Commons:Requests for comment/Divisions of Scotland

< Commons:Requests for comment

Fuller structureEdit

I've been thinking about how to develop a more structured tree for Scotland. The council areas should be the top-tier for the reasons above, and "small" features like towns or mountains are the bottom-tier. However, it would be good to get some intermediates.

Islands (like Skye) naturally fit in between the two extremes. In the Highlands the Ward management areas like Category:Badenoch and Strathspey are also worthwhile, though should be used with caution (Caithness is different from the historic county).

The other potential intermediate is the civil parishes, which are much less significant than the English and Welsh equivalents, but are used by Historic Scotland (and so are a useful subdivision imo). There may not be an exact 1-to-1 correspondence to the council areas, but this isn't a big deal.

Using these gives the following cases:

Mainland Highlands Large islands Small islands
Council area Council area Council area Council area
District Island
Civil Parish Civil Parish Civil Parish Civil Parish
Feature Feature Feature Feature

Notes: A large island has multiple CPs, while several small islands may be contained in a single CP. A feature may be a settlement, loch, mountain, castle...

To avoid confusion with the namesake villages I suggest categories for Scottish CPs should be of the form [[Category:<name> (Scottish parish)]]. For simplicity, this should be done for all parishes, whether their name is ambiguous or not.

Other units such as Registration counties, former postal counties, historic counties should not be used in the primary tree, but for material specifically relating to them. Note that Glasgow is historically part of Lanarkshire but is a registration county in its own right (so the Registration counties are not quite the same as the historic ones). Specific locations could be added to these alternative units in a supplementary manner.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but I am always wary of adding extra levels of categorisation, because the user may not be familiar with the lower-level subdivisions; that said, having spent yesterday evening trying to sort out a category for a village which has been usurped for the Parish (and it's not the only one!), perhaps it would be easier to do this while we can. They are certainly useful for categorising images that are within the parish but not at any recognisable feature. Bearing in mind that there are 871 CPs in Scotland, some effort will be required. However, out of concern for the user, I would think it useful to have a map of each Council Area (or whatever) showing the rough Parish Boundaries and their names- or a locator map for each area, if that is a workable way of achieving the desired result. Meanwhile, on roughly the same topic, I have created {{Canmore}} to provide a link to the RCAHMS website- it seems to work as long as you use the right ID, and I suspect you'd probably go there to get categorisation information anyhow. I hope you find it useful. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The way I see the extra layers is to better define locations, in those circumstances the parish is helpful (eg to give better localisation to a pic of a forest). The <topic> in <area> type cats should be council area only, and only subdivided in rare situations - so if you want a village in Lanarkshire you would go Lanarkshire -> Towns and villages in Lanarkshire -> village.
Current practice in England is to conflate the parish and village, and ought to be revisited there too really. Its not as serious in England, because of the greater significance and that the CP is the limit of a town council's control. We do not want to repeat that in Scotland, where its more clearly a distinct unit.
I should be able to create council area maps of the parishes, as well as larger-scale maps of the individual parishes on an OS background (like this). That means c 900 files so will take a while.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.