Talk:List of castles in Scotland

[Untitled]

Is Castle Fraser not in the Highlands ? they were a Highland clan.

Management

(moved from Castles in Scotland by bjh21 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

This page is currently being managed by Wikiproject Scottish Castles. If you would like to make any changes to this page, or any of the castle pages listed (other than those in the 'See also' section, it would be appreciated if you let us know first. Many thanks, Slink pink

Please feel free to edit this or any other castle page, you don't have to let us know first, but please stop by the project page and contribute to ongoing discussion there, thanks ::Supergolden:: 12:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my comment requires a new topic, but it relates to the Historic Scotland (HS) icon used for Dunnottar Castle, I visited this castle in October 2005 at that time it was not run by HS but privately owned, and I had a quick look on the HS website for Dunnottar but it did not show up. ::Sjjb1610:: 14:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Key

I added a key, template {{ScotPlacesKey}}. Its a bit generic - do we need any other symbols on this page? eg Privately owned, ruined? ::Supergolden:: 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. What about National parks of Scotland? --Billreid 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean for castles which are in a national park? Or just to add to the template. I changed the key on this page to reflect the content, ie symbols for castles open to the public, and for ruins. Now all it needs is for someone to go through thsi very long list and tag them all! ::Supergolden:: 17:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant but is there a logo? I will certainly tag the Moray ones and any others that I work on. --Billreid 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a logo that I know of, but thanks for your offer of help. ::Supergolden:: 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use icons

The icons for the different statuses of the castles is a good idea, but I think we don't have a sufficient fair-use claim for the icons. Firstly we're not using them solely on the pages for which they're subject (so one can use the NTS logo on the NTS page, but not really on the pages of all their properties. A similar discussion regarding the team logos of US football teams on summary pages (like a year's results page) concluded that this was too far from fair use and too close to decoration. Secondly they don't list the source (which is mandatory for fair-use). And thirdly we can't say, at least for most, that we can't come up with a free equivalent. We do use the little NTS logo, but it's so small that it's really pretty useless. I took a brief stab this morning with making up free logos that should serve the same purpose. My first cut is here: . I've not done the historic building one (it's a bit harder, but not too bad), and I'm by no means settled on any of these designs. But I propose we develop free SVG equivalents of the icons we use now and replace the fair-use ones with these. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(I should mention that I'll me mostly offline until next weekend, but if anyone has any suggestions between now and then, I can fix up the icons then). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the fact that they are so incredibly low-res not matter :)? You are probably rght though. The ones you put up look OK to me - we could do blue for HS, green for NTS, brown (say) for the 'other open to the public', and red for private? Surely we only need to replace the HS and NTS ones, not the historic house or ruin ones, which are generic (ruin was made by me). The Castles in England page uses the english heritage and NT logos too. ::Supergolden:: 14:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It helps that they're smaller, but they're still fair use nevertheless. Ruin has a fair-use licence tag on it, so you should fix that. You're quite right about Historic House, it's fine (pfew, saves me drawing something). Whatever we do we should definately colour-key, but we mustn't rely only on the colour (as lots of people are colour blind). We should also make sure the images have a decent alt= text on them, so not , for the sake of those with braille browsers and screen readers. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought the simplest sollution would be to ask for permission to use the images. However, is the ownership of the buildings really that important. I'd much rather see information about the type of building that it's ownership e.g. ruin/reconstruction or Towerhouse/Keep/Broch/Mote and whither it's open to public or private, free or paid entrance etc. Rincewind42 14:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no key that explains why some castles are listed in red? It would be helpful if the significance of those listed in red were given somewhere.Dotrocka1 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Table?

To address worries of fair use icons, and to include additional info as suggested by Rincewind42, we could turn the whole page into tables. This would make it all al lot clearer, but at the expense of more complx markup. As an example:

Name	Type	Condition	Ownership
Foo Castle	Tower house	Ruined	Historic Scotland
Boo Castle	Country house	Occupied	Private
Goo castle	Motte-and-bailey	Destroyed	n/a

