[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Perth, Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Is Perth a city?

[edit]

Is Perth a city? This article consistently refers to it as being such, but the Scotland article states that there are 6 cities in Scotland, and Perth is not among them. Does Perth have a cathedrale? The nomenclature should be consistent. 129.234.4.10 02:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perth is the former capital of Scotland and, like Brechin, one of the Scottish settlements which have been cities since Time Immemorial. Its alternative title is The Fair City. It was always thought of as a city until the Government decided to change the legislation on cities a few years ago and make an official list of Government approved cities on which it does not appear. Now it is a former city, (like Brechin or Rochester). -- Derek Ross 09:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

i'm going to respond to your answer, 129.234.4. yes, Perth does have a cathedral situated at the corner of Athol Street and Dunkeld Road and it should have city status. so should, Elgin, St Andrews, Brechin, Dunfermline and Paisley. i'm against the pro-PC way of thinking. if there is anyone you should blame for Perth's loss of city status, look no further than the Scottish Government. they decide which places became cities or not with or without cathedrals. i would in my opinion, start referring Perth as a city and tell others to do so. 80.192.80.184 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a resident in Perth, it does tend to be known as a town now rather than a city on most maps, though some still say it is a city. I'd personally say its a town. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. It was a city and is again from 2012. Seamusalba (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! So it should be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to Perth for winning this official city status. It seems clear that Perth has long been considered by many to be a city. Nevertheless, I feel that the opening statement of this section must be clarified. I have therefore added a tag to request clarification of the claim that Perth has been historically considered a city (purely to meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability) and has been "since time immemorial". The phrase time immemorial comes from English law and has no meaning in Scotland: it is defined as being any time before 1189, the beginning of the reign of Richard I. This meaning would not fit here, since Perth was not even a burgh at that time, and certainly would not have been called a city by anyone. I suggest that the sentence be re-worded. The claim that the place was historically considered a city needs to be supported by references or should be removed. Alfrew (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection of Perth

[edit]

