Talk:Southside, Edinburgh

title

Saw this in the AfC list. In my opinion the article title should be either Southside (Edinburgh) or Southside, Edinburgh, the latter of which is used at Commons and is already a redirect. Edinburgh's Southside sounds more like a marketing slogan and is not the common name, which is obviously just Southside.

On a side note I recently edited Areas of Edinburgh, and Southside was in both of the two sources as a recognised separate neighbourhood (unlike several others which were part of another or sometimes not mentioned), so an article of some kind is justified. Perhaps a 'less is more' attitude could help the process at this point, it is often easier to improve an existing article from basic beginnings than for the creator (who may be inexperienced in site norms and practices, I've been there) to attempt a high standard of quality for the initial creation which will then require lots of adjustment to achieve those standards when scrutinised. Crowsus (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I have no idea why this comment was not notified to me. Happy to change the article title - how do I do this?

In terms of 'Less is More' - we've reduced the article to what we feel is the minimum to reflect the character of our area. (we are a group of old punters called the Southside Heritage Group) We have numerous other sections we want to add e.g. Industry and Schools but we have left them out until we can get secondary sources as we had been citing self-published books e.g. The Southside Association.

We felt that the planning decisions were such a key element in the development of the Southside that we brought the detail of them together (we think for the first time) from many different sources. Our aim is also to record the important sites (which is why they are initially hidden) which make the Southside recognisable as a previously overlooked area of the capital city.

Thanks for the comments

Cheers Ian Iwmackay (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the name - apologies for the daft question on how to do it! Iwmackay (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: Undoing my rejection, all issues have been resolved as noted on my talk page. Please feel free to go ahead and resubmit it now Ian and I'll go ahead and approve the article. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Please use the "ask for advice" button rather than reverting the rejection. Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Crowsus made a number of useful edits which improved this draft but they were reverted. The draft was already rejected so that's the end of the road unless the "Southside Heritage Group" can convince the reviewers via substantive improvements that the topic is required. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: There have been several repeated failures to meaningfully address the concerns outlined. This article is incredibly difficult to read due to the excessive use of images, excessive sources (many individual sources cited over 20 times in the article), an overly exhaustive list of 'notable' buildings, and so on and so forth. Any issue I have not directly mentioned, see the other comments.
  This article fundamentally needs to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia standards, therefore I am rejecting this article as it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Yesterday I took the trouble to explain (or at least try to explain) about the year, date, and access-date attributes of the citation template, using one example, not in order that you could fix the syntax error in that one example but in order that you could fix all the examples of this error.
  On top of that you cite a PhD thesis over thirty times but you don't make clear which page the reader should look at for each of these. Please specify the page, or page range, or whatever for each: don't merely provide a set of these, one or more of which might provide the information. Since you're already using REF tags, the easiest way to indicate page numbers is to add Template:Rp where helpful.
  (You can see this combination at work in for example the three references within the article Morris Bishop to pages 6, 10, and 11–12  respectively of the foreword to The Best of Bishop: Light Verse from "The New Yorker" and Elsewhere. As it happens, that article doesn't use citation templates; but use/non-use of citation templates doesn't affect the use of Template:Rp.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: There's a lot here of: {{cite book}}: Check date values in: (though in different colouring).
  Here's an example: {{Cite book |last=Handley |first=James, Edmund |title=The Irish in Modern Scotland |date=2025-07-28 |publisher=Cork University Press |year=1947 |location=Dublin |pages=30, 34, 36, 37, 306}}
  A particular edition of a book can't have been published in 1947 and 2025: citation template syntax demands that one of the pair should be deleted. But late July '25 is so recent that it's obvious that this is not the date of publication but instead the date of access. For this purpose the attribute is not "date" but instead "access-date".
  . . . or rather, it would be, if this were a web page. However, no URL -- or even a hint that it's on the web, or available by ftp or whatever -- is provided. I infer that it's a codex. Codices are assumed to remain stable. (What's on page 347 of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language will still be on that page decades from now.) Don't use "access-date" for a source that the reader will understand to be stable. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: You are not addressing the issues here. Theroadislong (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Please re-write the lead section in a dry neutral tone and remove external links from the body of the article as previously requested. Theroadislong (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Please remove the external links from the body of the article, we don't use them and please also remove weird random bolding of words. Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Not sure why headers are boldened (along with having references and reading like they're part of an essay). Article reads more like an essay. Furthermore, please include inline citations to prove all of your claims. Setergh (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merger with "Buccleuch (parish), Edinburgh"

I propose merging Buccleuch (parish), Edinburgh into Southside, Edinburgh. The title of the source page does not reflect local usage nor any actual civil or ecclesiastical Buccleuch parish. In merging, steps should also be taken to remove current overlaps between the contents of the destination page and those of St Leonard's, Edinburgh and Newington, Edinburgh. CPClegg (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support as far as I can see it is in Edinburgh parish anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I've discussed it briefly this morning with one of the main contributors of the Southside article and she's away to think about it. I'll contact another contributor shortly.

My initial reaction is that they could be merged. The Buccleuch article has some items which could enhance the Southside as Buccleuch is within the boundaries of the Southside Conservation area. This has made me realise that I should add the Conservation Area map back in to the Southside article as the Community Council map only gives one angle and does not align with the Conservation Area.

The Buccleuch article 'background' section has material which could be added to the Southside. The 'street pattern' material is largely covered in Southside, the 'Buildings of Note' overlaps with Southside and the 'Notable Residents' is something which we planned to add to Southside and this would provide a start. Interestingly, the Buccleuch article doesn't give a lot of detail on the church in the picture which seems to have been the original basis of the article.

The article on St Leonards is already referred to within the Southside as are a number of buildings which are worthy of their own article e.g. Hermits and Termits. Demographically, type of housing and on a development timeline, Newington has considerable differences from the Southside and there is a clear boundary.

It's important to recognise that these articles e.g. St Leonards, are not simply geographic demarcations, the history of the Southside in terms of Edinburgh's early industries and the related development over hundreds of years are key contributions to the encyclopedia.

I'll reply again in the next few days if that's OK? Iwmackay (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO "Proposed merger"

There is agreement from my two collaborators on the Southside that Buccleuch should and could be merged with Southside.

A merger would a) make the Edinburgh areas clearer and b) add points of information to Southside.

Do I just go ahead and bring in the relevant material from the Buccleuch?

Thanks for your help.

Ian Mackay

FYI

One of our contributors said "I'm surprised the Buccleuch Parish page says it 'is commonly known as the South Side'.  I've never heard of the two being the same thing.  I think it could well be merged into the Southside page as it does add some new information and is covering a lot of the same geographical area."

The other collaborator said "The request and your analysis seem reasonable. Merge = adopt the bits that meet your original boundary/intent. Does a "merger" involve two-party consultation?" Iwmackay (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

OK I have read the instructions on merging and I will go ahead and do it. Iwmackay (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Completed the Merge following the instructions but this is the first one I have done so struggled. I have still to attempt to remove the link to Buccleuch Parish from referring pages e.g. areas of Edinburgh. Iwmackay (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)