buses have been seen jump ring red lights. Can anyone find a correct reference that actually cites what the article is talking about before someone has to add Template:Failed verification? This entire section does need to be cleaned up. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely all this would be better in a Cycling in Edinburgh article. And if it wouldn't be sufficiently notible to justify its own article, it wouldn't sufficiently notible to be included in such detail in a high-importance article such as this.86.1.196.156 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Great Britain, 1603 or 1707?

OK, got a content dispute and I'd appreciate outside views. User:Redpathanderson has edited the article to state that the Kingdom of Great Britain came into being in 1603 with the union of the Crowns (of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, naturally). I maintain that Great Britain came into existence in 1707. I've reverted twice (and won't revert again - I thought this matter was cut and dried, or I wouldn't have reverted more than once) and discussed with Redpathanderson on the editor's talk page. Thoughts? When did Great Britain begin?

PS. For a republican, this sure is a bizarre discussion for me to be having ;-)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a King of Great Britain - this was one of the titles which James VI/I adopted, so in the strictest sense there was a kingdom of Great Britain: the capitalisation is important to my mind. The title of Kingdom of Great Britain was used exclusively for the state. I don't believe the former should be used, outwith some very precise context - it is unusual and only serves to create confusion. I'd stick to your position. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, (and I hate to disagree with someone who's agreeing with me, but...!) I don't dispute that there was a king of both England and Scotland, nor that that king styled himself King of Great Britain, but I do disagree that the king's style magically created a Kingdom of Great Britain. Both England and Scotland were separate kingdoms, in much the same way that Canada and New Zealand are separate kingdoms today. The Kingdom of England article gives England as a separate kingdom ceasing in 1707, likewise for the Kingdom of Scotland. The Kingdom of Great Britain article states that Great Britain started in 1707. To my mind a claim the the Kingdom of Great Britain started with the union of the crowns in 1603 is controversial, and needs to be well referenced.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Right for starters in the few books baring any relation to this issue I have found nothing proving or disproving. But look alone on the internet;

IRENE CARRIER. James Vl and I, King of Great Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pp. vi + 153, introduction, Mr. Stephen A. Coston, Sr. and Mr. Richard Neumeier ; When King James VI of Scotland ascended to the English throne in 1603, he forever joined the English and Scottish crowns. King James was the first to call his island kingdom, "Great Britain". Great Britain consists of England, Scotland, and Wales. These kingdoms, however, maintained separate parliaments until 1707 when they were fused into one. The United Kingdom, formed in 1801, consists of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

James I, King of Great Britain—History]. [Dalrymple, Dav... Memorials And Letters Relating To The History Of Britain In The Reign Of James The First. Published From The Originals. The Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged.

Charles I 1600–1649 King of Great Britain

Charles I was the second king to rule the united kingdoms of Scotland and England. However(http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/rens_01/rens_01_00099.html)

Im sure if I look into it further I can find more refrences to the Kingdom of Great Britain as of 1603

this one atleast proves it is a common assertion even if he does not cite references

"Great Britain" was the name of a sovereign state from 1603 (when James VI of Scotland acceded to the throne of England as James I) to 1707, the date of the Act of Union between England and Scotland, at which point it became "The United Kingdom of Great Britain".

Albert Herring(http://everything2.com/title/Great%2520Britain)

King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom by W. B. Patterson

(Source: Larkin and Hughes, Royal Stuart Proclamations. vol. 1.)

By the King.

A proclamation concerning the Kings Majesties Stile, of King of Great Britaine, &c.

I'm in complete agreement with both those references. I don't believe they contradict my position. The first says that the King referred to his kingdoms (plural) as Great Britain, but that the kingdoms (plural) remained separate until 1707. The second reference also refers to two separate kingdoms, while alluding to the union of the crowns. The union of the crowns is distinct from the union of the states. The third one - leaving aside that it's everything2 - I don't think you've read in full. Scroll down further, to...

...it was James VI of Scotland who succeeded the last of the Tudors, Elizabeth I to become king James I of England in 1603. From the beginning James made it clear that he desired to be the king of a single kingdom and that the kingdom should be named Great Britain....a Joint Commission was established in June 1604 to produce concrete proposals, but by the time it had reported in 1606 sentiment in both Scotland and England had moved decidedly against the idea. The actual Instrument of Union made no mention of a Great Britain...Therefore James' vision of a kingdom of Great Britain came to nothing at the time...James proclaimed himself as 'King of Great Britain, France and Ireland'...Thus Great Britain had a king, a currency and a flag even though legally speaking, there was no Great Britain.