Why has Perth been redirected here? I thought it was fine as a disambig page, or if it should go to a particular city, Perth, Australia would be the best choice? The fact that there are differences in opinion about this should mean that no one city should have preference in this case. --Chuq 01:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It was decided (by others, not by me) early on in Wikipedia to place a disambiguation page at Perth, rather than having the Australian city there, since the Scotland city was what all the other cities were named after. But to redirect Perth to Perth, Scotland is ludicrous. My city is approximately 27 times the size of the Scotland town. While disambiguating links to Perth the other day, out of over 100 links, I only found about 5 or 6 which were meant to link to the Scottish town. - Mark 04:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
After complaints on #Wikipedia (and some application of common sense), I redirected Perth to Perth (disambiguation), which leaves us in the same situation as before, but with a redirect in the middle. When people type in "Perth", they probably mean the state capital of 1.4 million in Australia, not some relatively small "former city" in Scotland. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That depends very much upon the people concerned. When some type in Perth, they mean the former capital of an independent nation, a settlement with over 2000 years of history which has seen royal assassination, religious strife, military occupation, and has featured in literature more than once, rather than some recent settlement where nothing much has happened since its foundation and whose chief claim to fame is that it is the capital of a large but -- to put it mildly -- sparsely populated state, most of whose population is to be found in the settlement itself. Put it that way and it looks ludicrous to redirect Perth anywhere but Perth, Scotland
But let's face it, there are plenty of ways to be rude about either of the Perths and no call for them to be used. Disambiguation is the best answer from an NPOV. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:12, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
There has been a disambiguation page there for over two and half years. I don't want to redirect Perth to Perth, Australia, I just want it back the way it was. - Mark 05:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, Mark. -- Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 05:41, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
I can't let that "ludicrous" statement go without comment.
Look, Mark disambiguated about 150 links to Perth. About 5 were to the one in Scotland, the rest to the large city in Australia. Saying that it would be ludicrous to redirect to what was intended by 97% of actual ambigous links is just silly. Redirects are for getting people to the article they want, and most people don't want the Perth in Scotland.
I'm not arguing against the disambiguation. It's just that doing the wrong thing for not very good reasons bothers me.-- Cyrius|✎ 06:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, fine. I thought that the original disambiguation was appropriate since both cities are important in different ways and I had nothing to do with changing it to point to Perth, Scotland. My use of "ludicrous" was merely a rhetorical device, counterpointing Mark's original use to demonstrate its POV nature.
The reason that so few ambiguous Perth links were to Perth, Scotland was partly that I, and other Scots, knew about the ambiguity and had already pre-emptively disambiguated most of the Perth, Scotland links and partly that the Perth, Australia article contains a great deal more geographical detail than the Perth, Scotland, and thus is referenced more. There are currently about 75 pages linking to Perth, Scotland and about 300 pages linking to Perth, Australia, so the ratio for all links is nowhere near the 97% which you have stated for the ambiguous links. I don't know how low the ratio has to be before you stop thinking it "ludicrous" to redirect Perth to Perth, Scotland. However I am sure that if I spent as much time writing about Perth, Scotland as Mark and other Australians have done writing about Perth, Australia, I could reach that figure. (Not that I'm going to. It would be pointless since I don't believe that the relative importance of the two cities can be solely determined by the number of links to their articles.)
And while we are speculating about what "most" people want when they search for Perth, I would guess that most people looking for historical information about Perth, want the Scottish city, whereas most people looking for geographical information want the Australian city but I don't think that it is so cut and dried that we can make assumptions about what people do or do not want. That is why I, for one, prefer that Perth points to the disambiguation page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:21, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
I didn't say it was ludicrous to redirect to the city in Scotland. You said it was ludicrous to redirect anywhere else.
I'm well aware that it was Mark who made the first claim, not you. I'm also well aware that I didn't say what you claim I did. I said that the the argument could be phrased to make the redirection elsewhere look ludicrous but I certainly didn't say that the redirection elsewhere was ludicrous. I merely wished to demonstrate that its ludicrousness was a matter of opinion; not a matter of objective fact.-- Derek Ross | Talk
Redirects are not about importance. Redirects are about getting people to the page they want. Redirecting to the one in Scotland would reduce the number of people getting to the article they wanted, especially before the correction of ambiguous links.
I am not arguing against the disambiguation page. I just couldn't take you calling redirecting to the apparently more popular page "ludicrous". -- Cyrius|✎ 20:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's always been obvious to me that you are not arguing against the disambiguation page. We all agree that the disambiguation page is required. But I'm surprised that you thought that I said redirection elsewhere was ludicrous. As I explained above, I didn't say that it was, so there's no need to worry. My only point was that the word "ludicrous" shouldn't have been used in the first place. Please read what I said more carefully and you will see that for yourself, I hope. Derek Ross | Talk 06:11, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
I took your statement "looks ludicrous to redirect Perth anywhere but Perth, Scotland" on its face, and not as a rhetorical device. I'm pretty sure now that we've been arguing about nothing.
Redirecting to Perth, Scotland is the wrong thing to do, but is not ludicrous. The same goes for the one in Australia. On the other hand, one can say redirecting to Perth, New York is ludicrous with some confidence. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's shake hands and move on to more productive work. -- Cheers, Derek Ross | Talk 07:13, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
Just give me a few days to find my remote hand-shaking hardware... -- Cyrius|✎ 07:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the disambiguation page to Perth, where it was originally. - Mark 11:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course Perth, Western Australia should be the main topic, unless there is a bigger city with as much if not more influence?


Perth Scotland influenced the naming of the Australian city. Its the essentiasl meaning of the word which derives from Scottish languages. Seamusalba (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dab Perth

[edit]

Hi all just wanted to let you know that i've been dabbing Perth, the list is now below 50 will have it down to hopefully just this page by end month. My appologies if i've dabbed the wrong way let me know i'll fix Gnangarra 13:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Stupid

[edit]

I agree that a search on Perth alone should show all centres with the name PERTH whether they are 200 years old or whether they have a population of 2,000,000 or 2.

But what I cant fathom is when time is spent correcting links from the disambiguation page to the article that is object of the link people are going back and removing the disambiguation. Gnangarra 14:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perth - The Name

[edit]

I know its a sore point with some Editors that other centres are also called Perth.