I would say that Type, Condition and Ownership were the three main things to include, any others? I don't think we should put too much information on this page, as its only a list after all. Abbeys and priories in Scotland also uses tables. Obviously the presentation of the table is open to suggestion too. ::Supergolden:: 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, especially listing the type. Any reason why two years after User:Supergolden's post the list still isn't in table form?--Celtus (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, probably because nobody ever responded to the suggestion, so nobody wanted to actually implement it... I would be willing to work on this, if you want some assistance, as I know tabulation is a pain in the a**e. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Strolling past on one of my random Wiki-walkabouts, I was struck by the sense of this idea (I've always thought the list was awkward). But as it stands, the page seems too big to manage something more complicated. What if it were split into regions? Say: SW, SE, central, NE, NW (for example). Then you could do something along the lines of the featured lists Castles in Greater Manchester or Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. I've had a play around with "Castles in South East Scotland" (assuming Borders, Lothian, Edinburgh) at User:Gwinva/Castles south. What do you think? Feel free to add in, make changes or comments (at User talk:Gwinva/Castles south). If this works, we can easily move page to mainspace. Meanwhile, I'll potter on as time allows. Gwinva (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I like how we have all the Scottish Castles on one page. Though, obviously this list is going to continue to grow and grow, and the article, as it stands, says there are about 3,000 castles in Scotland. Your proposed version looks good, Gwinva. I like the "alternate layout" in small type. I think it looks neater, and the ability to add images on the side will make the list more interesting. Though maybe, images could sacrificed for more space for notes or something else??? I don't know.--Celtus (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I think regional articles are needed if we're to have more than a list of links; as you say, a table of 3000 castles is not going to work! As for my examples, which is the better small type version? The Edinburgh table has grid ref with castle name; the following two have a separate column for location. Can't decide if location column needed, or if it's just too much. We could sacrifice the images, of course, but I quite like them: illustrates the various types. ("Castle" is such a generic term.) Gwinva (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, i like the format you have for West Lothian. It seems clearer to have the 'Location / Grid Ref' in a separate field than the 'Name'. But if there isn't enough room for useful notes, i think 'Location' and 'Name' could be combined, and it would be just as good (something like you have for Edinburgh). Also, i think the reason Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester looks so good to me is that each building only takes up one line. If we decided not to use notes at all, and leave it for people to click on the actual article, then every castle would take up the same space in the table, and there wouldn't be worries about running out of space. Though, i doubt the buildings of Manchester have as much history to write notes about (compared to Scottish castles). I wonder what Jonathan Oldenbuck or anyone else thinks.--Celtus (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like it! I agree that the West Lothian section has the best set up. Keep location separate from name. I don't think the notes section need be extensive - there is too much info in the Edinburgh Castle note, for example - but there are places where it would be useful - alternative names for instance, where these are commonly known. Like Celtus, I'm slightly reluctant to split the main list. I doubt that there are in fact 3000 castles, I don't know where this came from. Coventry's latest edition lists 2500 or so, but includes lots of ecclesiastical buildings. There certainly aren't 3000 notable castles anyway. How would the split work - something like this?

SE: Lothian, Borders SW:Lanarks, D&G, Ayrshire, Renfrew & Dumbarton, etc Central: Fife, P&K, Stirling, Falkirk NE:Aberdeenshire, Moray, Angus NW:Highland, Islands, Argyll

Anyway, if its a choice between one big crappy list and several quality lists, then, well, the latter. Well done Gwinva for kicking this off! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a good precedent for the five divisions: Tranter's 5 volumes of The Fortified House in Scotland! (Although he puts Moray NW.) Or, if you accept that one page is going to be too big, but consider 5 too many, could it be split into 2 (N & S) or 3 (N, Central, S) ??? Anyway, I've standardised the tables as per your suggestions. Now, I'm happy to potter on at my own speed – just don't expect me to do all of Scotland! – but also welcome help. Feel free to chip in, and help fill in tables and so forth. It needs a few introductory paragraphs about the type of castles, local situation (eg peel towers in Borders) etc. With a good intro, and tidy tables, I reckon we could make this an FL (see FL criteria). Certainly, with the prose written, it can be moved into mainspace and DYK'd. Alternatively, feel free to copy & paste the table format and start another region! It's easy to make the tables: just paste section from existing list and replace *'s with |- & | . Gwinva (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: see following thread about alphabetical order. If you like one big list, then keep this page as well, kill geographic sections, put in alphabetical order, and space with m-dashes rather than bullets, like this:

