Talk:Rutherglen

Requested move

Postal address is Rutherglen, Glasgow - SoM 23:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose As someone that lives in Rutherglen, I'm pretty sure the postal address is supposed to be "Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire". People do use "Rutherglen, Glasgow" but I think we are supposed to use "Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire". AlistairMcMillan 08:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose This article ought not to be disambiguated at all. The only other Rutherglen article on Wikipedia is Rutherglen, Victoria, which is named after this one, and is less notable. I propose that we move this article to Rutherglen. If the consensus disagree with that, then if it really must be disambiguated, it should be Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire: local government area is the standard method of disambiguating place names, not some arbitrary paper delivery system.--Mais oui! 20:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

This page is in desperate need of a large section on the history of Rutherglen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.197.90 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If Rutherglen is part of Glasgow, why do you see big "Welcome to Glasgow" signs as you leave Rutherglen on King's Park Avenue, Burnhill Street and Glasgow Road? AlistairMcMillan 08:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

(copied from above) As someone that lives in Rutherglen, I'm pretty sure the postal address is supposed to be "Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire". People do use "Rutherglen, Glasgow" but I think we are supposed to use "Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire"

It's to do with the postcode - Rutherglen's got G** *** postcodes, so people are supposed to use Glasgow in reflection of that. - SoM 11:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Rutherglen used to be part of Glasgow, as of 1996 it is part of South Lanarkshire. By your reasoning I guess Hamilton (ML** *** postcodes) is part of Motherwell then? AlistairMcMillan 13:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

SinceRutherglen just redirects to this page, then perhaps this page should be at Rutherglen. AlistairMcMillan 10:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. - SoM 11:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Geographical articles are consistently disambiguated by their administrative district, not their postal address, so Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire is definitely preferred to Rutherglen, Glasgow. But moving it to just Rutherglen sounds like the best solution of all. sjorford (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with moving the page to just Rutherglen, though I'm not sure how relatively notable the Australia town is. If a disambig is needed, I suggest Rutherglen, Scotland. Vclaw 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All agreed - no objections - so I've moved it. The Australian town disambigs from here. I've also deleted Rutherglen (disambiguation) which was a redunadant orphan, only dabing the two. If anyone onjects, let me know and I'll restore it and afd. --Doc ^ask? 14:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Gaelic

As a result of this discussion, a new discussion strand has been started here: Request for consensus: Should we include the Gaelic and Scots names in Infobox for every Scottish place?.

Calgacus, let's discuss this. (I am undoing your revert for now, as you also, unintentionally I am sure, removed additional information about the MP and MSP I had put into the info box).

My points are as follows - that the name Rutherglen is derived from Gaelic is good information, and should be prominently included. We are better however, using 'Gaelic' or 'Scots Gaelic' as Gd is not an abreviation familliar to English speakers. (We would not use Dt. for German.)

However, putting into the info box the Gaelic as an alternative name for Rutherglen is wholey misleading. No-one calls Rutherglen by that name, Rutherglen has no significant Gaelic-speaking population. No signs in Rutherglen are in Gaelic. Incidently, I know Rutherglen well and have never come across this name in any documentation. Whatever may have been the history, it is simply not the name of this town.