Given that all of these centres have for various reason been named after the fair city should it be a topic within the article that its the origin of the name for all these other centres. As the other centres acknowledge their naming origins can Perth not take pride in its legacy to other parts of the world. Gnangarra 13:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth should it be a sore point? I'm sure that those other places were named by people who had fond memories of Perth. Naturally Perth takes pride in those other Perths founded in its name. The Perth page contains this information, although not as prominently as it used to, and I think that it would be an excellent idea to add a paragraph on this to the current article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig - Alexanders

[edit]

Hi I was reading your article and noticed that Alexander links go to disambig pages suggest someone who knows more about the articles check the links, Then consider putting it forward for FAC Gnangarra 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City?

[edit]

Perth is no longer a city, but PRESTON is? What gives?! Wikipedia should treat it as such --MacRusgail 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then Wikipedia would be wrong, and that would be besides the point. Preston is, after all, thrice the size of Perth. Erath 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Preston may well be bigger, but has neither centuries of historical precedent, nor the same kind of role as a regional centre. --MacRusgail 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, blame the government for that. Perth will always be the Fair City to you and me but the bureaucrats do not agree with us. Wikipedia is just reporting the sad situation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we have everything dictated to us by such penpushers who stick Caithness, Shetland and Orkney in the Highlands, and leave Argyll and parts of north Perthshire out of it?! I think it says it all. I think nearly all Scots think of it as a "city", so wikipedia should reflect that. --MacRusgail 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. As far as I'm concerned, Scotland has four cities and Perth isn't one of them. Marks87 11:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Aberdeen, Perth, Brechin and ... what was the other one again, <grin> ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should reflect what IS not what we would wish things to be. Perth is, officially, not a city, nor does it have a city or town council and therefore has no corporate existence so we have to say that. We can of course state that unofficially and in popular usage it is regarded as a city.
Exile 13:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! It seems Alex Salmond wants to make Perth into a city. Lurker 13:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets hope this type of nationalistic idiocy is stopped. I was brought up in Perth and lived there the majority of my days and it has never been a city. Cities are determined by size and value. Perth is a historic footnote to what a city used to be. Let it go. Tsanuri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.97.232 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to BBC News 24, 6 June 2007, 19:38 GMT 20:38, Scotland might get a third city, in addition to Inverness and Stirling, without either defined boundaries or local authority council. Seems crazy to me. Laurel Bush (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This is not a disussion forum, please do not use it as one. Lurker (said · done) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said "Drives me crazy". Recent issues of city letters patent (for Inverness and Stirling) create problems as regards what an article about a city might really be about, and as regards use of statistics about cities. If a city lacks boundaries, or any sense of boundaries is very context dependent, then there are tricky decisions to be made as regards whether to use or how to qualify statistics. This seems often to be an issue ignored by other editors, with statistics being quoted without clear regard to original context and as if all statistics within a particlular city article must be about the same area and directly comparable with similar statistics about other cities, whether or not those other cities have clearly defined boundaries.
Some 'official' statistics about Inverness as a city seem actually to be about the entire Highland local authority area. Others seem to be about a 'contiguous urban area', such that boundaries will change as and when population densities change (making comparisons over time very tricky). Yet others may be about the Highland Council's 'city management area', which excludes part of the contiguous urban area and includes a very extensive sparsely populated rural area.
And how is this for a piece of official fudge?
Official sources can be very tempting. Also, they can be very unreliable/misleading, and seem to become increasingly so.
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

i support Perth becoming a city again and let's hope it retains the status

Personal support for the idea of Perth becoming a city is utterly irrelevant to article content. Laurel Bush (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]


Personal views as to the merits of policies are utterly irrelevant to an article content, but when there brought up on a talk page, all contributers are equally at fault for sharing their opinions. Seamusalba (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From 2012. perth has returned to being a city. Seamusalba (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-historic origins

[edit]

From where comes the pre-historic dating of 7000 BC? It is somewhat odd to me, as I was teached other things at school on European pre-history (of course I might be teached wrong :-)).

Also the wording of the sentence "The name derives from a Pictish word ..." is confusing me. It is probably the name of the city but why it is not in the overview section then. -- Goldie (tell me) 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were hunter-gatherers in the area by then, as shown by several finds of flint tools in the town, but the boat seems to be later and I've not found any references to a Perth hut or midden excavation. A site at Crail shows occupation around 7500 BC, not too far away. Have reorganised the naming into a separate section for clarity, hope that helps. ..dave souza, talk 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Enchanted Kingdom?