A Aberdeen Castle — Aberdour Castle — Affleck Castle — Airlie Castle — Airth Castle — Alloa Tower — Amisfield Tower — Ardencaple Castle — Auldhame Castle — and — so — forth — through — the — list — with — new — box — for — every — letter — or — letter — range — eg. A-G — H-L — etc

and provide see-also links to the new regional pages. Just random thought. Pour cold water on it if you want. Gwinva (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on having two lists to maintain... Can I suggest that we start tabulating this list, keeping it all on one page to begin with, then seeing if a) the split is necessary, and b) what sections could usefully be split? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Gwinva's layout is pretty good and I like images. I'm doing something on historical collegiate churches in Scotland that incorporates the images into the table, see User:Billreid/Collegiate. Any mileage for this list? Bill Reid | Talk 09:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill, i wonder if the name of the building should come before the images? The reader will scan down the list looking for the name first, i think.--Celtus (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, good point, Celtus. It could go in the last column instead of the first and would tie in more closely with Gwinva's concept. Bill Reid | Talk 10:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwinva's list for South stands on its own very well. Though i agree that we should atleast try to keep it all on one list for now.--Celtus (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not convinced by images in tables generally, but that s just me, although I think we probably have too few among the castle articles anyway (see Category:Scottish castle articles needing images - 101 out of 244 Scottish castle articles are in there). I have made a start on Aberdeenshire in my sandbox. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I started this page way back in 2002  :-) Nice to see it so cherished... I think there should be one list if technically possible, and tables with pictures. Renata (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Made a start with Aberdeenshire - it mucked up the table of contents, so I have devised a compact version (based on one which had US States), I think it looks better. If we are getting this underway, it seems we should standardise some of the fields; locaton, for example - do we have a place, a grid ref, or both? Should the grid ref be linked? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a bit late in the discussion but... I'd get rid of date and location columns personally - I don't think that information is required using list/table format, especially if there is some method of splitting them regionally. Secondly, what is wrong with the existing regional splits (e.g. Aberdeenshire, Angus, etc)? Thirdly (and finally) I like the idea of listing (or tabling) castles alphabetically as well as regionally - is there some kind of Wikipedia automation that can be created to automatically generate (and keep up to date) a secondary list of the castles? Alternatively, can this be done using some sort of category, which group everything alphabetically already? Slink pink (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't get upset about date going either, actually, as many castles are built, extended, and rebuilt over long periods, and giving a single date can be hard. Location is handy I think, but yeah, they are all listed by area anyway, so... The idea of regional splits was to reduce the number of subpages if this main list is considered too big. Using the council areas, we'd end up with 30 "List of Castles in..." articles, some, like East Renfrewshire, with only 1 redlink on them. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see such a good response! Thanks! Just a few points. I recognise the date column can be problematic, but for mine, I have selected the date of the oldest, substantial portion (we have a notes column to note extra points of interest). I think this important. As the list stood previously, it was little more than a link farm; you had to know what you're looking for for it to be any use, for there were far too many links to check them all. A good list should be encyclopediac, and accessible and useful for a reader. Imagine you are writing a paper on Scottish architecture following the Union of the Crowns, or a tourist with a fascination for 14th Century castles. You don't want to check every link. But, using the sort function (that little graphic square on the table header) the tables can be sorted by date; immediately all properties of similar dates are grouped together, and the researcher/tourist (etc) can immediately and easily identify the articles they want to read. Similarly, tower houses within one table can be isolated, if someone was interested in those. Location is also important: the areas are large, but you can easily search by grid reference. We have the opportunity to create a really accessible quick-reference guide to castles; simplify it too much and it becomes less useful.

Secondly: the one page/several pages debate. I'm a stranger to these parts (I was just passing by), and am certainly not about to impose my ideas onto your project. If you want a list of all castles in Scotland on one page, then I will add my tables in, and possibly format a few more before moving on. But if you want featured lists for your flagship topic (the list of Scottish castles page(s) are the face of WikiProject Scottish Castles; the way in, as it were), then it's my opinion that there's too much for one page. In my [[sandbox example I've begun a few notes for opening prose sections; it is not complete but shows what could be achieved with a series-of-featured-lists scenario. Basically, each list would have a few introductory prose paragraphs about the types of castles, and methods of building as a response to local geography and history (you know: peel towers in the borders; the major fortresses in that area guarding strategic points; the influence of families, clan structures, water access, types of stone etc etc), changing requirements and fashions over time and so forth. All cited, of course, and all notes in tables cited. You could, of course, have one one big list and separate prose articles, but that does not seem quite so neat, or quite so accessible. I'd quite enjoy preparing a list or two like that, but I'm not about to run contrary to consensus. Thus, I await your thoughts (but may do some minor pottering in my sandbox). Gwinva (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, my opening paragraphs are getting a bit ambitious, and might be better suited to a Castles in Scotland article – which we don't seem to have. So I wait for some kind soul to tell me what's best to do. :-) Gwinva (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John that for a large proportion of these castles the dates are sometimes almost meaningless. Yet, i think this bit of information is one of the things people will be most interested in. (What bugs me sometimes is how castles are said to date from the medieval period yet the building which stands today only dates to about the 1600s or later). I have no opinion on the location field, since the castles are listed in geographical locations anyways. I do think the grid co-ords should present linked, and that this bit of info is probably to most useful of all, since with a few clicks you can see exactly where this castle is on a map. I too think that will need a separate 'flagship' article if we go for one comprehensive list. There will be a real information overload if we don't.--Celtus (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, well lets keep columns as they are, just showing linked grid refs in the location column, yes? Celtus I agree, it should be the date of the present structure, not a tiny 12th century corner of the foundations in the bakehouse! And yes, we need a proper Castles in Scotland article. It was discussed ages ago, and I've been meaning to make a start for a long time, just not got round to doing the research. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

