Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Edinburgh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reply
Line 371: Line 371:


:You are absolutely right, they are completely different and it's not clear. [[User:Loiseaulybre|L'Oiseau Lybre]] ([[User talk:Loiseaulybre|talk]]) 17:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:You are absolutely right, they are completely different and it's not clear. [[User:Loiseaulybre|L'Oiseau Lybre]] ([[User talk:Loiseaulybre|talk]]) 17:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
::There is merit in what you say and if it could avert [[Talk:Jupiter Artland#Meaning of "Edinburgh"|this sort of dispute]], that would be a boon. [[User:Mutt Lunker|Mutt Lunker]] ([[User talk:Mutt Lunker|talk]]) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:44, 29 December 2021

Former good article nomineeEdinburgh was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
February 17, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
April 15, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
October 8, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

Does anyone actually say "Embra"?

A contributor wanted to add "Embra" as a nickname for Edinburgh to the page's infobox. I reverted this, perhaps unfairly, on the ground that the current names shown appear in print, whereas "Embra" seems to be modern slang (correct me if I'm wrong) and therefore not of similar status. It didn't help that the contributor ditched "Edina" as part of the same edit. I grew up near the Edina Printworks and was/am therefore familiar with Edina Street and Edina Place. I must admit, however, that I've never heard the name (coined, I believe, by Burns in one his more pretentious moments) pass anyone's lips, and it does seem obsolete today, if indeed it ever had any currency. "Auld Reekie", on the other hand, is historical and found in many printed sources, as is "Athens of the North" which still occurs in tourist and promotional literature. The question is, should "Embra" be added to the end of the list along with the bracketed gloss [mod. slang]? Does anyone out there actually say it? It could be that I am as out of touch as the judge who once famously asked, "Who are the Beatles?" Kim Traynor | Talk 01:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just remembered Robert Fergusson uses the phrase "Edina's Roses" for the town's sewage smells in his poem "Auld Reekie", so that lets Rabbie off the hook. Kim Traynor | Talk 01:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Embra (and Embro) appear in Etymology of Edinburgh and Nicknames of Edinburgh. Also the two terms are discussed in Archives 1 and 2. Judging by a quick Google search, these names don't appear to be in common use.77.99.106.6 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's helpful. There's nothing in the archived discussions to convince anyone that this supposed nickname should be added. One contributor refers to it as a phonetic rendering of what one hears when (some of) the natives say the city's name. Kim Traynor | Talk 14:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Digging deeper - a search for Embra within http://www.scotslanguage.com/site/search gives 219 hits. The implication is that Embra is the Scots name for Edinburgh, not just a nickname. In this context, Glesga is Scots for Glasgow, Lithga is Scots for Linlithgow etc.77.99.106.6 (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I'd like to test that out on Scots from Shetland to Galloway before recognising it as a valid name. (For some reason the scotslanguage website is not displaying in my browser.) "Glesga" is certainly familiar, but not "Lithga". I was there recently and heard a couple of locals saying what sounded like "Lithgie". Kim Traynor | Talk 13:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the link. Just use the search box on www.scotslanguage.com. I share your scepticism and it appears to me that The Scots Language Centre is promoting Scots pronunciation of names from who knows where, as you suggest it could be anywhere from Shetland to Galloway, as the Scots name for places. Other examples are Fawkirk for Falkirk and Dawkeith for Dalkeith. In all the books I've looked at over the years, Maitland, Arnot etc., I can't recall seing Embra or Embro. They sound like I might pronounce Edinburgh after a few pints in Middleton's.77.99.106.6 (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my scepticism grows by the minute. I worked in Dalkeith for decades and never heard any Scots language speakers there call it "Dawkeith"! Sounds more like the name of a resident. I think "Dolkeith", as opposed to "Dalkeith" is meant. Middleton's? Ah, memories. Must be full right now with all those Hibs supporters drowning their sorrows. Kim Traynor | Talk 14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone following this exchange, I have reverted another attempt to put "Embra" (and "Edinburrae") on the page alongside "Edinburgh" and "Dùn Èideann". The contribution was sourced from a website which promotes the Scots language and gives a list of phonetic renderings of place names. Some of these are highly dubious, e.g. "Halyruid" (clearly historical - I could just as well add 16th-century spellings like "Edinbro" and "Edinburrow" to the page). The same list gives "Berrick" as the Scots form of "Berwick", thus implying that English people say Ber-wick!). Since this website clearly has an agenda I believe its material is not wholly reliable or credible, I have reverted the page so that it states only the unequivocal Scottish-English and Gaelic forms of the city's name, both historically and in the present. Kim Traynor | Talk 18:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further to above, another contributor has emailed to say, "You asked, Does anyone actually say "Embra"? Answer, a few do but this is street slang in the same way as Glaswegians are referred to as 'Weegies'!" Kim Traynor | Talk 10:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the Etymology section

