Jump to content

Talk:Harris, Outer Hebrides

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

[Untitled]

[edit]

Text moved from main article. No conclusive evidence at the External Link about Harris flag. Google throws little up either.

(I would suggest the person who removed the Harris, North Uist and Benbecula flags restore them. These three flags are well established.)

All Hebridean flags were definitely featured on the original Virtual Hebrides site, which I think, pre-dates Flags of the World. Unfortunately that site is now defunct.


[edit]

Flags of the world - Hebrides

Single track roads?

[edit]

What's so remarkable about Harris having single track roads? They're all over the Highlands and Islands! I, on mainland Scotland, have to drive 40 miles on one before I can get to anything that approximates to civilisation. Lianachan 19:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I considered deleting it, but decided to amend it instead. Ben MacDui 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

The map here doesn't look quite right - it seems to show only South Harris, which is the area below Tarbert (where the island narrows), and not North Harris, which is a similar sized area to the north. See [1] for example. See also the map at Lewis. Interplanet Janet 12:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are right (well spotted). However, I'm not sure how to fix it. It probably needs raising at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. -- Solipsist 12:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the images based on [2]. Interplanet Janet 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the map used on this page marks a point, rather than an area like the corresponding map on Lewis. Where is the new map? --Una Smith (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbert merge proposal

[edit]

I've removed this as

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Harris, Outer Hebrides. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Harris is no more deserving of the being the primary use of Harris than some of the other places, people and things that bear it as their name. Harris, Michigan is of similar size so why is the Isle of Harris being promoted above these other uses of the name? This is a COI issue. In terms of Wikipedia content the Harris (surname) use has by far the most information of any use of Harris (note that there is so much that it has had to be subdivided into pages hanging below the Harris (surname) page, e.g., List of people with surname Harris, Herries, etc. Also outside of the immediate area of the Isle of Harris it is most commonly known by people as "the Isle of Harris", i.e., http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=isle+of+harris&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title. By wikipedia's guidelines the title of its page should also reflect how it most commonly referred to, i.e. "Isle of Harris" or "Harris (Isle of)". I would tend to say that Harris (surname) should be primary topic but in view of the multiple uses of the word think it most pragmatic to set Harris to go to the disambig page as a compromise, as per wiki rules on controversial names with multiple uses. WickerWiki (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Harris → Harris, Outer Hebrides
  2. Harris (disambiguation) → Harris