I'm not trying to exclude the Gaelic, as I am sure it is of interest to some. But it is not significant information, and we don't to create the false impression that Rutherglen is a dual language town. Thanks. --Doc ^ask? 11:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is to miss the point. Of course the Gaelic (and Scots) bits aren't there to provide information about common forms of the name used in English, they are there to tell you what it is in Gaelic, both as a historical tit-bit and as useful piece of information. You might not be, but many are interested in this sort of thing. I don't see why you have a problem whith one line of text, the same thing is in loads of other articles. BTW, Rutherglen probably has around 100 Gaelic speakers in it. Sure, you're gonna say it probably has the same amount of Hindi speakers, but Gaelic speakers have an older name for it. Reinstated edit BTW. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical 'tit-bits' don't get prominence in info-boxes - although they can certainly be incuded in the article. (And actually, your removed the important factual information that An Ruadh Ghleann is the root of the current name, and reinserted a not well known abreviation that is better spelled out on full 'Gd') But the fact is, An Ruadh Ghleann is not the current name of Rutherglen. If you think it is, can you please provide some evidence? --Doc ^ask? 12:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, why would be the current name in English when its not even English?! An Ruadh Ghleann is the Gaelic name! It is BTW the name in official use by the Scottish parliament, as you will see if you Google Search. Gd is the abbreviation most commonly in use amongst linguists , I just use that to save space. Not that it matters, there are thousands of precedents for this kinda thing on wiki, and absense of current use in English is not relevant, or rather, does not outway the reasons for putting it in. We have Gaelic names for Scottish cities, and not Swahili or Sanskrit names, because it is both a historical language and an "official" language of the country. Why should Rutherglen be an exception in wikipedia? I'd understand it if it were some small village in Shetland, but not Rutherglen. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when you do a proper search and exclude wikimirrors, [1] it appears that the Scottish Parliament/executive are the only body using the Gaelic. And one susspects that's for political reasons of Gaelic promotion rather then reflecting factual reality. When one considers local sites, and local government, there is not a mention of it [2] [3] [4]. However, I'm not suggesting we don't mention it, just that we don't imply that this is a equivelently used name of a dual-language community. --Doc ^ask? 12:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm ... now you seem more interested in finding an excuse not to have it than anything else. The Scottish parliament uses the name in Gaelic translations because it is the Gaelic name. The local government in Rutherglen does not issue Gaelic translations of anything because it isn't a massive political issue in the town. There is no implication Rutherglen is a dual language area, even though Scotland as a whole officially is. Moreover, it's just standard practice to list the Gaelic name, and has no individual implications for Rutherglen. Sorry, not buying your reasoning. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've not suggested it isn't included somewhere. Please don't misrepresent me. You seem to admit that inclusion happens only when it is a 'political issue', when it is not (as it isn't locally) there is no mention of it. Well, WP:NOT a soapbox for promoting political issues, or Gaelic. It is 'standard practice'? Whose standard practice? If it is 'practice' to include Gaelic as an alternative name of a town when it is not, then that practice should stop immediately. Wikipedia is about creating the best NPOV, factual articles we can, not about sacrificing accurate impressions for some form of misplaced idea of consistancy - or promoting some political POV. Factually, An Ruadh Ghleann is the root of the name Rutherglen, however it is not significantly used as an alternative name (no-one locally uses it), and certainly not enough to give prominence in an infobox.--Doc ^ask? 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is rather pointless, the name is going to stay in the template. Sorry if I'm getting you wrong, but you seem more interested in finding an excuse to get rid of it than anything else. You try to dismiss arguments for keeping it in as "POV", but this is a common trait of those who themselves are POV. It is standard practice on wiki to list other officially used or historical names. See Gdańsk, or Vilnius, I could go on. Promoting POV has nothing to do with anything, although your passion and enthusiasm for excluding it from standard templates has me wondering. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - when folk cease to do that, it rather looks like they are loosing the argument. I've said I'm not trying to get rid of it, the Gaelic should be included in tis article - there I can't say it any clearer than that. I'm not interested in the general template, I'm interested in this article and what's best for its accuracy. You say, that the discussion is pointless, and that 'the name is going to stay', well, sorry, that's not how wikipedia works (please see WP:OWN). --Doc ^ask? 14:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to voice my support for including the Gaelic name. It is regretable that info about the MP and MSP was accidentally lost; and the Gd versus Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic label I have no strong opinion about (Gaelic seems a good option though). This is a very important topic, and I am just wondering if either of you see value in starting a wider discussion on this at WP:SCOWNB , because if we do not then I fear that we will repeat this discussion ad infinitum at many, many Talk pages. Eg. the Shetland question is very interesting, being about the only part of Scotland with zero history of Gaelic (I think).