The Etymology section is not clear.

In my understanding the etymology of "Eidyn/Eiddyn/Edin" is still under discussion. If it refers to:

  • a place, the meaning of Edinburgh is: The castle/fort at Edin
  • a person, the meaning of Edinburgh is: Edin’s castle/fort

--77.13.157.155 (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in the "Other Sports" paragraph

In the sentence "The city also organises a half-marathon, as well as 10 km (3.1 miles) and 5 km (3.1 mi) races, including a 5 km (3 miles) race on 1 January each year." there seems to be an inconsistency regarding the distances!? Looks like the miles values are wrong.

I've fixed it, assuming the Km values are correct; it looks like someone duplicated the text for the shorter run and didn't update the distance in both places. Barefootliam (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Heritage Site Infobox

There seems to be a problem caused by the World Heritage Site Infobox. "Old and New Towns of Edinburgh" has appeared as the leading text since the Infobox was introduced.77.99.106.6 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golf

The page makes no reference to golf at all.

That seems an omission. --Z o l t a r (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 26 external links on Edinburgh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Edinburgh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Edinburgh. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tram content removal

An IP has been removing the tram section in this article[1][2] stating the content is at Edinburgh Trams[3] however having looked at said article most of the sources (and some content) isn't in the Tram article at all,
So instead of the edit warring I would like to get opinions on whether the removal is fine or whether the content should be merged in to the Tram article,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this into a discussion. I believe the main tram article covers all the main issues surrounding the construction problems and the main Edinburgh article should cover the main points about the tram operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Edinburgh. 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:

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) 23:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edinburgh. 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:

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) 15:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edinburgh. 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:

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) 08:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edinburgh. 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:

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) 10:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edinburgh. 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:

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) 13:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the correct updates and corrections. FF-UK (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edinburgh. 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:

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) 00:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Nicknames of Edinburgh

Nicknames of Edinburgh could be a section in the main article Polyamorph (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. wikitigresito (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nicknames of Edinburgh should be merged with Etymology of Edinburgh. Kleinzach 07:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate the "Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region" article

Hell all, so the Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region article was blanked and made into a redirect last year because at that time no research was done and I am seeking consensus for its recreation. Some examples of current sources:

Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate data lacking

As I'm seeing if it could be possible to assemble some kind of European climate table, I wish someone could add the most important row to the climate table for Edinburgh, the Daily mean - for each of the months and annual. (Neither Glasgow has this information). To use average high + average low divided by two, is not safe at all. Tables for other cities reveals that. Currently I've noted Daily mean for 18 other European cities, all of our articles on them (including London, Dublin and Manchester) indeed has a such row in the table. The location around 55th latitude needs to be compared to for instance Copenhagen and Moscow (which I personally find very interesting) etc... It would be an improvement of the article too. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgher?