Support making the disambig page the primary article. Sam5 (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Vote withdrawn following PMAnderson's comment below. Sam5 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Qualified) Support - as above, plus will reduce number of edits of type "XXXX Harris is a YYYY". MRM (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to support only if done simultaneously on Lewis article as otherwise things will be ping-ponging about for a while with the sole reason "well, it was done for Harris" being applied to Lewis.MRM (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support making Harris a disambiguation, this article should be moved to Isle of Harris. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support and.... - the principal is reasonable, the solution is flawed. The name of the place is "Harris" and it is not an island (see for example the local Council web site). The use of "Isle of Harris" may be a common form of "disambiguation" but I can't see any reason to perpetuate the idea. If the article is to be moved it should be to "Harris, Outer Hebrides" with "Isle of Harris" as a redirect and "Harris" as the dab. Ben MacDui 17:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, striking out my suggestion above. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all that good. Would Ben MacDui demand moving Isle of Dogs on these grounds? It's not an island either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "Isle of Harris" would be the most efficient title in terms of what the majority of non-experts (i.e. 99.99999999% of the world) would be searching for. This would help them find it easier (a good point for Scottish tourism) and also good from the point of view of the CPU load on Wikipedia's servers. --WickerWiki (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support but perhaps Harris, Scotland to avoid a discussion about whether it should be Outer Hebrides, Hebrides, Western Isles or Na h-Eileanan Siar? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good proposal as long as there isn't another place called Harris in Scotland... --WickerWiki (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Does anyone here have a place names gazette for Scotland? --Una Smith (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked, there's a Harris on the Isle of Rum... so we're back to Western Isles. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or just "Isle of Harris". --WickerWiki (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't see the problem; we have an article on Lewis and no such complaint has arisen. We should name articles for the convenience of readers and editors, and nothing else is normally called plain Harris. Isle of Harris is also acceptable, if logically indefensible; it's usage.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of places/things and even people called just "Harris". The Harris (disambiguation) page has eleven at present and this will grow over time. When choosing page names, links, etc., we need to think about the future and not just name them on a "first come first served basis". As regards naming articles for the convenience of readers, having Harris (disambiguation) as the first page will save people a mouseclick or two. This is because at present a lot of people end up on the Harris page who really wanted to go to another meaning of Harris (either because they were expecting another meaning of just "Harris" or were taking a shortcut and just typing "Harris" instead of "Harris Hawk" or "Bomber Harris". It must be great free advertising for the Isle of Harris tourism board but it is not serving the majority of Wiki readers. --WickerWiki (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving Harris (disambiguation) to Harris. --Una Smith (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you oppose moving Harris (disambiguation) to Harris? --Una Smith (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move. The argument of Septentrionalis made me look at Lewis (after I got over WP:WAX) and I think that Lewis needs fixing as well. I frequently go to such disambiguation pages which contain lists by surname, or list of place names, to find out whether I want Linda or Leslie; island or isle; Nebraska or Kansas; or the like. Getting sent to the Outer Hebrides is not what I expect. --Bejnar (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Harris surname is short for "Harry's Son", not for someone heralding from the Isle of Harris, and is mainly English/Welsh. It was brought over from France by the Normans. One theory I have read is that the Isle of Harris was named after a frenchman called Harris, but I guess that may be a myth. In addition a lot (imo most) of the places and things called Harris are named after people called Harris and not the Isle of Harris. --WickerWiki (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@WereSpielChequers: "well over 90% are correct" doesn't sound very impressive to me. Did you fix the almost 10% that were wrong? Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found 10 18 that I corrected or at least shifted to Harris (disambiguation), plus three going to Harris via Harris, Scotland, twenty via Isle of Harris plus about 270 to Harris. I've skimmed through those 300 or so and believe almost all are correct. So almost 10% is probably overstating things, well under 10% would be more like it. I may have missed a few in that trawl, but well over 90% was probably circa 96% 94% and should now be close to 100%. This name has been in use for a long time, certainly longer than Harris, Michigan so at least a partial primary use applies - Harris Tweed is one of many Harris's which definitely stem from the Isle. I appreciate that I'm in a minority in opposing this rename but if it is renamed then based on the linking evidence Isle of Harris is better than Harris (Isle of) or Harris, Scotland. Also is anyone volunteering to amend to Isle of Harris the 270 or so articles that currently link to Harris? ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page should have few or no incoming links; moving the links from Harris to Harris (disambiguation) leaves those links still needing disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is better to link to a disambiguation page than to link to the wrong page. Apart from talk pages, disambiguation pages etc I counted five articles currently linking to Harris (disambiguation), none of which are obvious to me as to which Harris they refer to. There are currently circa 300 links to Harris almost all of which are correct now, but will need fixing if the move goes ahead. moving to Isle of Harris and shifting Harris, Scotland from redirecting to Harris to redirecting to Isle of Harris will still leave over 250 incoming links to Harris that will need amending to Isle of Harris. To me that is a very good reason not to rename this article, even if one of the supporters of this move had volunteered to fix those articles. ϢereSpielChequers 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disambiguated some of the links needing disambiguation that were moved from Harris to Harris (disambiguation). Note that in future it will again be necessary to sift through those same 250 incoming links to Harris intending Harris aka Isle of Harris. --Una Smith (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - for the record the proposer supports the motion --WickerWiki (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was decided to preventively disambiguate placenames in some parts of the world. This, we were told, was the right way to do things. Having taken this route, nothing else is called just-Harris and no choice of page names can take a reader to Harris, Saskatchewan or Harris Township, Michigan in one go. So, I agree with PMA. Since there's only one just-Harris, it might as well be here. If it had to be somewhere else, Harris, Outer Hebrides would be least bad. A show of faith in the dab project's ability to fix bad links is touching, but entirely unjustified by the reality of things. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think this argument is going in circles? The Isle of Harris is only one of many uses of the word Harris. It is one of a dozen plus places called Harris. It is not even the biggest place called Harris. And, perhaps more importantly, it is dwarfed by the usage of the word Harris to describe a person or family. --WickerWiki (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we ask editors of other articles about places named Harris; maybe they have an opinion too? Absent a compelling reason why one article and none of the others should have an ambiguous title, the title should be given to a disambiguation page so that links to it can be most easily disambiguated. --Una Smith (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've read through all the comments. I'm astonished at the points made by Septentrionalis and Angus McLellan, and the relatively little reaction to them. Despite the plethora of places named plain Harris listed at Harris (disambiguation), Septentrionalis contends that "nothing else is normally called plain Harris". Angus clarifies the same argument by saying that since other places named Harris have had their titles dabbed, that "there's only one just-Harris, it might as well be here". This illustrates one of the problems with preemptive disambiguation - it causes editors to conflate topic names with article titles. Just because the article about the family name is not at Harris but at Harris (surname) does not mean that the surname is not a legitimate use of the name in terms of considering whether it is ambiguous and needs to be dabbed. The title of that article is Harris (surname), but the name of the subject of that article is still Harris. Same with Harris in Montserrat, Harris in Ontario, Harris in Michigan, Harris the character, and all the other ambiguous uses of the name Harris. You simply can't say the name is not ambiguous because all the other uses of the name have had their titles disambiguated! But, just because the name is ambiguous does not mean it necessarily must be a dab page. The remaining issue is whether one of the uses is the primary meaning of the name. On that point, when I google for Harris, none of the hits on the first page of results refer to the topic of this article, and that's definitive evidence that it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and so should not be at Harris. In fact, none of the uses appear to meet the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria, and so Harris should be the dab page. As to where Harris should be moved, I'll comment in the section on that issue below. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here. If you were to scan through all newspapers, books and scripts and counted how many times the word Harris was used, for each of its uses, you would find it most often refers to a person or family, not a place, not a company and not to a train! If you think about it it is used in the following circumstances:-
  1. a formal reference to a person. e.g. instead of saying "Bob Harris come here" a teacher may say "Harris, come here".
  2. an abbreviation by the press. e.g. "Smith passes to Harris. Harris shoots, He scores. Goal!!!"
  3. a group of related Harrises. e.g. "the Harris family of Monmouth were not related to the Harris family of Llangolen"
  4. as a surname (which is not quite the same as a person) e.g. Harris is a patrynomic surname.
Despite the word Harris being most commonly used to refer to a person I thought I would be generous and proposed that Harris goes to the disambiguation page. --WickerWiki (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. Isle of Harris I never heard of, but I can name at least 2 Harrises who I might search & need/want a dab page for (where I can also find if you love Harris, too?). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 20:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on requested moves (plural)

[edit]