<de-indent>Just wondering but is there any reason why Template:Coor title dms isn't being used for the location? Clicking it gives you lots of choices of viewing the castle's location. Disagree with Jon on the dates though. Most castles will have undergone changes during their history but if the initial founding date—it will usually be a circa—is known, or even when the major phases of re-construction took place then those are important pieces of information and should be stated. I'm not sure about the images down the side. I know they are larger and can be seen without recourse to clicking on them but thumbnailing them into an Image column on the rhs allows far more images to be displayed and could even incentivate some of us to get out there to fill in the blanks. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Order

I came to this list because I am looking for a castle whose name begins with K, and that I might recognise when I see it. I tried the categories first, but they were sorted by locality. Wouldn't it make sense for this list to be sorted alphabetically across the whole of Scotland, to give people a choice? Jamie Mercer 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

May I propose that someone develops a bot of some sort to create a second (sub) page that lists the castles alphabetically. Obviously this would be far too much to maintain manually, but could be a useful tool/reference list if one was looking for a particular castle (as per comment above). Is this possible? Slink pink (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HS-icon.png

Image:HS-icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NTS-icon.png

Image:NTS-icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

The list page states that: "Scotland contains many buildings which were built to look like castles, but are not usually considered to be castles. These are examples of tower houses or Scottish Baronial revival style. They should only appear in this list if the building was given the title of "castle" (e.g. Balmoral Castle)."
I'm slightly confused about the status of tower houses in the list. While the list does contain tower some houses (which seems sensible to me) the above implies that they shouldn't be included. Further, inclusion based on nomenclature doesn't seem at all objective, as very small towers are sometimes called castles (e.g Edingham Castle - Dumfries & Galloway) while larger 'castles' are sometimes referred to as towers (e.g. Drumcoltran Tower (previously Castle) - Dumfries and Galloway). Could someone please clarify. Cheers. C1614 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The, admittedly confusing, intro blurb is meant to refer to non-defensive revival castles, largely those of the 19th century, such as Balmoral, which are not really castles but large houses with decorative features drawn from defensive architecture. Defensive or pseudo-defensive structures such as tower houses should be included. I hadn't even noticed it was contradictory, I'll change it. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great; it's much clearer now. I'll start plugging away at Dumfries and Galloway's tower houses. Thanks. C1614 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Progression

As the project seems to have regained a little momentum, I am wondering what is the best method to progress it. We have many articles at different stages, from red link through to complete featured ones - where should the effort(s) be concentrated? Initially I'd like to complete tabulation of the main list page and create at least a stub article for each castle (should take no more than a few minutes for the very basic information). Where should we go from there? Slink pink (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For illustrating those articles missing photos, check out http://www.fromoldbooks.org/ it has a five Public Domain images of Scottish castles. Gwinva (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded one for Roxburgh Castle. Note they're for WP, not commons as they're {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} Gwinva (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the tables take more than a few minutes to do properly, so I vote we finish that first! Other project goals can be discussed on the Project talk page. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting there as fast as I can... Slink pink (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! Now to add some detail to the tables. Slink pink (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of adding detail to the tables: how do we reference entries in the list? Do we use a single reference for each entry in the list (if all the information comes from the same source) or the abc format used for Dumbarton Castle and Balloch Castle? Cheers. C1614 (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein - what is the preferred method of stating location - is it (a) Grid ref only, or (b) Place + Grid ref ? We have a mix of both on the page and it would be nice to choose one method for consistency. Slink pink (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As for referencing, I’ll start using the abc format for my D&G entries to get the ball rolling; it seems likely that some entries will use more than one source, and inconsistent referencing is better than none at all. It can always be rectified later on if needs be.