Is this term really in notable use as a demonym? The main thrust in the source given is to make a lame pun about burgers, so is not concerned about reflecting accuracy regarding the currency of the term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search gives 1,117,000 for "Glaswegian" compared to 48,500 for "Edinburgher". The Edinburgher figure in Google search terms is almost zero. Also, the Google ngram clearly shows that, despite the occasional attempts to claim Edinburgher is appropriate, over a long period it has been rarely used and has never been accepted. It definitely has never been popular.82.37.141.26 (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely gets used, but not often. Here are recent instances of it in the Scotsman and The Evening News, newspapers published in Edinburgh. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are 48,500 Google hits indicates that Edinburgher is used but extremely rarely. If one investigates these hits it will be seen that there is no agreement that Edinburgher is the demonym with several alternatives put forward. The Google ngram shows that over the years Glaswegian has become more and more popular and common whereas Edinburgher has trundled along never becoming popular.82.37.141.26 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are the alternatives you mention? Unfortunately, counting Google hits and ngram don't decide anything. And ngram suggests that "Glaswegian" is becoming more and more popular, then I'd question anything it suggested. Glaswegian has always been the demonym for Glasgow. Are you sure it's not just a reflection of the internet growing? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not disputed that the term is used. The point raised by Mutt Lunker is whether that use is notable. Here is a Google ngram for the four main Scottish cities plus Manchester and Liverpool. This shows that, at least for publications digitised by Google (and it is difficult to visualise broader evidence of usage}, unlike the other cities, Edinburgher flatlines at negligible use. As a specific example, in 2008, Dundonian appears ten times more than Edinburgher despite the fact that a similar ngram shows that Edinburgh appears ten times more than Dundee, a combined factor of one to a hundred. It is all too easy to suffix Edinburgh with "er" and claim it is a demonym but the evidence is that it is not broadly accepted or used and is not notable. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Edinburgher%2CGlaswegian%2CAberdonian%2CDundonian%2CMancunian%2CLiverpudlian&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=18&smoothing=10&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CEdinburgher%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGlaswegian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAberdonian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CDundonian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CMancunian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLiverpudlian%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CEdinburgher%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGlaswegian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAberdonian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CDundonian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CMancunian%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLiverpudlian%3B%2Cc0 82.32.158.226 (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Scots: Edinburgh"

The mention in the lead of "Edinburgh" in Scots is redundant as it is the same as English. This is a general accepted standard (e.g. Madrid, Paris, Berlin, Aberystwyth) and should be removed, but Mutt Lunker stopped me. IWI (chat) 19:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all similarly non-analogous examples in that they indicate what the spelling is in the non-English version of the name, that this is the same as in English but by noting the IPA pronunciation, that it is nonetheless pronounced differently from English in these examples. But it does make a note of what that name is in the other language. It is evidently pertinent to note the Scots name for the city described in this article but in this instance, both spelling and pronunciation are the same so the IPA would be identical. Perhaps that is an acceptable way to note it. To leave out a note of the Scots name effectively assumes that this would be identical to English in every example, which is not always so, or at least there are notable alternative names in many examples. So the choice would be listing the same pronunciation in parentheses after the same spelling, noting the same spelling alone, as now, or some third solution that hasn’t yet occurred to us yet; omission of the info altogether is deficient and as noted in my edit summary, invites the regular re-addition of jokey vernacular pronunciation spellings as the supposed normal term in Scots. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... i.e. the examples you give likewise actively note the fact that the spelling is the same but in a way that can not be applied, exactly, to this example. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mutt Lunker: As I said, I totally understand your viewpoint, but the fact that humorous versions are added is not a reason to go against a standard, maybe add a warning against it. If we imagine there is no Gaelic or pronunciation in the brackets, then we would have this:

Edinburgh (Template:Lang-sco) is the capital city of Scotland...

which frankly looks absurd. There is no reason have it there and it clogs the lead sentence unnecessarily. If I go by your "peripheral humorous" argument, it would appear that you are making edits for the editor (i.e. so we don't have to keep reverting) when we should be making them for the reader. IWI (chat) 20:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come up with a better solution for providing the information then. Do not blank it. If the article provides no information as to the name in Scots, how is anyone to know whether the term is the same or whether it has simply been omitted? To provide the information is surely less absurd than leaving everyone in the dark. Mutt Lunker (talk)

Should the German spelling be removed at Basel on similar grounds that it is the same as English? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. IWI (chat) 21:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now. Re "silly", how's the proposal going down at Basel? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Include Forth Bridge World Heritage site in World Heritage Site Infobox

title says it all - Forth Bridge is a WHS and is partly within Edinburgh Council area. If one of the UNESCO sites is included, so should the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camali2003 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinned cities

•I can't find any other references to Segovia as a twinned city with Edinburgh than the Impulse one shown in this article. This does not seem to be a reliable source so I propose deleting Segovia.

•I can find no source for Kathmandu as a twinned city for Edinburgh. Unless there is a reliable source,I propose deleting this too.

