Uiser collogue:146.198.120.158

Mind yer Scots!

On the Princess Marianne o the Netherlands airticle ye jist stairtit, 'member' sud be memmer and 'Keeng' is aye King. Airticles sud include reputed references an aw. soothrhins (tauk) 22:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Soothrhins: Fascinating. Telling an editor not to use a Scots form of a word found and attested in the Dictionary of the Scots Language and to use a dubious form not found in the Dictionary of the Scots Language. Nogger (tauk) 11:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nogger: Looks like there's a single (possibly questionable) example of "keeng" on that page, and no hits for "keeng" on Corpus. The Spellin Fettle also came to the conclusion that "keeng" is not used in modern Scots. Do you have a reliable source indicating there's a common modern usage of the spelling, so we can re-open the discussion? my_hat_stinks (tauk) 12:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@My hat stinks: In Eppie Elrick from 1955 by William P. Milne you can find "He criet, ‘Gweed bliss’e Keeng, an' that, an' that', an' wowfft ower 'is ale." From 1961 in Tatties an' Herreen by Donald Grant "An' id's me till leid? Weel,'ere's a shiffel, 'E Keeng — id's chist wan at A hev." Those examples indicate the /ki(:)ŋ/ pronunciation is not unusual in northern varieties of Broad Scots. In William Laughton Lorimer's much praised Scots Translation of the New Testament Matthew 2:2 you'll find "Whaur is the Kíng o Jews at hes come hame eenou?" The acute accent above the i in kíng is Lorimer's way of indicating a keeng pronunciation. I'd find it surprising if the language used in what is perhaps one of the greatest works of Broad Scots prose to emerge from the 20th century is regarded as unsuitable for a Scots encylopedia. Nogger (tauk) 13:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@My hat stinks: In this reading of Matthew 18:21-35 from William Laughton Lorimer's much praised Scots Translation of the New Testament at 0:27 you can clearly hear the pronunciation keengdom and after that keeng. Nogger (tauk)

(en) Electoral Prince

(en) Hi. Thanks for your message. The Electoral Prince article was deleted under the current criteria for speedy deletion policy. Please note that this policy is also being reviewed, and the new proposal can be viewed here. It was my judgement that with both policies it would have met grounds for being deleted.

For transparency to any others reading this, the article content is copied verbatim (without any page links) below.

"The teetle Electoral Prince wis the teetle gien tae the s

The title electoral prince referred to the Hereditary Prince an heir presumptive tae the throne o a secular electorate an can be understood analogously tae the croun prince. The wife o the-then electoral prince bore the teetle o electoral princess bi mairiage."

There was also a gallery of 5 images, one of which wasn't appearing, the images were captioned but the gallery itself was not titled.

To elaborate on the reasoning for deletion:

• Nae content: The article consisted of only two complete setences and one half sentences totalling 53 words. I took the judgement that the content written was not capable of conveying what an Electoral Prince actually is, and therefore was not useful in terms of Encyclopaedic value.
• Nae context: No sources were referenced within the article at all. Citing "verifiable, authoritative soorces" is part of the five pillars of Wikipedia.
• Nae Scots: The content within the article read as Scotched English. I took the judgement that the use of "referred", "understood", "analogously" and "bore" (in this useage) appeared to be examples of English rather than broad Scots.

It is completely understandable that you may work on articles but, when publishing to the mainspace especially when creating a new article you should review content carefully or make use of the Saundpit before publishing. For longer term projects, if you register an account on the site, you can have your own User/Saundpit space to work on many different articles in this way, over time.

So apologies that the article was deleted, but it was in line with current Scots Wikipedia policy. I think (if fully drafted and in broad Scots), the content of Croun Prince, Heriditary Prince and such like would be best placed together on one page, to explain the different terms together rather than in separate articles. Perhaps even within the Monarch article which is currently a stub.

On closing, you should note that there are two further policies being considered by Scots Wikipedia that would have affected this article:

• RFC: article creation and unregistered accounts
• Proposed Notability policy

Aefauldlie, soothrhins (tauk) 19:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)