[edit]

I've lived in Perth all my life (37yrs) but I've never seen or heard Perth called that. Anybody clarify? Grievous Angel 15:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither (albeit I'm a Glaswegian with a passing interest). Erath 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you guys. I'm removing the text until someone comes up with a reference. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle Code

[edit]

The vehicle code is given as Glasgow (SA-SJ). I suspect this is incorrect, and is Dundee (SP-ST) that is the correct code for Perth.

  • Fixed

Loswa

[edit]

Does anybody know where (or perhaps what) "Loswa" was/is in Perth (or perhaps Perthshire)?

I've found it as some kind of place in an old text, but it does't seem to appear on modern maps, and Google isn't much help either. It is possible it is mis-spelt, as the text is from 1851. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say a bit more about the context in which it was mentioned? I have a few older books and maps. It could even be an acronym for something. Grievous Angel (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's given as a place of birth for someone, as "Loswa, Perth, Scotland" exactly. Perth in this instance may mean the County of Perth, but even so, I've never heard of it and can't find it Perth or Perthshire. It doesn't even look like a particularly Scottish place, so I'm really confused with this one. I'd be eternally greatful if someone cracks this! -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'd forgotten all about this. No conclusive answer for you from me. I think we can rule out a place name. My best guess would be Lands of Scone…something? Welfare Association, maybe? Note, this is pure guess work! If someone was really poor they might have been born directly into the care of the "poorhouse". A portion of the Lands of Scone were given to provide income for the destitute in Perth. Grievous Angel (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges

[edit]

"Eastbound vehicles are not permitted to make a right turn onto Bridgend's Gowrie Street" This information may be correct but is it really relevant to an encyclodepia entry? 161.12.7.4 (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For someone wanting to do it, maybe. - Dudesleeper Talk 12:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the info about 5th bridge in light of the successful bid by Sustrans for Lottery funding.Auntie suze (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