•In a New York Times article in 2012 (https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/arts/18iht-sulcas18.html), St.Petersburg was described as "Edinburgh was twinned with St. Petersburg for a while in the 1990s.." So St. Petersburg is no longer a twinned city. I propose deleting St. Petersburg as well.

SylviaStanley (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House of Commons picture

The removal of the superfluous House of Commons picture did not justify @Goodreg3:'s IP's re-additions of their entire edit, with its accompanying unhelpful removal of sub-section headings and links to main articles. My intent had been to restore the governance section's sub-headings etc. without the picture. Thanks @Certes: for implementing what I had intended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Of Edinburgh

Should we add a new post in the leader's section as "Duke" and write in Prince Charles? GucciNuzayer (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks. - Seasider53 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of West Town Edinburgh into Edinburgh

I might be a bit of deletionist/mergist/etc., but a specific neighborhood or housing development is usually quite overly specific. This is particularly true when they are not yet in existence. However, I'm a bit reluctant to nominate the stub, since it's *just* that high-quality enough. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I dream of horses, I made this page after seeing a story shared on Facebook, which had attracted considerable interest in the comments. I don't think merging would be beneficial because of the considerable size of Edinburgh already. Even with WP:CRYSTAL in mind, I feel there has been enough interest in this development and over a long enough time frame (here's an article from 2019) that it warrants its own article. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Keep. I believe sufficient notability is established and agree with Nemesis AT above. I would also say that if there is a preference for a merger, it would be better into the Ingliston article. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can sufficiently notability achieved, when they are building about 12-14 of these in Scotland, in the central belt, that I know of when I drive past them in the morning going to work. This is the only has been report in the last years, mainly due to its size. The others were missed due to covid reporting. The size is not unusual. scope_creepTalk 14:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient notability is achieved IMO because there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. 12-14 of something existing does not disqualify it from having an article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, how is 14 articles a problem? NemesisAT (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because as you say, its the size here. This isn't 2 houses on a side street... It's 7,000 homes, which is bigger than most large villages in Scotland. Its bigger than nearby South Queensferry or Kirkliston! It also not just local news sources but is now reaching national news verifiable sources such as the Times, see Significant Coverage under Wikipedia:Notability. I agree not all housing estates are inherently notable but this one is mammoth. It will have a significant effect on the wider Edinburgh and West Lothian area. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is another housing estate. Not particularly notable. scope_creepTalk 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There will be a case for this as a separate article once the estate's completed. Right now, despite some press attention, I'm not convinced it's notable enough to justify a separate page. The concern about size isn't really relevant as all the current page would need is a sentence or two to acknowledge West Town among planned developments.CPClegg (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think removing verifiable content would benefit our readers. Why merge the article, only for it to be recreated when further coverage becomes available? NemesisAT (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, maybe we could merge the existing content and its references into the Ingilston article, as this is the local area? I think merging it into the Edinburgh article would be disproportionate and would involve losing some of the details, where as the entire content could move to the Ingilston page. Coldupnorth (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move at least until construction starts, but would back it being into Ingliston rather than Edinburgh as suggested above - or could I also add Gogar into the consideration as a possible destination, it seems to be the closer place to the majority of the development, Ingliston itself being on the other side of the airport...? Crowsus (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, I would support the article content moving to Gogar as the most appropriate solution for now. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split into "Edinburgh" and "City of Edinburgh (council area)"

I would suggest that it may be worth splitting the article, with the current article remaining about “Edinburgh” - the actual city - and the content regarding “City of Edinburgh (council area)” being moved. These are different areas, the latter being much larger and taking in separate towns such as South Queensferry and Kirkliston. The lead sentence of the article expresses the confusion around the topic of the article best when it says: “Edinburgh is the capital city of Scotland and one of its 32 council areas.” No council area is capital of Scotland, only a city - Edinburgh. To use the earlier example of South Queensferry, it is no more within the capital of Scotland than a town 100 miles from Edinburgh. I suggest as an example the fact that “London” (being the city) and Greater London (being the administrative area) are different articles. Essentially the crux of it is that Edinburgh ≠ the larger council area within which it is located - it is simply the principle settlement therein. FJDEACKB (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, they are completely different and it's not clear. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is merit in what you say and if it could avert this sort of dispute, that would be a boon. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F1062642397