I think an article's title is relatively unimportant, provided that it is not ambiguous. Also, that an ambiguous title such as Harris should be a disambiguation page. Not matter what its content is, a page titled Harris will accumulate incoming links. As a disambiguation page, Harris would gather almost exclusively wrong links. Once gathered, these wrong links can be fixed (disambiguated). There is a project and software to help: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. That leaves the apparently more difficult question of a title for the topic article now at Harris. Looking at the article suggests "Harris (Na Hearadh)". Would that work? The article title does not dictate the term used in linking articles. Eg, it could be [[Harris (Na Hearadh)|Isle of Harris]] which would appear as Isle of Harris. --Una Smith (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a random internet surfer decided that they were thinking of visiting the Isle of Harris, and wanted more info, what would they search wikipedia for; "Na Hearadh" or "Isle of Harris"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickerWiki (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be a page Isle of Harris, even if only a redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave the gaelic official names out of it, neither Na Hearad nor Na h-Eileanan Siar should be part of the article name at English language Wikipedia. Harris, Outer Hebrides seem to be the name that's impossible to misunderstand. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harris, Outer Hebrides? Sounds good to me. --Una Smith (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Una, your comment, "an article's title is relatively unimportant, provided that it is not ambiguous", concerns me. If that were the case, why not just title each article with a randomly generated unique identifier? Yes, I know you did not say totally irrelevant but relatively unimportant. But the implication is that the only importance is uniqueness ("provided that it is not ambiguous"). I see two relatively important purposes to article titles:
1) To specify the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article. When this is the name of the article, this is clearly conveyed. But even when the article title is disambiguated, if it's dabbed correctly (with the dabbing info in parenthesis, or at least separated from the name with a comma) the most common name used to refer to the article subject is still clearly conveyed. That's why I much prefer Harris, Outer Hebrides over Isle of Harris, because the latter wrongly conveys that Isle of Harris is the most common name of the article topic.
2) To convey whether this particular usage is the only usage, or at least the primary usage, of the name. With articles properly titled, this information can be clearly and quickly conveyed by whether the title is dabbed or not. This is why I oppose unnecessary (including so-called "preemptive") disambiguation - disambiguation even when the most common name of the article subject is the only or primary meaning of the name or term in question -- because unnecessary disambiguation obscures whether the name specified in the title is the only (or at least primary) usage, or whether it conflicts with other relatively notable uses.
Reason #2 is why, for example, I've proposed moving Los Angeles County, California to Los Angeles County at Talk:Los Angeles County, California#Requested move. When a reader looks at the article, or any link to it, he has no way of knowing whether it's dabbed with , California "just because", or because there are other conflicting uses of Los Angeles County. If we consistently dabbed only when necessary, then that information could be effectively conveyed through each title by clear implication. Anyway, those are the two reasons I think an article's title IS relatively important. There is no reason these two points cannot be consistently considered when going through a title selection or review process for any article. Cheers. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Name of this page

[edit]

I am a day early but it looks like more people support the move than oppose it by about three to one. What to rename this page is less clear. As far as I can intrepret the options and their supporters are as follows:-

Harris (Isle of)

  1. Vegaswikien

Isle of Harris

  1. WierSpielChequers (1st choice no move}
  2. Septentrionalis (1st choice no move)
  3. Lianachan (1st choice no move)

Harris, Outer Hebrides

  1. Ben MacDui
  2. Finn Rindahl
  3. Bejnar
  4. Akerbeltz
  5. Una Smith
  6. Angus McLellan (1st choice no move)
  7. Born2cycle
  8. Wickerwiki (switched)

Harris, Western Isles

As it stands there is not much in it but Isle of Harris is slightly in the lead.

Is this accurate? Any more opinions or anyone changed their minds? --WickerWiki (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still opposed to the move, but yes Isle of Harris is my second preference. ϢereSpielChequers 14:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Harris, Outer Hebrides, but Isle of Harris is acceptable. --Bejnar (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the above to reflect stated preferences to date. --Una Smith (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shifted myself to Outer Hebs Akerbeltz (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only really support the move and have no preference for where to as long as it's nothing daft like "Harris - not Keith, but the Island", so removing self from above list. MRM (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you had me reading Keith Harris. For clarification, I don't oppose "Isle of Harris" but think Harris, O.H. is more precise. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added myself to supporting "Harris, Outer Hebrides" because:
1) It indicates that the name of the subject is plain Harris
2) Isle of Harris would wrongly indicate that Isle of Harris, and not just plain Harris, is the most common name used to refer to it.
3) Even though I prefer Harris (Isle of), because it most clearly shows that Harris is the most common name of the subject, and still effectively disambiguates, I'm not voting for it since it's not going to win because so far only Vegaswikian is supporting it.
4) My top choice, Harris (Outer Hebrides), is not one of the available options.
--Born2cycle (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea that Harris, Outer Hebrides is most commonly called just plain Harris is incorrect. It is referred to as Harris by its 2000 residents, its neighbours and a few history/geography experts. The 4 billion people in the rest of the world know it as "the Isle of Harris". "the Isle of Harris" is by far the most common name used to refer to it. --WickerWiki (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that very many of the 4 billion people in the rest of the world have ever heard of it, much less know of it as "the Isle of Harris". If the people who know it well refer it to it commonly as "Harris", then that is its most common name. For example, outsiders sometimes refer to San Francisco as Frisco, but locals never do, and that's what matters. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that most people in the world haven't heard of the Isle of Harris or Harris, Outer Hebrides. Of the people that have heard of it most will be British and, to a lesser extent, our colonial cousins. It is known as the Isle of Harris by the Royal Mail and most of Britain (i.e. 60 million people) though and they outnumber the Hebridean locals, who themselves know it as either Harris or Isle of Harris. Depends on Wikipedia's rules for naming; but from what I have read the guides say what counts most is what the majority of wikipedia readers know something as, which is not necessarily the same as what the locals want. Probably an area of ambiguity which is where Administrators earn their crust. If you google "Isle of Harris" you get plenty of relevant results, if you google "Harris" you get millions of results relating to this that and the other. --WickerWiki (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, locals call it "Harris" unless they hear a Lewis person calling their home "Isle of Lewis" when they happily add the "Isle of" ;-) MRM (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think that Harris, Outer Hebrides is more "standard" than Harris (Outer Hebrides). Not sure if there is a specific wiki rule about this but look at the places called York on the York (disambiguation) page as a comparison.