--Mais oui! 13:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There may be a few other users like Dr Glasgow and Solipsist with a handfull of places on their watchlist who'll make an issue of it and call it POV. So I'd be all for a general vote so we don't have to go through this hassle again. Yeah, Orkney and Shetland, contrary to popular belief, did have Gaelic speakers in them in the pre-Norse period, although because the evidence is ogham inscriptions, there's no way of telling if they were just a few monks, or the majority of the population. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting: I knew that Pictish was the language of the Northern Isles prior to the Norse invasion, but I had not realised that Gaelic (or what would have been Old Irish/Middle Irish at the time) was also present. Anyway, I digress. See you at Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. Do either of you want to get the ball rolling there, or should I outline the basic question? Please try to start off the discussion in as neutral and informative fashion as possible, in order to maximise chances of contemplative consensus. --Mais oui! 13:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You should definitely outline the basic question, so that neither of us biases it. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure a general discussion would be worthwhile, but a general policy to exclude/include stuff across dozens of articles can also be unhelpful. We need to look at cases on their merits. I'm sure there are many places in the central belt where the Gaelic name has been prominent over the years, I've no interest (unlike what is implied above) in trying to stop Gaelic in those infoboxes. I'm interested in this article not any general pro or anti Gaelic politics. Indeed I'd oppose any general poll than would enforce a rule on articles regardless of the individual circumstances (m.polls are evil). However, I know Rutherglen very well, and the Gaelic is not prominent here. It is of etymological interest and little more. Rutherglen is more often historically refered to as Ru'glen [5] [6] [7] - and that would be more appropriate name in its infobox. Indeed the problem here is infoboxes themselves, since they disallow any subtlety - either the thing is 'in' or 'out'. If we had no box, then we could compromise over the wording that made it clear that this was the etymological root, seldom used, but accurate in Gaelic and promoted by the Scottish Executive. --Doc ^ask? 13:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the problem here is infoboxes themselves, since they disallow any subtlety - either the thing is 'in' or 'out'. Is An Ruadh Ghleann not the Gaelic name then? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem, we are left with this 'either-or' question and no room for a more nuanced answer. Yes, it is the Gaelic name. But now let me ask you, is a generally used name (or even used at all except in Gaelic promotion) for Rutherglen? Given that it is not, and has not been for very many centuries, does it deserve the same prominence as Steòrnabhagh or other places where the Gaelic name is used as an alternative in regular speech or literature? Clearly not. --Doc ^ask? 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to regard "regular speech" can only be the English language, whereas of course it could refer to any language being used. Go tell the people on Croatian wiki to rename hr:Rim to hr:Rome because that's the name in "regular speech" (i.e. English); or if it's regular speech in the location, go tell them to rename it hr:Roma. If you don't know about that, then go tell the people at the Lithuanian wiki to rename lt:Edinburgas to lt:Edinburgh, cause Edinburgas isn't used in the city. Or, if you wanna have even more fun and hear about the second world war, go and remove the Polish names in brackets next to Lithuanian city names on English wiki- Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No, regular speech is what people actually use, regardless of language. It is obviously different in Stornaway than Rutherglen. Perhaps a handful of Gaelic speakers do use the Gaelic for Rutherglen (although I've seen no evidence for that), and that perhaps justifies its inclusion somewhere in the article (I've said that all along). But it is not an equally prominent 'alternative' name. I'm interested in how we most accurately write an article about Rutherglen, so I'll not even pretend to understand the significance of the rest of you post. --Doc ^ask? 14:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm obviously wasting finger exertion on you. Basically, at the end of the day, etc, almost nothing you've said about the Gaelic names is relevant or matters. The Gaelic goes in the template and the opening sentence because Gaelic is the 2nd officially recognized language of Scotland, and the historical language of the Scots, and, what's more, the historical language in the area which gave the place its name (who ever calls it Redvalley?!). The only thing you could say to make this not true is remove Rutherglen from Scotland and rename it Redvalley. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't agree. And, you know what? That's OK, it happens a lot round here. But please watch WP:CIVIL - and keep your arguments rational. That sort of rant doesn't do your case any good. I'm going to file an WP:RFC and see if that help reach some consensus. --Doc ^ask? 15:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the advice, but I'll use my own judgment. If you can, please watch WP:CIVIL, and not be calling things "rants", etc. The only person who disagrees so far is you. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And me - I disagreed with it all almost a week ago here - and then the new template was introduce without any consensus being reached - and now look at the problems. I don't understand Calgacus, why you have such an issue on this one. SFC9394 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Gaelic name should be included. I think 'Gaelic' should be used rather than 'GD' or 'Scots Gaelic'. An Siarach

