Talk:Edinburgh/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, –Davey2010^Talk 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

I think Nicknames of Edinburgh should be merged with Etymology of Edinburgh. Klein zach 07:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge —Cote d'Azur (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

... 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)

@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 (Scots: Edinburgh) 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)

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)

Yes. IWI (chat) 21:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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_creep^Talk 14:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Support It is another housing estate. Not particularly notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
As it has been close to a month and most comments support the merger, I have merged the content to the Gogar article. Coldupnorth (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Two "Edinburgh" Wikipaedia articles

To keep it simple, I recommend that only one article covers both topics, with a comment on the difference and a map outlining the differences. Haggisloon (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

You are absolutely right, they are completely different and it's not clear. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

Yes this is a well laid-out argument. Two things I would add to be considered: we will really have to do the same for Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow (although only Aberdeen has much territory beyond what one would normally consider the 'city' environment itself), and we will have a *lot* of links to distinguish, some wil be obvious but not others, so I don't think it's something a bot or script could do (albeit these are areas of magic and mystery to me, smarter people may known ways round it). Crowsus (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It would also be good to name the articles with the real names of the councils. For example, "Aberdeen City Council", "The city of Edinburgh Council" and so, not "Edinburgh (council area)". Sometimes it's confusing people but it's like that, we can't change the names. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Those names you mentioned are already articles, referring to the legislative bodies. Crowsus (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the other 3 cities, Dundee's boundaries are very similar to the settlement, Aberdeen's aren't hugely different and there was a dispute about if some places were villages or suburbs so that suggests not splitting and Glasgow's are also largely the same but don't include all of the wider urban area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems a logical proposal and I would support the split. Coldupnorth (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - this proposition is contrary to the standards that are becoming more and more popular in he world. The issue of administrative boundaries has a local level, for everyone else, the most important thing is the city / metropolis as total, not artificial creations like council area. Of course, i don't mind creating an article of "City of Edinburgh (council area)" but for only bureaucracy, not for split or merge. For example, see standards in Australian articles: Sydney is metropolis, article has all informations abiut metropolis; article of City of Sydney (council area) - only politican informations like Council, elections, mayor etc. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I would not object to the council's physical entity being in the same article as the existing City of Edinburgh Council article on its legislation, but we would probably need a further discussion on what it should be called if it's covering both (some Scottish councils have separate articles for the geography and the functions, others don't). Crowsus (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Support but just use City of Edinburgh like City of Carlisle etc. The boundaries are certainly different and distinct enough per WP:UKDISTRICTS, which although applies to England it passes these tests. The population of the locality in 2020 (estimate) was 506,560 and area 118.5 km² while that of the council area was 527,620 and 263.7 km². It also has boundary changes in 1975. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Good point, the 1996 area uses the same boundaries as the 1975 district and is essentially a continuation, so it would make sense for references to that entity to point to this new article if it were created (it currently points to the Politics of Edinburgh overview). Crowsus (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes this is standard where the district (in England) uses the post 1974 boundaries while the settlement deals with the older (former) district which often became an unparished area or civil parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Support splitting makes sense its already done with lots of English cities like City of Leeds/Leeds and City of Sheffield/Sheffield and Carlisle like Crouch, Swale mentioned. I'd be reluctant to split Glasgow and Dundee because their boundaries don't go beyond the built-up area. Eopsid (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Crowsus: Regarding you're changes of Aberdeen City, Dundee City, City of Edinburgh and earlier Glasgow City I'd point out the the settlement articles Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow deal with the council area its self while the council article deals with the council so the redirects should probably go to the settlements as standard unless we create articles on the council areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, as I put in the edit summaries, that doesn't make much sense IMO. Someone looking for Edinburgh itself will type Edinburgh, so if they type Edinburgh City and are looking for the council area which Edinburgh covers they will have to wade through a huge amount of information to find it; at best, the redirect should be to a relevant section of the primary article (although none has a particularly good explanation of the differences that may exit between the city and the council area), but I still maintain the council body is a more useful link and a more logical direction from someone using that search term - even if they were looking for the city itself, it's not going to be much of a bother to click the link to it, whereas the opposite is less true. 12:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Crowsus (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose We are perfectly capable of describing the details of the council area in this article without splitting to a separate one. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't the best option be to include information on the council area on the City of Edinburgh Council article, perhaps as a section? That article needs a tidy-up and expansion anyway and this could perhaps be done in a way that makes the council article about both the area and the body.CPClegg (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. The two areas are coterminous and there is no need for separate articles, which will generate unnecessary duplication and confusion. Elshad (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
They aren't, Queensferry is clearly a separate settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Not to disrespect the ongoing nature of the discussion, but there doesn't seem to be a clear preference either way on this. I have boldly added a section on the geography of the council area here in the council article in the hope it might serve the intended purpose and satisfy the majority, but obviously it could be amended or binned if not. Cheers, Crowsus (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding boundary changes see User:Crouch, Swale/Scottish districts, the article should be for the post 1975 district formed from merging Queensferry, Kirkliston and part of Winchburgh however since there were no changed in 1996 we don't need separate articles from the reforms in 1996 as there weren't any changes, see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts#Reconstituted districts so yes it would deal with from 1975-present. This is different to Glasgow (district) that had changes in 1975 and 1996 hence why we have a 1975-1996 article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Edinburgh Calton Hill.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Other sports section - Edinburgh Tigers basketball team

The Edinburgh Tigers basketball team article (Lothian League Division 1, Founded 1992) needs sources to establish notability. Currently there are zero references. Created on 17 September 2010‎, it may need updates as well. I did search for sources and cannot find anything online about the team. So I'm asking for help here. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

ω Awaiting - any help finding reliable sources for Edinburgh Tigers basketball team article?. To remain published it needs in-depth sources to establish notability. If not, Proposed deletion" is the next step. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)