For location, although I originally quite liked the idea of grid ref and place, I think grid ref alone is probably better. To anyone who isn’t very familiar with the region in question, some obscure place name is unlikely to be any more help than the grid reference. The grid ref is much more precise, and by clicking the link the reader can get to a map which places the location in much better context than a location name in the list. For example, that Drumcoltran Tower is just outside of Kirkgunzeon is unlikely to mean anything to most residents of Dumfries and Galloway, let alone the rest of the world(!). And to say that it’s 8 miles from Dumfries becomes to obscure. Additionally, though of less importance, I think grid and place looks a wee bit clumsy. C1614 (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Any referencing is better than none. I kind of like place + grid ref, at least where the location is close to a village or town. Grid refs are unfamiliar to many people. Where there's nothing nearby or only a tiny village, like Kirkgunzeon, then maybe leave it off. One other thing: some of the tables capitalise the entries, and some don't (ie "Tower house" versus "tower house"). I vote we standardise to capitalisation. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Aberdeenshire - help!

Anyone know what's happened to the Aberdeenshire section to make the images appear above the table? More importantly - how do we fix this??? Slink pink (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha! It looks different because my window is only half the screen width!! Slink pink (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Red links

I think we should try to avoid masses of red links on this page. The Progress page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Castles has a big list of red links, as a reference for future article creation. But I think red links should be kept to a minimum here. Many of these castles have no articles, and possibly never will do, because they are simply not notable enough (particularly those listed as "no remains"). And to try to turn this page into a comprehensive list of every castle in Scotland is just not going to provide a useful result that I can see. Anyway, Moray and Dumfries & Galloway are getting too many redlinks IMO, should they be removed? And on what criteria? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this - on one hand, I'd like to (eventually) have a "complete" list of Castles in Scotland. However, I appreciate that this is a very long term goal, especially for those where no remains (and little information) exists. On the other hand, I don't want a page with too many red links (makes the project look bad!) - Maybe we need a few scattered throughout to gently encourage others to contribute; we could maintain THE list of red links on the progress page as you suggest. Slink pink (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the goal of listing every castle in Scotland is a great one – I’m all for aiming big.

As the original contributor of all those red links in D&G, it’s been instructive to see how few (if any) have made the transition to articles in the five years since I was last active here. However, I think some information is much better than none at all, even if it is just a photo and a grid reference, and I wouldn’t vote to get rid of any. As it stands, many of the red link entries in the list contain as much information as one would expect in a stub and effectively serve the same purpose.

We could perhaps get round the problem by having some entries (such as those with no remains) as plain text entries, as other lists do. That way we could still have the additional information without the stigma of the red link making the project look bad. That said, I don’t really feel it does make the project look bad; it’s just a reminder that this whole thing is a work in progress. All the same, I’ll try and convert D&G’s red links to stubs before adding any more to the list, and try and not leave it another five years. C1614 (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree

"The first castles were built in Scotland in the 11th and 12th centuries, with the introduction of Norman influence." What's a Broch if not a castle? Brendandh (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A good question. The broch article says they "belong to the classification "complex Atlantic roundhouse" ", and date from around the 1st century. Castles are a medieval type, originating around the 10th century in Europe, and arriving in Scotland with the Normans, so its unlikely that there was any continuity of architectural thought. There are certainly similarities in form and possibly function, but I don't think it is true to say that brochs are castles. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Inverwick Castle

I came accross this engraving on Commons:but cannot trace the castle, perhaps Scottish? Or perhaps this is an alternative name for Innerwick Castle? Pahazzard (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the picture you are almost certainly correct: Innerwick perches on a rock by a river and you can see the sea in the background. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Location - reference styles

So far, I've noticed a couple of different formats of location: Six/eight/ten-figure grid reference, e.g. NT168850 Coordinates, e.g. 056.34ºN 003.12ºW My order of preference is based on increasing accuracy:

• Six-figure reference
• Eight-figure reference (to replace six-figure ref)
• Ten-figure reference (to replace eight-figure ref)
• Ten-figure reference + Coordinates

Does anyone else have a preference? Also, some include a locality - should this be part of the standard format ? Slink pink (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

My preference would be for grid references (of whatever figure) over coordinates because that's what I'm more familiar with. However, as there's a fair amount of space in each of the text boxes I think including both would be a good idea. I've also come round to including a locality since I last posted on the subject way back in 2008 - again, as there's enough space I think including as much information as possible is worthwhile. C1614 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Split

This list is far too long (over 120KB), especially seeing that its almost entirely tables, with the only text being the few paras in the lead. "Well over two thousand castles" is too many to have in a single list, particularly as there aren't concrete criteria for inclusion (what makes a castle a castle?). Therefore, I suggest its split out to lists for each council area.