Incidentally, this should really be discussed on the relevant talk pages - I doubt I'm going to convince you that the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist as a state before 1707, and you certainly haven't convinced me that the editors who wrote the Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Scotland, Kingdom of England and United Kingdom articles are all wrong.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  12:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought this was ll part of it, whatsmore if you insist I will look at other sources, but there are various articles that show the Kingdom of Great Britain as established 1603. I doubt I will convince you, and you certainly won't me, that it is otherwise, or for that matter a great number of people. Especially as you seem to doubt atleast two accepted sources, not only the very Stuart Proclamations as issued by James VI, but the work of a much respected author, who is afterall published by the Cambridge Press. Further more I will ask my Cambridge historian to look for the evident evidence, and if needs be get him to send me the sources. As for a state, this is perhaps where you and the editors are confused, it was Kingdom a union under the Crown Imperial, and even after 1707 it was not as state but a union under both CRown Imperial and Parliament.

I'm going to let it rest (it's past 1am where I am right now), but just wanted to clarify one point - I don't doubt either of the referenced sources. The union of the crowns *did* occur in 1603, and James did style himself as King of Great Britain. The formation of the state, however (which is what this is all about), did not occur until 1707 when the parliaments consented to a union of the two separate kingdoms.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  13:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But thats part of my whole point there has never been a state of Great Britain, as in effect even since the Union of 1707, it has been a union of nations /sates, not a state in it's own right. Just as Germany is a union of states, or the US is the United(union) States. And if you look at the stuart proclamations it quite clearly states that not only is there a "union of crowns" as you put it, but that this is the Kingdom of the Island of Great Britain. Surely this is the Kingdom of Great Britain. An further more this assertion is supported by other historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redpathanderson (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But there *was* a state called the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was created in 1707 by acts in the two parliaments in Scotland and England. With the passage of the two acts the state came into being, and existed from 1707 to 1801, at which point the young kingdom united with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Every reference you've provided so far refers to either a union of two kingdoms under one crown, or to two separate kingdoms. The Stuart proclamation refers to the union of the crowns, not to the establishment of one united kingdom. The kingdoms of Scotland and England remained legally separate until 1707 - or else why did their two parliaments go to all the trouble of campaigning for legislation that would legally unite the two kingdoms?

If your assertion is supported by other historians - by any historians - you should be able to cite it. So far all the references you've found - and I've found - refer to a union of the crowns in 1603, and the creation of the state in 1707 - what I'd regard as the mainstream position. I'm concerned that you regard the existing Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England articles to be incorrect, and the editors who wrote them "confused" - without references to support what is a controversial position I regard the 1603-creation-of-the-state view to be WP:OR.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Once a gain you fail to undertsand there has never been a state called the United Kingdom of Great Britian, it has never been a state but a union of kingdoms/states under one parliament, as for your assertion it is the commonly accepted view, that is incorrect. It is not it has always been a union not a state. It was a union of the crowns in 1603, when it became the kingdom of Great Britain(but not united by one parliament), it then became the United Kingdom of Great Britian in 1707. As ussual you and the other editors miss the point, there is difference. I have cited it, it's in the stuart proclaimation just look at it, it says "Kingdom of the Island of Great Britain"(Kingdom of Great Britain - this proclamation predates the Act of Union by 100 years), I can not help if it is you and the fellow editors who are wrong, and are unprepared to accept this fact. Whatsmore James VI was King of Great Britain, how can you be a King without a kingdom, and in the history of the world, Kingdoms have never had to be united under one parliament. The UK has never been a state it's been a union of states and the term Kingdom of Great Britain predates the act of Union of 1707.

furthermore not one of my cites refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britin, but the Kingdom of Great Britain, they where two completely different things, and even historians widely acknowledge this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redpathanderson (talk • contribs) 10:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall claiming that there has been a state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain (though see my comment below). The union of the crowns did not create the Kingdom of Great Britain; a reference *you* provided said that James VI/I *attempted* to create one unified state but failed - two separate states remained (which is why James contined to known as James VI in Scotland, and James I in England - they were two separate kingdoms in James' time). James' proclamation is irrelevant here, as it was ignored by both Scotland and England, and James' dropped the idea. James VI was King of Scotland; simultaneously he was James I of England - your comment about a King without a Kingdom is bizarre and misrepresents my position.

