Talk:Edinburgh Castle/Archive 1

Land deemed Nova Scotia

As a little footnote to Edinburgh Castle I added an article on the the piece of land deemed Nova Scotia If I find moer I will add --Pat 01:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to replace bottom photo

The bottom photo on this article, Image:Edincast.JPG, was added by User:Isis without attribution. Isis, who has left the project, seems to have scanned many things from books, and wikipedia's increasing willingness to stick by its rules in this regard makes me think we should remove this image and nominate it for deletion. Instead, I suggest we replace it with Image:Edinburgh-castle.jpg, which I think is better for the following reasons:

• it's legal, and its GFDL
• it's much larger, so it works well with the new thumbnail code
• I think it's a better, more representative picture of the castle
• it's sufficiently similar to the other picture on the page, Image:Edinpain.JPG, and so the contrast between the two shows the development in the surrounding area (yes, they're from opposite angles, but even so).

Note that I don't propose to remove Image:Edinpain.JPG, as I believe it's out of copyright and so quite legal. I don't intend to do this immediately; I'll wait at least a week before acting, so if anyone disagrees, please speak up. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me... it's not a great or particularly representative photo anyway. --Taras 00:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Expand please

This article should be more like the Windsor Castle article. Chicheley 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is in pretty shoddy shape in every sense. I'll try to do something with it (starting with the removal of inaccuracies) help from more experienced Wikipedians appreciated. Antisthenes 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Update the One O'Clock Gun section

The 25-pound howitzer was replaced several years ago by the 105mm Light Gun. [1] Also a mention (or even a seperate article) of the late Thomas McKay (better known as Tam the Gun) should be added in this section. I find it surprising that there's no mention of how they know it's 13:00 exactly. Personally I'd be inclined to include the real method plus a story from the 1950's: 'As for this reputation for reliability, one story about a journalist visiting Edinburgh in the 1950s shows just how ingrained it became. While at Edinburgh Castle, the reporter asked the man who fired the one o'clock gun how he knew the exact time. "Easy," replied the man. "I check my watch every morning by the clock in the Hamilton & Inches window." The reporter then went down to H&I and asked how they checked the clock in their window. The reply? "By the one o'clock gun."'[2] Ninja-lewis 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct?

Here it says that David's tower was built in 1386 by David II, but in wikipedia's article it says that david I died in 1371. So I think that something is wrong.

Yes, David II commissioned the tower but he did not live to see it completed, dying in the castle in 1371. -Bill Reid | Talk 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for restructuring

The layout of this page seems a bit of a guddle. Here are some suggestions on imporving the structure, comments welcome:

1. "Present management" - this section should probably go after history, and be expanded to "Present use", taking in the Castle's military role as well as tourism.
2. "History" - OK, but needs expanding, see no.3
3. "Current structure", an awkward title, "Description" usually works better, or perhaps "The castle today". Some of the subsections are actually history, and should be moved into that section, notably "David's Tower and the Lang Siege" and "A Garrison Fortress"
4. "Tradition" - Could be merged into a new "Present use" section (see no.1), so that all the castle's current functions are discussed together. Mons Meg could be part of the description, as its not really a "tradition". The "Link with Nova Scotia" is historic and could be put into "History".

If there's no objections, I'll make a start next week. Once structure is OK, I want to start adding some references and hopefully get this High-importance article improved a couple of notches. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring sounds a good idea. I've added a mention of the castle's representation on various banknotes (it's a appeared a few times in the past) with refs. I think it's interesting and relevant and should get a passing mention somewhere. There wasn't a suitable heading for this paragraph so I put it in its own section, but maybe you'll work out a better place to put this information - either in its own section or maybe in a section dealing with notable paintings and representations? Cnbrb (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. I'd love to help. My strengths are more on the Wikignome side of things... If you do the heavy lifting of moving the pieces around, I'll be happy to dart in and do come copyediting and such. [ roux ] [x] 10:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both, any help appreciated of course. Cnbrb, there may be scope for developing such a section, Edinburgh Castle is symbolic of Scotland and the city, though there's a risk it might turn into trivia. But the banknotes are worth mentioning I agree. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree that trivia sections are unwanted, but think it's worth a mention. If it's worked well into the article structure, the development of an unwanted trivia section might be avoided... I hope! Cnbrb (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Split?