I noticed there was a shuffle today in trying to move Perth, Scotland to Perth, Perth and Kinross. It is convention to use the style "PLACENAME, COUNCIL AREA" for Scottish places, but the guidelines do permit the excercise of commonsense and rare exceptions. The article may be one of those instances that an exception is made, perhaps?? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any particular need for an exception. The only reason for the current title is to diambiguate against Perth, Western Australia and the new title would do that just as well. I think it would be a sensible move. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong view on this one. The convention (which I freely admit to revamping for UK places) is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). I don't have particularly strong views on this particular article myself, but think that those involved with the shuffle yesterday may have. I'm happy whatever the consensus may be here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, <grin>. I don't think that the title matters that much either but given the choice... Anyway, now that I have seen who the two "movers" were, I can believe that this might well be one more case of British Nationalists vs Scottish Nationalists, although why the title of this article would matter to either side beats me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to Ross's vile slander, it has nothing to do with nationalism; and I'm neither a British nor a Scottish nationalist, as anyone who actually knew me would tell you. Perth, Perth and Kinross, is just a stupid name like Dumfries, Dumfries and Galloway would be, or Bute, Argyll and Bute. Hard to believe, Ross? These regions are generally stupid, made up a few years ago by some thoughtless pen-pushers; using them in titles just makes me cringe. I've written about this topic lots of times. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite correct, they do indeed sound silly. However I wouldn't generally include cringeworthiness as an enormously important criterion when considering the rather extreme possibility of breaking with established convention. Moreover, I wonder where this might lead - altering pages such as Lincoln, Lincolnshire, just for the sake of how it sounds to a reader? --Breadandcheese (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move Lincoln, Lincolnshire. It's a frankly idiotic name. And why are you dismissing editing a page depending on "how it sounds to a reader"? We are supposed to be here for the readers. However, I'm too busy with other stuff here to get involved in another talk page deabte, so I'll leave the lincoln article to its editors to sort out. This is a textbook common sense vs rules case. Lurker (said · done) 12:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Square pegs for square holes! The convention is not well established either; there have been loads of debates about it, some agreeing with Jz, some with me. Recently, more people have been moving articles, but that doesn't make it established. The fact is, in Scotland these names aren't as well established. It's a national joke that driving up the A9, after driving through the Highlands for like an hour, and half way through the mountains of Badenoch, you get a sign saying "Welcome to Highland". The bulk of my mail the senders still use the sensible old county system. And really, who gives a monkeys what arbitrary regional council a settlement lies in? Why should that be the basis for general guidelines? If "Scotland"'s what offends you, call it Perth, United Kingdom if you like, but Perth, Perth and Kinross is a ridiculous name. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's a traditional counties issue, rather than a nationalistic one. My apologies for jumping to the wrong conclusion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More of a common sense thing: a random reader in Africa won't be helped at all by Perth, Perth and Kinross, but might, possibly, recognise Perth, Scotland. But seemingly there's a guideline, probably approved by a three to two vote somewhere nobody ever visits except the five editors in question, which purports to mandate the use of the ephemeral modern local government areas to disambiguate places. A guideline will squash mere common sense any day. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No three to two vote even. Was added to the guideline page by User:Jza84 (above), with no discussion. I removed it a couple of hours ago. I really feel the when dabbing's necessary we should do what they do in US articles (avoiding their total use), descending from "Place", then "Place, Country", then "Place, Some Region". Doesn't always work though, given that Perthshire and such places are so large. There's a Rossie in Gowrie and in Strathearn (both S. Perthshire), there's a Kinnaird in Gowrie and one in Atholl (both Perthshire), etc, etc. And ... ohh ... for a region like "Highland", taking up nearly a fifth of the landmass of GB, there'll be a big bunch of problems when people start spamming articles on hamlets. I think there's like a dozen Miltons in "Highland" alone. But I digress. A place like Perth doesn't have such problems. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The naming convention was originally for the United Kingdom, but only explained English disambiguation (I think it said use the ceremonial county), which wasn't helpful. However, Scottish places are in council areas and Welsh places are in principal areas so I was bold and put two-and-two together and clarified the issue. Indeed using the Counties of Scotland would have been a breach of WP:PLACE too. I'm all for using council areas to disambiguate (and I think they're fairly well established having not seen any breach of this for a long long time now). I'm also a real sucker for absolute consistency, however I can understand that Perth, Perth and Kinross is an unusual name for an article, I suppose comparable to something like, "City of London, London" or "Manchester, Greater Manchester" or even "New York, New York" (which are correct on technicallity). Remember all naming conventions allow for rare exceptions for common sense issues though; it's made clear in the header. It would be nice if we could obtain a consensus here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where would that breach WP:Place? As far as I see, it only covers England and Scotland doesn't have any counties currently existing (though going by many of the internet forms about, that isn't all that well known). What's wrong with descending disambiguation? If there's two places in the world, call it X, Scotland; two places in Scotland, call it X, Region, etc? That seems to me the most sensible thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) WP:PLACE states that we do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries. This convention REALLY is an established one. If you took this to the wider editting community, I'm sure you'd find that dabbing to the former counties would face very fierce opposition. Besides, Perth isn't in Perthshire, Perthshire was abolished.... That's the rationale behind that.

Also, your proposal doesn't encompass contemporary geographic demarcation. Indeed you propose "PLACE, REGION", well, what regions are you talking about? Regional council areas were abolished, so they're redundant. Others, like "Central Lowlands" don't have statutory boundaries. That's a flawed proposal therefore, and thus not sensible.