--WickerWiki (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't have a good global poll unfortunately but how many people outside Britain, Scottish expats or the clothing industry have heard of Harris or talk about it? So referring to "local" Scottish usage is useful I think. Besides, since there do seem to be at least 2 alternatives (Outer Hebs, Western Isles) that appear acceptable to many, given that this is an encyclopedia, I think NOT perpetuating the albeit common misconception about it being an island would be beneficial methinks. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of British people refer to it as "Isle of Harris". It is the Scots local to it that call it both "Isle of Harris" and "Harris". --WickerWiki (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does everyone resident there call it "Isle of Harris"? Or is it simply a common alternative to "Harris", perhaps used more when referring to places outside the population center? --Una Smith (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what links to Lewis, I see (1) many incoming links need disambiguation and (2) Isle of Lewis, which redirects to Lewis, itself has a lot of incoming links. So I think it would be wise to move Lewis to Isle of Lewis and Lewis (disambiguation) to Lewis. And for the same reasons plus this symmetry, do the same for Harris. --Una Smith (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know quite a few Hearaich and none of the call it anything but Harris when speaking English. The Isle of is much more common with Lewis in comparison. Partly I suppose because locals are acutely aware of the fact that it's not an island. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated some more, and I agree Isle of Harris seems to be a minor variant, more often used outside the Outer Hebrides than on. Also, I felt compelled to rewrite the lead to Harris to address some of this. Does anyone here object to either "Isle of Harris" or "Harris, Outer Hebrides"? --Una Smith (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion - New Name of this page

[edit]

Looks like we are not going to get a clear consensus on the new name; seems to be a split between Isle of Harris and Harris, Outer Hebrides. Should I change the request from

[Harris] - [Harris (Isle of)]

to

[Harris] - ?

to alert the Administrator that the new name seems to have two favourites and leave it to them to decide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WickerWiki (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear that "Harris (Isle of)" is not a winner, so I think it is fair to go ahead and change the entry on Wikipedia:Requested moves, but otherwise let's wait a bit longer. This discussion is still under way. --Una Smith (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still opposed to the move, but your assumption that (if pushed, and it was absolutely neccessary) I would opt for Isle Of Harris is correct. It's not an island, that's true. The people who live there, of which I was one for years, call it Harris, as do the people of Lewis (I was one of them for even longer). Isle Of Harris is in the postal address for the island, including all the residences and businesses there, so it seems to me to be the only reasonable alternative. Harris, Outer Hebrides seems pointless, as that's no different (to me) from just the good old Harris that I still think it should remain. Lianachan (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harris, Outer Hebrides would be consistent with many Wikipedia articles on place names, precisely for the reason Lianachan gives: it says in effect the name of this place is Harris, but as there are other places named Harris we disambiguate it with an encompassing place name. I do not mean to say this article must be consistent. --Una Smith (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Isle of Harris" is the former postal county for Harris; see Postal counties of the United Kingdom#Scotland. --Una Smith (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Isle of Harris" is the current Post town for Royal Mail postcodes starting HS3 or HS5. See HS postcode area --WickerWiki (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Per Post town, uppercase is required, so that would be ISLE OF HARRIS. --Una Smith (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UK Post towns are supposed to be capitalised when written on envelopes or other postal items. If there's no consensus for any one solution, and nobody volunteering to fix over two hundred links that would need changing, then surely we should keep Harris as Harris? ϢereSpielChequers 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Harris" is ambiguous, Harris will accumulate links meaning places other than this one Harris, no matter what. So Harris always will need its links checked periodically. That is much easier to do if it is a disambiguation page, because then virtually all incoming links will be in need of disambiguation and it won't be necessary to sift through "correct" incoming links. Also, there is a project and software to help: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Fixing 200 links is easy; I and others just finished disambiguating over 1000 links to Weymouth. --Una Smith (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well "Harris, Outer Hebrides" has most support. Despite voting for "Isle of Harris" I am not that bothered one way or the other really; the issue about which page most users will initially search for only has a technical impact on wikipedia. As long as we have a redirect from "Isle of Harris" to "Harris, Outer Hebrides" everything will work hunky dory. I will update the destination name. So what needs to be done next in the wiki process? --WickerWiki (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to 1)move this page to Harris, Outer Hebrides, 2) Fix all(?) links to Harris so they point to Harris, OH. (I'll help if I'm around) 3) Move Harris (disamb) to Harris 4) fix all links til Harris (dab). We'll need sysop-help for the moves, right? Am I missing something?Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have understood the admin is supposed to do the move as you said. Not sure if there is anything else we need to do though... On a technical slant can't links be fixed with a simple SQL statement? --WickerWiki (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The technical stuff is beyond me, I looked up SQL but I'm no wiser ;) (No, please don't try explain...I'll only get a headache). But if we don't have to fix those links manually that's so much better. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can move Harris to Harris, Outer Hebrides without help from an admin but an admin's help may be needed to move Harris (disambiguation) over Harris. So what I propose is: clean up the entry on Wikipedia:Requested moves and wait a day or two. Then, disambiguate links to Harris per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. Most but not all links will need to be changed to [[Harris, Outer Hebrides]] or [[Harris, Outer Hebrides|Harris]] (so display text will be "Harris") or [[Isle of Harris]]. Isle of Harris will be a redirect to Harris, Outer Hebrides. --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links have to be examined to see which "Harris" is intended. Usually, the context in the linking article makes this clear, but sometimes the best you can do is leave a hidden comment that the link needs to be disambiguated, and let someone else figure out which "Harris" is the correct one. --Una Smith (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok we will wait a couple more days. I thought the admin just came along and did the move after 5 days though. Is this wrong? Are you supposed to summon them from somewhere if you need their help? I didn't see anything in the wiki moving guidelines that made this clear, but I could have easily missed something. --WickerWiki (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 days is the minimum wait time. They're just waiting to see if we have said all we have to say about the move. --Una Smith (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Change to "ise" spelling