Well a few additions here and there is turning into a major project, and the page is now heading north of 60kb. I think a split could be needed, and I would suggest removing the sections on "Prehistory" and "Early Middle Ages". These don't really relate to the castle as such, but could be dealt with under an article at Castle Rock, Edinburgh (currently a redirect). Any thoughts? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One O'clock Gun

added the name of current district gunner Stupidstudent (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Added referencing Stupidstudent (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

There are already some really good pictures in the article, but I thought that the sepia photo on the right might be of some use. It was taken in 1865–1885. It's a nice juxtaposition of the medieval castle and what look like new 19th century shops. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

most popular visitor attraction

i have a source from BBC News that indicates a rise in the number of people paying to visit Edinburgh Castle and that the castle remains the most popular visitor attraction within Scotland for the year ending 2009. should this be added to the article, since this info is more up-to-date than the source which dates back to 2007? Kilnburn (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so, if we can keep the article up to date that's great. Nev1 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

i'll do that then. actually found a better source from Historic Scotland. Kilnburn (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.146.175.2, 8 April 2011

There is within this article a brief section dealing with the Scottish National War Memorial which has, since a date which I have not been able to determine, contained a major error (namely what is clearly an intended declaration to the effect that new names are being added to the casket within the shrine). This has never been considered possible by anyone at all for a number of reasons. I myself made this point previously, and stated that it made it difficult to understand why the Trustees should have believed that it was ever the intention that the Scottish National War Memorial should be used for the commemoration of those who died after the original limiting date (the date of the signature of the Versailles Peace Treay in 1919, 29 June). I would not necessarily have repeated my perhaps rather impolite criticism of the Trustees of the SNWM if I had attempted to restore the contribution originally made by myself, but I would certainly have referred to the matter with which I now deal, namely that names are added only to the lists that have always been held within the Hall of Honour and not within the Shrine itself which contains the Casket as contributed by King George V at the time of the opening on the eighth anniversary of the 1919 Victory Parade in France. What is to be done about this? I can provide more information as to the issue at a national scale if required, in any event I suggest this is now completely misleading information which cannot for whatever reason now be edited by myself and I am therefore copying this request to the Secretary to the Trustees of the Scottish National War Memorial unless something is done to correct it within this website in what I hold myself to be a reasonable period (the normal period of twenty working days). If you fail to do anything which I can check on the site or to reply to myself at the email address as shown below then I am afraid that my already existing doubts about the character of any part of the Internet as a source of any sort of intellectually or legally valid information are likely to be rather fully confirmed. I do not think I am alone in having these doubts. Au revoir and thank you evidently technically competent ladies and gentlemen (whoever you happen to be and wherever are).

                 Peter Judge (e-mail: [email protected])

PS. Please note that these matters (which I suggest are in point of fact clearly of a European scale in historical terms, relating to both East and West) continue to be dealt with (at least for the time being, for it seems that nothing here is entirely capable of protection by persons such as myself, for whatever reason, any more than it has proved possible for myself as a litigant in person in either the Administrative Court or the Court of Appeal, let alone as a citizen attempting to deal with the relevant local authorities as owners or other bodies) within the 'External Links' page in the article on this website entitled West Hartlepool War Memorial. Thank you. PJ

Please change "Upon the altar is a casket containing Rolls of Honour which list the names of those soldiers killed in the First World War. Another 50,000 names were added to the Rolls of Honour after the Second World War, and names continue to be added.[112]" to (suggested additional clarifying text shown in italics): "Upon the altar within the Shrine is a casket containing Rolls of Honour which list only the names of those soldiers killed in the First World War. Another 50,000 names were added to the Rolls of Honour within the Hall after the Second World War, and names continue to be added there.[112]"

78.146.175.2 (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Peter. As I understand it you are telling me that there are two sets of Rolls of Honour, one in the shrine and one in the hall, and that names are only added to the latter. The source for the verision you objected to was the SNWM website, here (last paragraph), where it says that the extra names were added but does not mention two sets of Rolls. Having checked this it is indeed confirmed here that there are separate lists in the Hall. I trust the edited version is now accurate. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is now accurate and I thank you Jonathan for this very prompt response. Regards and I hope we can possibly all move forward at a national level, by which I mean I hope that we can raise certain I believe demonstrable queries on the basis of historical facts as well as the history of war memorials as such. That remains of course, as you will have gathered, to be seen. I have never pretended myself to even begin to know the answer. I simply continue to deal with it as a personal responsibility given my own involvement with the war memorials in what were formerly the 'Hartlepools' (two separate towns, but historically related, in the north-east of England) as you may perhaps, if you have time, be able to appreciate from the article mentioned, together with your own knowledge. I withdraw my criticism of yourself once again, and I give you once again my very sincere thanks for your prompt response. Regards, Peter Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.92.248 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)