Talk:Shuggie Bain

A news item involving Shuggie Bain was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 November 2020.

Wikipedia

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal 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.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Cover(s)[edit]

The US edition seems to have been published first, although the author identifies as Scottish and the UK cover is the one which was shown at the Booker Prize ceremony. The US and UK covers are very different. I would think that both ought to be included in this article, though the infobox only makes provision for one. Not sure how to do this (and in theory I'm on a Wikibreak anyway: just about to log off). PamD 18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see we now have the UK image, but no sign of the US one although it is mentioned in the text. I really think both should be included as both are significant, and very different. PamD 08:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two non-free covers is not the norm but if you believe it is appropriate. I have restored the original and uploaded a png of the UK cover. Is everything right? Οἶδα (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: @PamD: the other cover has been removed as per a request by User:Black Kite at WP:ITN/Candidates#(Ready) Booker Prize for failing WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. If you wish to add it back I suppose it must be shown to be essential for the article's understanding. Οἶδα (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Οἶδα and Black Kite: I would say that the two images, both of which are discussed in the text, meet both those criteria. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.", but clearly here a single image can't. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding": subjectie, but I'd think both images, mentioned in the text, improve the understanding of the article and the book. If it is only to have one, then the one which was prominent in Booker coverage might be more appropriate, as an exception to the usual rule. But I'm trying to have a wikibreak so not going to spend a lot more time arguing... a pity, though, if the Easterhouse image doesn't appear. PamD 09:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the first-edition cover. We don't know why the British publisher changed the cover, especially when the author spoke so highly of the original cover, but it would be highly unusual (and probably unprecedented) to claim fair use for two covers. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easterhouse image[edit]

Older uses of the Easterhouse image at <https://www.amazon.com/Acorns-Mighty-Oaks-Hurriers/dp/B00YOCD8H2> and (from 2009) <https://joanmcalpine.typepad.com/joan_mcalpine/2009/10/httpwwwtimesonlinecouktolnewsukscotlandarticle6869366ece.html>. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The authorship of this is puzzling. Coulson says in several places that it's his image. But on jezblog.com, he says:

"All that chat about printing on the blog yesterday........ obviously got Matt thinking in terms of the old black and white prints of the past........... so he sent me a few scans of old prints.......... so here is a picture from way back........ this relies not on photoshop but on traditional B&W darkroom printing........... mind you it appears half the time we have just scanned the stuff lying about......... not the optimal final print.......... but hey.... it takes you back to see some of the old stuff........ takes me back to 'Thatcher's Britain' mass unemployment and poverty. Deprivation for many including children living in the poorest areas like this area called Easterhouse in Glasgow.......... I remember this image was used on a front page of a newspaper at the time with the headline: ' Crucified in Easterhouse'............."

And on jezcoulson.com (2015), he writes of the same image: "Seriously, I am honored to have my photograph on the cover of the new album and on the T-shirt ... The picture was made up in Glasgow on The Easterhouse Estate …… First time it was ever used was with an article about poverty in Scottish cities it was then a cover photograph under the headline 'Crucified on Easterhouse'".

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea who Matt is or why he has some of Coulson's prints (that apparently JC at that point didn't), but that doesn't seem inconsistent with JC's authorship (and ownership, pretty unambiguously stated on that site). Another use of it here. Holyrood magazine's online archives sadly don't appear to go that far back, but presumably not a 'fake Time cover' incident. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Can anyone tell me how to pronounce this? To rhyme with "boogie" or to rhyme with "buggy"? Thanks. 216.243.55.156 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's as in "buggy". SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a HARDTalk interview with the author (which I'd recommend and) in which he indeed can be heard to pronounce it /ˈʃʌgi/, if a source for this is needed. (archive.org link) For balance, the interviewer with equal consistency says 'shoogie' throughout... As it's a hypocorism for "Hugh" there's been a sound change at some point, but the 'buggy' pronunciation is certainly the general one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]