This article can then be more developed. For example, the Edinburgh section could start "{{main|List of castles in Edinburgh}} (pic of Edinburgh Castle) There are 8 castles in Edinburgh, which date from the 12th to the 17th centuries. The best known of these is Edinburgh Castle, which dominates the skyline of the city from its position on the Castle Rock...."

Once the area listings are split out, alternate listing (by date/type/current status etc) could also be provided.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - seems a good idea to me. Any possible advantages to having them all together are lessened by the fact that we already have separate tables for each authority, so we can't, for example, sort the whole list by name. In any case, most of the columns in the tables are not things we could usefully want to sort by. Even the date column is not usefully sortable because it mixes formats such as "1579", "13th century", "c. 1260". Deskford (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I have been thinking of suggesting this myself. It would make the list(s) much more manageable. I think it would be more useful to have descriptive text in the list articles, rather than on this page. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Incidentally, something beneficial (regardless of any split) would be some summary info. eg A table showing the number of castles in each area, possibly broken down further eg by date.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Splitting the list is a good idea. Is it as simple as taking the tables out and leaving the lead more or less as it is? One more thought: what's going to happen to this list of fictional castles? Nev1 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done

Ok I've done the split, giving the support here and lack of any opposition. As for further improvements:

1. The individual council area lists - the Cheshire and Greater Manchester lists are both featured, and are surely worth copying.
2. A summary table could be added here, ie a simple table showing number of castles by area, or number of castles by type by area.
3. Additional lists showing various other sub-sets. eg Royal castles, those in Historic Scotland and National Trust ownership, etc etc.
4. The fictional castles are probably worth retaining (Hogwarts is surely one of best-known "Scottish" castles after all!), and could be expanded by adding more (eg the castles in Brave). It also could be broadened in scope, to cover actual castles being used as locations for fictional ones (eg Castle Stalker) - or possibly that's a different section again :)

Those additional lists should make this article more viable again instead of just pointing through to the areas.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Good - I'm wondering if we should now consider merging what's left of this page into the Scottish castles page. --Deskford (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to see this page kept separate from castles in Scotland. I think readers might reasonably be expected to search for that term, and as long as there are clear links between the two articles so that people are signposted to more information which might be of interest (as the hat notes currently do) it's a good thing to have two separate pages.

As for the points Nilfanion raises

1. As well as the format for Cheshire and Greater Manchester, there's List of castles in Gloucestershire. The Glouc. list isn't sortable, unlike the other two examples, but I like the way the images are integrated into the table and the inclusion of a column for its current state is a very good idea. That's not the only way to do it of course, I'm just saying there are options.
2. I like the idea of the summary table.
3. I'm not sure how much work it would involve, but that's an excellent idea.
4. Sounds fair enough to me. Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In terms of formatting the split out lists, I've had a go at List of castles in West Lothian. Any thoughts welcome. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks spot on to me. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, looks pretty good. There is a bit of overloading in the Location column though: Location and grid ref and coordinates in one column? To reduce clutter, I'd suggest one of grid ref or coordinates (no personal preference). Furthermore, use a consistent and appropriate level of precision, IMO 6 fig grid refs or coords to 3 dp. Small text for the grid ref/coord would also help.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree but am always torn between the two systems: coords are more 'wiki-friendly', mainly since you can use {{GeoGroup}}; but grid ref is more user-friently, certainly for UK readers. Will try using small text... Thanks for the encouragement! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead image...

From my perspective, the current image seems okay as a lead image - it fills the space nicely, illustrates many of the points in the article well. I'd be inclined to argue that we keep it, unless a particularly better one can be found. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the Criagievar image clearly shows architectural features and the lighting is better. I have just reverted GreigBrash's edit - I hope they will now leave the image in place while the matter is discussed. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a few images on this page, though I feel the nature of this article is a bit unclear since the split. Its effectively a placeholder, and the content is presented better at Scottish castles. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of castles in Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108214513/http://www.castlexplorer.co.uk/maps.php to http://www.castlexplorer.co.uk/maps.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)