Some of your disscussion hints that this may be an Anti-council area thing. I can understand that some of the council areas have terrible names (I live in Greater Manchester - also a terrible name!) but these boundaries are the ones used in modern atlases, gazetteers and in all contemporary official governmental and statistical resources. In a single-tiered local government system, there really isn't any other alternative in my view. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By Region I meant these councils. So, other than that misunderstanding, you haven't said anything against descending disambiguation. Re WP:Place, as it doesn't talk about Scottish councils and old counties, you shouldn't cite it like it does. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PLACE is for... the "Counties of Britain". Scotland was in both Great Britain and the UK last time I checked!!! I'm sorry, a spade is a spade; there's no way you'll secure disambiguation to the "sensible" traditional counties. The weight of consensus against this that I've seen over the years is just way too strong. Are you going to tell me that Govan is in Lanarkshire for example? Simillarly, disecting my comments as "misunderstandings" when you were called council areas "regions" isn't helpful here either. Be mindful that the Regions of Scotland pertain to something quite specific to a geographer.
OK, coming back to some of your points. I'm convinced this is an Anti-council area thing now. You say that people use counties in post, well, the postal counties of the United Kingdom were abolished in 1996 and are known officially as the "former counties". This system has problems with it too, as the postal county actually pertains to whatever "post town" the address goes through. Some settlements can have a postal county that is different to there current/former county. OK, this isn't a sensible approach therefore.
You say that the council areas are a "national joke". Citation? How so? You may hold an opinion that the Highlands begin at a certain point, but others may hold a different view. Can you tell me at what point the Highlands definitively begin and the central lowlands stop? No, of course.
Also, you say who is interested in what council area a settlement lies, well, I am for one. Council areas help me find out statistics on health, demographics, economics, political representation and a whole host of other things. For better or worse, they are the official subdivisions of Scotland, used by the Scottish and UK governments, as well as the boundary commission. Don't shoot the messenger on that one please, I didn't draw up the boundaries or create the names.
All that tackled and put to oneside, I don't see why a tiered dab system is needed, and thus strongly oppose it. It's going to have issues of UK vs. Scotland, as well as mass movements of articles that already use an established convention. Then, why is it just Scotland? Does England use this? What about Wales, Northern Ireland? Will NI use "PLACE, NI", "PLACE, UK" or "PLACE, IRELAND"? No, the council areas are the only way forwards here, with the allowance of occational exceptions. -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I"m afraid you misunderstood almost everything I've said. The Highlands is a traditional region, it does not correspond with "Highland" in anyone's eyes, not even the pen-pushers who invented the region. Re "Counties of Britain" ... there are no counties in Scotland, the entire thing is about England. I'm just saying you shouldn't try to misrepresent guidelines. Regarding post .... most of my letters do use the old county system, that's just fact; "officials" don't have any say in that, and as it happens Highland Council even send me some letters with "Ross-shire" rather than "Ross and Cromarty" or "Highland". I'm not in favour as you've gotten yourself into believing, of using the old country system (I made a side point that it was more sensible and more established in popular usage, which is not very hard), I just oppose using ridiculous names unnecessarily. Hence descending dab: Place if possible, Place, Country next if possible, then Place, Region next, and so on. I'm still waiting to hear something relevant from you. What's the point of using these cumbersome names if they aren't needed? You can get the council area, lieutenancy area, whatever, from the text and infoboxes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cumbersome names like... Deacon of Pndapetzim? - Dudesleeper Talk 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current local authority areas have boundaries shown on modern maps. The old counties do not. County names provide no clear guide to location except for those with memory of county boundaries or old maps (which will not show changes to roads, built-up areas etc). Laurel Bush (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Whatever the general rule for Scotland becomes, the reason for providing a second part to a name is to clearly differentiate the place from other(s) with the same name. The second part of the name should be better known than the first. Beyond this, it matters little what is used, "county" (old or new), region, unitary authority, or nation, so long as it makes it clear where the article is about. For old "county towns" adding the county or region does little for clarity (as Lincoln, Lincolnshire). Perth, Perth and Kinross repeats infomation, whereas Perth, Scotland adds clarity. Finavon (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finavon, could you repost the above at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)? You've maybe gotten deeper to the core of the issue than I have, and your suggestions would be helpful at that page. That page needs as much input from as broad as base as possible, since it has more implications. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perth

[edit]

That old chestnut about whether Perth should be a disambiguation page or redirect to Perth, Western Australia has arisen once again at Talk:Perth. Hesperian 01:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and grammar

[edit]

I'll be doing a spelling & grammar check on this article. Any changes made will be noted. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed it. Only common mistakes and hardly any grammar issues were found, so to all users ho have edited in this article, good job! :) Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perth High Street Picture

[edit]

As a Perth resident, I'd just like to point out that the view down the High Street in the picture is to the East, not the North. That's because the High Street is side on (perpendicular) to the Tay, which runs North/ South at Perth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.135.147 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Countryside Photos

[edit]

Hey guys! If you're wanting some photos of Perth's countryside for the article feel free to take a look at some of mine on my profile! I have a few others which I haven't uploaded to Wikimedia Commons yet, but if anyone wants me to then just let me know and I'll go ahead and do it. Rhodington (T C) 19:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm?

[edit]

"During the middle of the 15th century, the church deliberately fell in disrepair, when most of the revenues were used by David I to fund Dunfermline Abbey."