[edit]

Hello, some people have been changing this article to use the "ise" spelling rather than the "ize" one. Just to point out, the guidelines (WP:ENGVAR) say to "retain existing variety" unless there is a strong reason to change. I don't see a strong reason to change here; the Oxford spelling is a perfectly valid variety of British spelling (see also WP:SPELLING), even if it is used slightly less often. Sam5 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Intro

[edit]

Hmmm. I think the new intro represents a great stride backwards. What, for example, is the point in saying that Lewis and Harris are known as Lewis and Harris? It all read much better before the recent batch of edits, at least to me. Lianachan (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on it some more. Better now? --Una Smith (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point in putting the former postal county as opposed to the current postal town/county? Does it even need to be in the intro seeing as it is listed in the summary info box on th RHS? --WickerWiki (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the mention of the postal county to somewhere else in the article, but I do think a mention of "Isle of Harris" belongs in the lead paragraph. --Una Smith (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about that? --WickerWiki (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting there. I shortened the mention in the lead and added mention of the mailing address to the Etymology section. --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]
  • Norse harri, meaning "heights".
  • Na h'earadh (àirdead) shares this meaning

Pass on the Norse meaning but the etymology of Harris is *not* commonly "heights" but "district, portion of land" (see Mac an Tàilleir et al). The Na h'earadh is really bad spelling and *àirdead is àirde "height" plus a derivational suffix and you'd have a really hard job deriving the one from the other. And the 1892 source looks really bad to be honest, lots of "maybe's" and little that's assured. Do we have any other source who supports this rather left-field etymology? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I should have modernised the Gaelic rather than just copy that source. I've put the info back in, without any mention of Gaelic and with a more accurate Norse spelling. Oh, and a different reference too. The original reference, by the way, is a pretty well respected book of Scottish toponymy. Lianachan (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've balanced it out a bit now, so hopefully the toponymy section is fleshed out and improved. Lianachan (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, thanks! Akerbeltz (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harris, 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) 13:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 March 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 section.