Of course the Gaelic should be included, the question is how and where. --Doc ^ask? 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rutherglen ;) - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic should be included but not in the infobox. It's a minority language in modern Scotland; in this part of the country it would make as much sense to put the Panjabi or Urdu versions of the name with equal prominence to the name that 100% of us call it. I'm fine with Gaelic in places where it can be shown that a significant number of people actually call it that. Just show the Gaelic in the derivation in the main body of the article. Guinnog 20:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Although since the name derives from Gaelic, it would be relevant to include the etymology in the opening line (but not in the box) --Doc ^ask? 20:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"it would make as much sense to put the Panjabi or Urdu versions of the name" Oh really? I wasnt aware that Scotland had been founded by speakers of Panjabi or Urdu - or that "Rutherglen" derived from these languages. An Siarach

For me, the fact that the goverment in Scotland uses the gaelic term should be enough to include it. As Gaelic is now regarded as an official language, I see no reason to exclude it from the infobox. Panjabi is not an official language (though it is used in some government publications directed at Panjabi speakers). Irish geography articles include Irish Gaelic names, even though the language is not widely spoken in day-to-day life by most of the population. It's being an official language that counts. Lurker ^oi! 16:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I support it without a doubt. Many Glasgow names are of Gaelic origin, and also, there are various placenames in recently Gaelic speaking areas which have a Lallans name, and that should be included on them. --MacRusgail 15:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Misc revisions?

A couple of suggested revisions;

Surely there should be a section on Rutherglen's History, after all there is plenty of it. The Rutherglen Library has a copy of "Shearer's" "Rutherglen Lore" a wonderful source of it's history, including the fact that Rutherglen was once very nearly an island. I am saying nothing about it until you all read the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asste (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to White's chemicals takes us to a gentlemans club in London. Are the two related? The owner of White's, Lord Overtoun, gifted the land for Overtoun Park, should this be mentioned? Is the bandstand not quite important?

Should probably mention that Clyde FC played at Shawfield Stadium and it is still an important dog track. Need somebody to write a page on Shawfield, it's linked to on the Clyde FC page.

There is no mention about the River Clyde. It's hidden behind the wasteland but still an important part of the town. Can anybody dig anything up about shipbuilding? TSSY Esperance is the worlds oldest surviving powered yacht and still sails about Lake Windemere. It was built by Thomas B Seath in Rutherglen. I guess the boat building hit the skids when the weir was built at Glasgow Green.

How about a list of famous folk from Rutherglen?

The Fernhill page refers to it as part of Ruggie, should 'suburbs' of Rutherglen, past or present, also be listed?

How about a photo of the town hall?

Done. SFC9394 00:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And finally, a list of all the great tourist attractions like...., em. The taxi rank?

Fuzzy 23:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This page would benefit from showing a photo of the mercat cross.

Infobox

Some silly process had altered the infobox for this article to a UK one which didn't work for the Scots and Gaelic. Rather then fight this, I've imply subst the old one back onto this page. I think it works better for this article. If anyone disagrees then, then let me know and give me some reasons and we can discuss this. The UK one simply left the Scots and Glc without any explanation of what they meant.--Doc^g 13:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Per the above I have now added some identifiers. Does this address the issues above? Regan123 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Custom infobox converted to UK place infobox as per guidelines and consensus at WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. Scots and Gaelic names are still both tagged as such. Dallan72 (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Complicated

Some idiot put the schools names and addresses as if they were writing it in a letter! USE BULLET POINTS!!!!! How annoying is it when you see that picture and the schools names are ALL jumbled!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! LOTRrules (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rutherglen. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120219123813/http://www.evoxfacilities.co.uk:80/evoxptn.html to http://www.evoxfacilities.co.uk/evoxptn.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622110028/http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/piece.pl?pid=391 to http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/piece.pl?pid=391

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) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Too many photos

There are too many photos in this article, and it suffers massively from sandwiching. Many photos add no encyclopaedic knowledge, remember images are here to enhance the article and provide encyclopaedic information, not just as decoration. Too many images of non-notable roads, buildings etc not even mentioned in the article and of which having the image doesn't enhance anything. Canterbury Tail talk 17:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Any specific examples of things not mentioned in the article, or of sandwiching? Crowsus (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have trimmed the photos: please feel free to remove some more. Dormskirk (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Why would more need removed when you have already done so and removed the tag? Crowsus (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)