Talk:South Queensferry

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scotland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Edinburgh Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

In addition to being known as South Queensferry, the generally used name by the residents and the surrounding villagers, etc is "The Ferry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.108.140 (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to say that Queensferry is called South Queensferry to distinguish it from North Queensferry when in fact the later is the case. The name has always been Queensferry with North Queensferry so called to distinguish it from Queensferry on the south shore of the Firth of Forth. Most, if not all maps have the town listed as Queensferry, so are most if not all road signs use Queensferry. The prefix is practically never used by any organisation in Queensferry, the local community council is Queensferry & District CC. The rugby club is called Queensferry RFC, the football club is called Queensferry FC, the local church is called Queensferry Parish Church and so on. My understanding was the the South was added by the Post Office so as not to confuse Queensferry with the Queensferry in Flintshire so South Queensferry is really only used as a postal address even though very few from Queensferry refers to where they live as South Queensferry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.35.103 (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the scholarly "The Place-Names of Fife" (p 380-2, vol. 1 of five, 2006) historically there are references to both North and South Queensferry as simply "Queensferry". Andrew of Wyntoun, in a reference more likely to be to N. Queensferry in 1420, refers to "the Qwenys-ferry". Also see the West Fife map from Blaeu's 1654 atlas of Scotland, featuring "Queens Ferrey" on the Fife side and "S. Queens Ferrey" across the Forth. It just isn't that simple. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Queensferry" is also the only description which has been used by the Ordnance Survey. --MBRZ48 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor amended the Lieutenancy area from Edinburgh to West Lothian. It appears from discussion with them that their intent was to add the traditional county, which I understand was West Lothian. Though I believe Lieutenancy areas largely correspond to traditional counties, I'm not sure if this is always the case and clarification would be useful in this case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Lieutenancy areas of Scotland and the Lord-Lieutenants Orders referred to. Lieutenancy area of West Lothian was West Lothian District, now West Lothian council area. It follows that South Queensferry is in City of Edinburgh Lieutenancy area. 77.99.108.178 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself and the relevant sections of the article are not only unreferenced but contradictory, indicating that largely the traditional counties pertained. If you do have a WP:RS on the matter, please cite it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself but I pointed to the Lord Lieutenancy article because it summarises the position and there is discussion in the Talk Page. More pertinently, I also pointed out that the article references the relevant legislation on which the table in the article is based. Original research? I have not checked the elements in the table, I take it you have, so I can't comment on the article being contradictory. 77.99.108.178 (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take this as saying you do not have a reliable source regarding the specific matter as to which Lieutenancy area South Queensferry is in? If we do not have one either way, the best solution may be to remove the entry regarding this until we do. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the Orders are not reliable sources? 77.99.108.178 (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not their reliability but that, from what you have highlighted from them, that that they do not specifically answer the question. You provide your quite possibly reasonable extrapolation based on none of the listed entities in column 3, particularly West Lothian district, containing South Queensferry but that is an interpretation, so WP:OR. However this explanatory note does deal with the city council areas, stating that they correspond to lieutenancies, with no mention of anomalies in regard to traditional counties, so the edit which I questioned two years ago does appear to be misplaced. I'll cite it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't highlight anything in the Orders nor did I extrapolate from column 3, so no WP:OR. In any event, whatever has been said has been in the Talk Page, so no WP:OR. It is a simple deduction, not an extrapolation, that if it is not West Lothian it must be Edinburgh. More to the point, the source you now say you have found is, in fact, the explanatory note, of which I was aware, to the Order referred to in the Wikipedia article. 77.99.108.178 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As well as edits to the talk page you made an edit to the article itself, removing the request for a citation, based on your deduction. However reasonable you believe that deduction to be, editing on the basis of it is WP:OR. If you were aware of the pertinent section of the explanatory note which does directly provide the answer, without recourse to deduction, highlighting that section rather than advancing the deduction would have been worthwhile. Anyway, the matter is resolved. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South Queensferry. 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/20160212040707/http://edinburghshogmanay.com/events/the-stoats-loony-dook/ to http://www.edinburghshogmanay.com/events/the-stoats-loony-dook/

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) 20:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]