Not moved. See general agreement below to maintain this article's present title. One support rationale is seen as a strong, valid argument; however, there is enough opposition seen to establish consensus. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  12:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harris, Outer Hebrides → Harris, Scotland – No recent discussion for this move; previous lengthy discussions settled on "Harris, Scotland" as the preferred article title. Deskford (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist note: members of WikiProjects Scottish Islands, UK geography and Islands have been notified of this request. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
If I’m being asked to spell out the pertinent section regarding naming conventions it is "Ambiguous place names within the United Kingdom should generally use the county as the disambiguator; see Wells, Somerset (not Wells, England, which is a redirect)." but can’t help but raise an eyebrow, you having dismissed this regarding Lewis. Restaging that debate is probably not a helpful tangent here (though if it were, I do not remember and can see no mention of the Isle of Dogs at Talk:Isle of Lewis). If there is a debate to be had, it is surely as to why “Scotland” is a preferable disambiguator here to the conventional “Outer Hebrides”. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that disambiguation was actually needed since we have a common name (Isle of Lewis) so the "Outer Hebrides" or "Scotland" would be redundant, similar to the fact that we don't need to move Isle of Dogs to Dogs, London or Isle of Wight to Wight, England.
But in any case I am not proposing moving Harris to "Isle of Harris", I was just pointing that out as a possible alternative per WP:NATURAL.
The reference to Isle of Dogs was from this comment (in response to this one) which I assumed you were meaning as Ben MacDui's comment.
And WP:SCOTLANDPLACE also says "Exceptions include" "The number of larger settlements or islands that are likely to be well-known outside of the region, that also require disambiguation such as Perth, Scotland, and Jura, Scotland" so if Lewis required artificial disambiguation then Lewis, Scotland would probably be the best title (but for the reasons explained above "Isle of Lewis" is preferred). Harris does probably require artificial disambiguation and would probably fall under "larger" like Jura in this case but there are 2 in Scotland so we go back to the island group/council area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You brought me in in regard to my contributions to the debate at Lewis, so my response regarded that and it’s precursor on the same talk page. To my memory, I have not participated in the debate or debates here, I have no knowledge of them and my participation at the Lewis page had no connection to those here. The Isles of Dogs and Wight comparison is patently apples and oranges as nobody ever refers to them just as Dogs or Wight, whereas Lewis (overwhelmingly, I would say) commonly is referred to as plain Lewis. Nobody, thankfully, is proposing “Isle of Harris”. Thus, none of this is particularly pertinent to the matter at hand so can we dispense with this tangent please?
Simply, is there a case for “Scotland” to trump the conventional “Outer Hebrides” as disambiguator? As yet, I’m unaware of one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment you made here was why I pinged you here. Nobody is currently proposing "Isle of Harris" but that is a possibility per WP:NATURAL, I'm happy to explain the WP:NATURAL point at User:Crouch, Swale/Island names in greater detail but in any case we both agree that the current name of this article is the best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so simply because of the Rùm one but the guideline does suggest that "Scotland" would otherwise be acceptable, note that the smaller (and uninhabited) Scarp, Scotland is there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're reading of WP:NATURALDIS appears to omit "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names". Please, let's dismiss "Isle of Harris" as any kind of candidate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google search for Harris Scotland (not Isle of Harris) returns many pages calling it "Isle of Harris" (such as tourist websites and its own website) so I don't think its obscure never mind made-up. That said per previous discussions it does indeed look like "Isle of Harris" is a bit informal so yes I'd opt for the current name. Since we're an encyclopedia we should generally use formal titles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless there's another Harris in Scotland. If this is the only Harris in Scotland then the current title is needlessly specific. JIP | Talk 19:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JIP: There is another on Rùm, see [7][8][9] even if the article hasn't arrived yet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support revert of undiscussed technical move that should have been discussed. Partial dabs are acceptable in situations like this, especially when the other use is so relatively minor and double so when the other use doesn't even have an article. --В²C ☎ 21:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, the result of "no consensus" here should be a revert of the recent undiscussed move. I really wish Anthony Appleyard had reverted his own move of the original technical request when he saw that it was contested. --В²C ☎ 21:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • How? the 2012 move was against the 2008 RM so Anthony Appleyard was just reverting the 2012 undiscussed move. In the case of Birr the move from Birr, Ireland>Birr, County Offaly was probably acceptable as that was clearly in accordance with NC and the RM was clearly only about disambiguation and not the target while the 2008 RM did discuss the target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • 2012 was seven years ago. An RM is not the only way a title, or any change, assumes consensus support on WP. Once it has a number of edits by others, it's assumed to have consensus support. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS:
          Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time.
        • So that means the 2012 move did have (implicit) consensus support. Now, your technical request move, reverting the 2012 move to the 2008 title, would too have gained consensus, had it not been disputed. But it was disputed. In such a case we normally return to the longstanding stable title, and certainly a title that has stood since 2012 qualifies. --В²C ☎ 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree 7 years is more than enough for silent consensus however my issue is that the 2012 move was against the 2008 RM where Harris, Outer Hebrides was the decided destination. The facts are;
It remained at "Harris" in January 2008 following an unsuccessful RM (at Talk:Isle of Lewis/Archive 2#Requested move)
It was moved to "Harris, Scotland", then "Harris, Outer Hebrides", following move proposal, the latter had the most consensus and "Scotland" had been dismissed due to the Rùm one.
It was moved from "Harris, Outer Hebrides" to "Harris, Scotland" against the previous RM (my emphasis)
I submitted a Request to revert undiscussed moves at 19:22, 16 March 2019. The page was moved by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) at 23:09, 16 March 2019.
Deskford (talk · contribs) Submitted another Request to revert undiscussed move at 00:24, 17 March 2019. Anthony Appleyard started the full RM at 05:44, 17 March 2019.
  • В²C please explain regarding the fact that the 2012 RM was against a formal RM (which you made several comments in, example). Surely an unnoticed undiscussed move doesn't override the previous RM. If that was the case anyone could unilaterally move a page against a previous RM and have it stay there if no one notices. While we can agree to disagree on PDAB, using "Outer Hebrides" instead of "Scotland" is still a single qualifier as opposed to On the Road (film)/On the Road (2012 film) and there seems to be consensus that if a song is the only stand alone article and none of the others are notable then it can go at just "Foo (song)". The Rùm Harris has been shown to be notable, not merely exist unlike in the 2008 RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only repeat myself. After seven stable years the title is presumed to have consensus support, regardless of how it got there and the history. You are free to try a bold move via technical request if you feel it’s unlikely to be challenged, which you did. But it was challenged. So now you need to establish a new consensus for your proposal. —В²C ☎ 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So a bold move against a previous RM consensus that isn't objected to for years can be considered consensus? I think not, my technical request was not a bold request, it was a request to restore the outcome of a previous RM. Does that mean anyone can move a page against a previous RM and if its left for years without being objected and then is objected, the title inconsistent with the RM is restored?
      • It was clear that both the destination for the Outer Hebrides place and its primacy were controversial and its clear that the previous RM consensus was in favour of "Outer Hebrides", not "Scotland". In some cases such as when the situation has changed, when the RM was faulty, when only disambigation (and not the target) was discussed or if there's a good reason to IAR that one may preform a bold move on a page previously discussd at RM, no evidence suggests that any of these is true.
      • You stated here that you opposed reverting the undiscussed move but then stated "but if consensus is not reached here I agree the unilateral move to "Rum and Coke" should be reverted" shouldn't that also be the case here? While I don't have a problem with the 7 years silence being considered in the end if there is no consensus here we will be left with; consensus to move from "Harris" (specifically) to "Harris, Outer Hebrides" (in December 2008) and no consensus to move from "Harris, Outer Hebrides" to "Harris, Scotland". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Crouch, Swale, a bold move against a previous RM consensus that isn't objected to for years CAN be, and IS, considered consensus. I know of an editor who has a predilection for making titles more descriptive and tends to make unilateral moves accordingly, even though they know any unnecessary disambiguation is a "potentially controversial" move and they should be using RM. So, every now and then I look at their history to see if there are any questionable moves like that. But I also know if I wait too long, I can't just revert (or file for a technical request revert if appropriate) because consensus has presumed to set in if nobody else has objected after a year or so. Even 6 months can be argued to be enough to establish WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, unless it's blatantly obvious vandalism that obviously got overlooked. But seven years? Yeah, that requires an RM to see if there is a new consensus. --В²C ☎ 19:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe in some cases yes but I don't thinks that clear here, at least I'd say "Harris, Scotland" shouldn't be considered the clear stable title. But as far as the arguments go, 3 people favour the move (including the OP) and 3 people don't. Out of those who favour this, the OP claims "previous lengthy discussions" which I can't find any, JIP says its needlessly specific if there is only 1 in Scotland (which there's 2 in Scotland) and you argue that the "Scotland" qualifier is acceptable per PDAB (which doesn't have generally have consensus). What should be done with undiscussed moves against previous RMs probably needs discussion but I still find the point that the existence of 2 notable Harrises in Scotland is stronger than at the time of the last RM (since it had not been shown the other was notable). I'd pretty sure I know who you are referring to with the undiscussed moves to make the titles more recognizable but (community) consensus will generally find that the moves should be reverted and I can't think of any they have moves against previous RMs. I'd agree 6 months to a year is generally sensible for titles to be considered stable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's discuss one issue at a time, shall we? Either substantial time at a particular title creates WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for that title even if it was moved unilaterally contrary to a previous RM, or it doesn't. The supposed particular arguments for or against the title, like the ones you just made, are irrelevant to this. You contend "Harris, Scotland" "shouldn't be considered the clear stable title" even though this article has been at that title for seven years. On what grounds? Because of some RM previous to the move seven years ago? Because some people have reasons to think it should be at some other title? That's besides the point. Go ahead and boldly move (via technical request if necessary - and it is bold since it's done without discussion - that's the definition of WP:BOLD), just like it was boldly moved seven years ago. If it sticks, great. But if it's challenged, like it was in this case, and no new consensus is developed, then we have to go back to the IMPLICIT one that had been de facto established for seven years. --В²C ☎ 22:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think its one way or another, but a bit of both, on 1 ground it was against the previous RM and on another ground it was stable for nearly 7 years. Can you provide any other examples where this situation has happened before. I think requesting reverting back to the consensus of a previous RM is a bit more than merely bold even if it was from 7 years. In any case if a consensus for either title is formed this will be moot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, we agree this discussion will be moot for this case if we reach a clear new consensus in this discussion. But it's an important point in general, and at this point looks likely to be relevant here. I hate to bring up Yogurt/Yoghurt, but in that case we didn't have a long stable period, so going (way) back to the original stable title made sense (and worked out quite well, by the way). But here we have had seven years of stability — no attempts to change it and not even discussion about it. So that's the epitome of a stable title. Just because very strong arguments against the unilateral move could have been made back then, because it was against the previous RM, doesn't affect the significance of the stability and implied consensus developed since then. Consider how the guidance at WP:TITLECHANGES applies here: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. So since this "title has been stable for a long time", "it should not be changed", unless there is "good reason to change", which is determined by a "consensus of editors". Also, note there is nothing in any policy or guideline suggesting we should give more weight to a consensus reached in an RM discussion over the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS developed by a title that has been stable for a long time. --В²C ☎ 23:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think its excessive to argue that this an epitome example of a stable title or that TITLECHANGES applies. And per WP:THREEOUTCOMES#3 This almost always sets a consensus for the new title. If we allow moves against previous RMs it encourages users to move pages against previous RMs in the hope that no one will notice. The 2008 RM was well-attended (as opposed to one with just 1 or 2 editors) and the reasons for choosing "Outer Hebrides" over "Scotland" are stronger than in 2008 for the reasons stated (as opposed to a sutuation where consensus has changed or the name has changed externally to WP). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Outer Hebrides is better than Scotland in naming this place. Everyone who cares knows this as the Outer Hebrides. While it is technically Scotland, like it is technically Europe, these Outer Hebrides places are known for being part of the Outer Hebrides. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