The term "Kingdom of Great Britain" does indeed pre-date the Act of Union in 1707. However, the fact remains that until 1707 Scotland and England were two separate kingdoms - the Kingdom of Great Britain only existed in James' plans, and did not come to fruition until some time after James' reign ended.

I can't see where I implied or stated that your cites refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and feel this is a red herring. Some scholars do argue that the Kingdom of Great Britain should properly be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain - if you read the Kingdom of Great Britain article you'll see that's noted. I don't have a strong view either way, though I personally prefer Kingdom of Great Britain to differentiate it clearly from the post-1801 United Kingdom.

If you feel that I - and other editors - are incorrect in believing that there was a state called the Kingdom of Great Britain, and that it existed between 1707 and 1801, I'd suggest that the appropriate place to make the claim is on the Kingdom of Great Britain article, rather than on the Edinburgh article.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag

OK, I've added a {{fact}} tag to the relevant sentence. Re-reading it, I think the need for decent references become even more apparent:

In 1603, following King James VI's accession to the English and Irish Thrones, becoming the first King of the Second Kingdom of Great Britain, James VI instituted the first Scottish parliament which met in the Great Hall of Edinburgh Castle, later finding a home in the Tolbooth, before moving to purpose-built Parliament House, Edinburgh, which is now home to the Scots Law.

In addition to the claim over the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Second Kingdom (of Great Britain) is unexplained, the first Scottish parliament claim seems dubious (the Parliament of Scotland article gives a range of dates for the first parliament, all earlier than 1603, and the Stuarts weren't noted for their love of parliaments). The "now home to the Scots Law" claim is unintelligible - does this mean the Scottish Law Society? - and needs to be referenced and expanded/explained. Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

The article states:

Edinburgh is a cosmopolitan city. It has many immigrants from all corners of the world. From walking the streets, English, Gaelic, Polish, Chinese, French, Spanish, Hindi and many others can be heard.

The main ethnic groups are:

  1. Scottish (including those of mixed English and Scottish descent and those born in Scotland of full English descent): 82%
  2. English: 13%
  3. Polish: 2%
  4. Chinese (including Chinese Hong Kong): 1%
  5. Indian: 1%
  6. Pakistani: 1%

The other 2% includes French, Spanish, Lithuanians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Chileans, Malaysians and Africans from all parts of Africa.

So are there no Irish people in Edinburgh then? Where do these figures come from anyway?86.1.196.156 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced with sourced data from the 2001 Census. There is subsequent info available about nationalities from national insurance data which I'll insert later Dalliance (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seven Hills

The Nicknames section refers to Edinburgh being on seven hills "like Athens". The Wikipedia article on Athens refers to its seven districts, but not its seven hills - a topographical distinction normally associated with Rome. Can anyone verify whether Athens is, in fact, built on seven hills, or if this is an erroneous reference in the Edinburgh article?GrammarFrog (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't verify it. The Athens/Seven Hills claim has been added and reverted several times recently - until then I always associated Rome with seven hills, not Athens. I guess the easy way out is to stick a {{fact}} on each on the several references to Athens/Seven Hills, and if no reference is forthcoming then remove the claim.

FWIW, Yahoo answers seems equally split, but IMHO the "no, you're thinking of Rome"-camp seem to win out on credibility.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 07:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken two instances of it out again. I can find no reference to Athens being built on seven hills, and it isn't listed on List of cities claimed to be built on seven hills. More importantly, I believe the term derives from the city's architecture and its status as an intellectual centre. The hills need a reference to go back in. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png

The image File:Commonwealth Games Federation Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved - image was removed from {{Commonwealth Games Host Cities}}. Franamax (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Edinburgh and its pronunciation by various Scots

One Scottish female - dunno where she had come from - pronounced the city a very interesting way, which sounded almost like Edinbrae. But interestingly enough, "brae" is a very common Scottish word, meaning a hill. And even more interestingly, the History part in the article does tell a lot about hills! So is this only my imagination or is there indeed an etymological relation to "brae"? Or alternatively of "burgh" and "brae"? -andy 92.229.74.94 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Edinburgh and its proununciation by various Scots

One Scottish female - dunno where she had come from - pronounced the city a very interesting way, which sounded almost like Edinbrae. But interestingly enough, "brae" is a very common Scottish word, meaning a hill. And even more interestingly, the History part in the article does tell a lot about hills! So is this only my imagination or is there indeed an etymological relation to "brae"? Or alternatively of "burgh" and "brae"? -andy 92.229.74.94 (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)