Third line of "Landmarks". Don't personally know much about Perth, but I do know that David I was king in the 12th century rather than the 15th, and that Dunfermline Abbey was one of his foundations, so I'll change it even though it's referenced. Brendandh (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of twin towns separated by commas, with Perth, Ontario, as one of the entries is unhelpful to the reader; I'll alter it if no-one has any objection.Afterbrunel (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City of Perth

[edit]

Under 'Economy' section, there is sentence: Pedestrianisation of High Street runs from Tay Street to South Street. This should be South Methven Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.17.238 (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually from George Street to Scott Street. Grievous Angel (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which indirectly affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Perth, Western Australia - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC) (copied verbatim from —RM bot text)[reply]

Please ignore, this was the previous move discussion. The current move discussion is at Talk:Perth (disambiguation) - Requested move. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

[edit]

The following statement is unreferenced - Only since the late 19th century has the name of the town itself been fixed as Perth. Just wondering if there was a source for this. Hack (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been Perth for centuries, at least since being granted royal burgh status hundreds of years ago, anything else since is a colloquial term such as "St John's Toun" a bit like Auld Reekie for Edinburgh or the Big Smoke for London. I've seen rubbish such as St John's Toun was an ancient(!) name for Perth (shamefully used on the city's own football team website) so many times I just give up. --Grievous Angel (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been updated to say - "Perth was referred to as "St. Johns ton" up until the mid 1600s with the name "Perthia" being reserved for the wider area.[4] At this time, "Perthia" became "Perth Shyre" and "St. Johns ton" became known as Perth.[4]". Reference [4] is a Latin map from 1659 that shows the location as "Pert or S Iohns toun" but doesn't really give any more insight. Hack (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
This move was placed on three separate pages. The main discussion is being held at Talk:Perth (disambiguation). AIRcorn (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– As per rather a lot of the above, and some very hasty recent closures. I'm called John, you're called John, who's the biggest Johnny etc.? Brendandh (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Perth (disambiguation) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Perth, Scotland. 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 15:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Perth, 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:

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) 16:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Perth, 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:

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) 03:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Perth, 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:

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) 21:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Perth, 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:

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) 21:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Perth, 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:

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) 18:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perth, Scotland → Perth, Perth and Kinross – Scotland is a country but Perth is a city in Perth and Kinross, which is a council area, Scotland's equivalent of a county of England. Euanjohnb (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is a specifically listed situation at WP:SCOTLANDPLACE; sweeping changes need discussed there, not article by article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a place on Westray, in the Orkney Islands but it appears to only be a single house and therefore probably not notable and even if it was a WP:PDAB exception would probably be allowed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think people searching for this are going to know it as Perth in Scotland. Perth and Kinross has only existed as an entity for about 45 years, and I do wonder if people outside of the UK will have heard of it (as opposed to the ancient and historic county of Perthshire). This means a search result coming up with Perth, Perth and Kinross might not be that helpful for people searching for the Scottish city. Similarly, I think the double use of Perth would be confusing for people unaware of the council area and so Perth, Scotland is much clearer. Equally Perth is a city (only one of 7 currently designated in Scotland) and a substantial size. There is no other Perth in Scotland that would merit a Wikipedia article or remotely likely to be being searched for on Wikipedia, so anyone looking for Perth, Scotland is going be looking for this article. I would note as a comparison that there is more than one St Andrews in Scotland, but the University town and famous golf centre's article is just St Andrews, while the parish in Orkney is St Andrews, Orkney. Dunarc (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the reasoning and details of Dunarc JarrahTree 00:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrator's comment The article was moved against the pre-existing consensus and in spite of the RM here. I have reverted the move and protected the article against further moves for a month. The closing admin for this discussion will determine the eventual location. Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Streets evolution

[edit]

"The construction of Smeaton’s bridge in 1771 had a considerable effect on the town centre, leading to the insertion of George Street. In the 19th century St John Street, Scott Street and Kinnoull Street were inserted into the historic centre of the town; Mill Street, North Methven Street, South Methven Street, Canal Crescent and Canal Street were created or widened over the now culverted lade; Tay Street was formed; and substantial suburbs were developed on all sides. The last major insertion into the historic core was King Edward Street in 1904–5, named after Edward VII." - https://tafac.org.uk/perth.pdf - Seasider53 (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perth,_Scotland&oldid=1209173974"