I'm a little confused as to how we come to be where we are here. Firstly it should be noted that I did not start this move discussion; another editor placed my signature at the head of this section to make it appear that way. I had merely made a technical request for a recent undiscussed move to be reverted. As far as I can see, the history of the article title is as follows:

  • 3 November 2002: Created as "Harris".
  • 26 January 2008: Remained at "Harris" following no consensus move proposal.
  • 4 December 2008: Moved to "Harris, Scotland", then "Harris, Outer Hebrides", following move proposal.
  • 10 May 2012: Moved to "Harris, Scotland" to conform to naming convention.
  • 19 June 2015: Moved to "Harris (Scotland)" without discussion.
  • 1 August 2015: Moved back to "Harris, Scotland".
  • 16 March 2019: Moved to "Harris, Outer Hebrides" without discussion.

With the exception of a brief blip caused by a disruptive editor in 2015, the article title has been stable as "Harris, Scotland" since 2012, so the undiscussed move to "Harris, Outer Hebrides" was against the spirit of WP:TITLECHANGES: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. No such consensus was sought, and it seems to me the article should have been moved back to its stable title before beginning any discussions. --Deskford (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2012 move was against the 2008 RM proposal, but that's complicated by the fact that the move result was closed as "Scotland" and then changed to "Outer Hebrides". My request was posted as a "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" due to the result of the 2008 discussion. You then also posted a "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" and this discussion was started. So while the 2019 move was undiscussed it its self reverted an undiscussed move in 2012 against a previous RM. Maybe I shouldn't have posted this under Requests to revert undiscussed moves but at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 31#Requests to revert undiscussed moves most people there considered undiscussed moves to be quite broad. I would also note that the existence of the Rùm one (which I have shown to be notable) changes things in favour of "Outer Hebrides". I had planned on waiting until I created an article for the Rùm one but I decided to request the move earlier due to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Scottish islands involving Category:Villages in Harris, Outer Hebrides to avoid complication with the category not matching the article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 24 March 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.

Requested move 19 April 2020, general

[edit]

I have moved Harris, Outer Hebrides > Harris, Hebrides and Isle of Lewis > Lewis, Hebrides to achieve consistency. Moving to Isle of x, x, Outer Hebrides, x, Western Isles or x, Scotland is impossible because edited redirects exist. CityOfSails2 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CityOfSails2: per the above move (and the 2008 RM) these shouldn't have been moved without discussion. Harris, Rùm is also in the (Inner) Hebrides and this is consistent with Scalpay, Outer Hebrides. With Isle of Lewis there was also an RM at Talk:Isle of Lewis#Requested move 18 July 2018 and this is also consistent with Isle of Arran, Isle of Bute, Isle of Gigha, Isle of Mull and Isle of Skye, see User:Crouch, Swale/Island names. Furthermore per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL comma disambiguation isn't needed. If you think that these should still be moved, see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: we still need consistency because Lewis and Harris are a pair. CityOfSails2 (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they have different named, see the OS[10][11] one induces "Isle of" and one doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 April 2020

[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. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harris, Outer Hebrides → Isle of Harris – consistency CityOfSails2 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to move
  • Harris, Outer Hebrides > Isle of Harris
or
  • Isle of Lewis > Lewis, Outer Hebrides
These two islands are a pair and should have similar article names.

CityOfSails2 (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Also WP:COMMMONNAME CityOfSails2 (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • See the OS map links above, although they are a pair they are named differently by the OS, this one is thus "Harris", that said the proposed name could be used per WP:NATURAL but then presumably we should move Jura, Scotland to Isle of Jura. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Following from WP:SCOTLANDPLACE. Lewis should indeed be Lewis, Outer Hebrides and I am sorry I missed this discussion. I have lost track of the number of times I have looked up the number of authorities that use the formal name of 'Lewis', Harris', 'Bute', 'Arran' etc. They include just about every source listed at WP:GOODISLE. Ben MacDui 10:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the sources GOODISLE gives in the "Infobox" section is the OS. Isle of Lewis shouldn't be moved for this reason similar to Isle of Arran and Isle of Skye. We don't need to move Isle of Wight to Wight, England or Isle of Dogs to Dogs, London as noted above, although they are less often called without "Isle of" and are not comparable, nether is Isle of Lewis v Harris for the same reason. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Crouch, Swale: The Ordnance Survey names for places can be very confusing. The fact that their names for Lewis and Harris is different is their own problem. CityOfSails2 (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @CityOfSails: The OS names are merely the names used. They might be confusing for you, but that's life. If you have a problem with "Harris" and "Isle of Lewis", that problem is yours, not the OS's or anyone that uses these names, which are of course in daily use. GPinkerton (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that articles copycat each other, in this case they have different names. Articles should usually be consistent but these are different cases with different merits. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose People don't call it "Isle of Harris" any more than "Isle of Lewis" or "Isle of Skye". The latter articles should be moved to Lewis, Outer Hebrides and Skye, Scotland. buidhe 13:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It should be "Harris, Outer Hebrides". "Isle of Harris" I've not heard, but contrary to the comment above, people very often say "Isle of Skye". I have never heard or read anyone say "Isle of Jura". "Harris, Scotland" should be avoided because while both Harris and the Hebrides are geographical features, Scotland is a political description. You could just as easily call it "Harris, United Kingdom" as "Harris, Scotland" but neither tells you very precisely where Harris is; in Orkney the inhabitants say "going to Scotland" when travelling to mainland Great Britain (not "the mainland"), as though the islands were somewhere else. I have no idea why anyone wants to impose uniformity on the names of Scottish (non-)islands, that long-ship sailed the better part of a millennium ago. Islands have inconsistent names; Harris and the Isle of Skye are the same island, the Isle of Dogs and Isle of Grain are not islands, Wikipedia can get over it. GPinkerton (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When I was in Glasgow I made the mistake of telling someone I was going to the "Isle of Skye" next; I was told that Scottish people just call it "Skye". buidhe 17:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: Certainly not a universal practice. It should also be noted that "Isle of" is not some scenic way of saying "x Island" that applies to any Hebridean island. The difference between the Isle of Lewis and Harris is also there in the Gaelic names: Na Hearadh and Eilean Leтdhais - one has "Isle of" and the other does not. GPinkerton (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I speak Gaelic and it's just called "Leòdhas". buidhe 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I meant on the OS. GPinkerton (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think anything has changed since this was last discussed. I think we should only change if something significant has changed, as name changes have the potential to confuse readers. If I am talking to people (in Scotland), I would generally just say "Harris", as there is little chance of confusion; I would say "Isle of Lewis" to avoid confusion with Lewes, or the department store. AlasdairW (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2020 (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.

Etymology

[edit]

This section needs a serious checking and revision. My understanding is that the name derives from an Old Norse word for high ground, not from a personal name, and the island was Pictish before the Norse settlers arrived so didn't have Gaelic names replaced by Norse; rather it was the other way around - Gaelicisation of Norse names. Northern rock (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harris,_Outer_Hebrides&oldid=1207558198"