Uiser collogue:BZPN

Walcome!

Hullo, BZPN, an walcome til the Wikipedie! Guid tae see ye. Thank ye for yer contribution. Some gibbles ye'll find uissfu:

• Aboot Wikipedie – whit it is an isna.
• The five pillars o Wikipaedia
• Hou tae edit a page an Stairtin airticles – gang til the Wikipedie Lessons.
• Mercat Cross – tae caw the crack anent the technical wirkins here
• Wikipedia:Spellin an grammar – gin yer interestit in writin airticles

Bi gaun throu the Commontie Yett ye'll can find aw kynd o wittins adae wi uisin an eikin til the Wikipedie. For tae hae a sey shottie, veesit oor Saundpit.

Dinna haud yer wheesht, haud yer ain! CiphriusKane (tauk) 06:19, 30 Januar 2026 (UTC)

Bishop

Hey, ta fur yer contreibushuns thewarts clergy-relatit airticles. Technically tho the airticles faa foul o a policy we hae (WP:NOTABILITY, specifically the substance portion) ti prevent hunners o short stubby airticles (an twathree back actual hid ti purge pairt o the wiki ti redd thaim oot), an whiles a wid mell the airticles inti een ti preserv the content, it seems the tairget airticle, Bishop, wis een o the victims o seyed purge. Gin ye wiss ti mak the page yersel then carry oot the mellin feel free or a'll dae it in a bit itherwise. Ta CiphriusKane (tauk) 06:19, 30 Januar 2026 (UTC)

Hey CiphriusKane, mony thanks for the note an for leukin ower the clergy-relatit airticles - ah appreciate ye takin the time. A'll continue in English for clarity, as I'm not a fluent Scots speaker - I hope that's okay. I just wanted to clarify the notability point a bit. As far as I can see, the topics (auxiliary, coadjutor, suffragan bishop, bishop-elect, etc.) are treated as distinct ecclesiastical offices in e.g. catholic canon law, and they're recognised as such both as separate Wikidata items and on other Wikipedias. Each article has multiple independent sources, and the subjects seem capable of being built up into more substantial articles (WP:NOTABILITY), not just two or three sentences. I understand that sco.wiki is rightly cautious about excessive stub content after earlier clean-ups, but my understanding of WP:NOTABILITY is that short articles are acceptable where the topic itself is notable and capable of expansion, which I believe applies here (cf. en:WP:STUB). That's why I started them as separate articles rather than definitions. That said, I'm happy to expand the articles further if I can find more appropriate sources, or to work on a broader "Bishop" article if that would be more helpful for the project. Thanks again, BZPN (tauk) 07:09, 30 Januar 2026 (UTC)

(en) I can appreciate that how enwiki uses the term "notability" and how scowiki uses it are slightly different, but essentially we'd rather have one strong base article over 10 weak stubs. It's why for example Aiberdeen railwey station is part of Aiberdeen instead of being its own article - the railway station may be notable by itself by enwiki terms but a two-sentence stub can easily be displayed on the city article without causing any strain in reading. It also helps with understanding the topic, like for example with bishop-elect there's zero explanation as to what a bishop is due to the base article being missing. If there were a strong bishop article and the office articles had significant substance then there'd be no issue.

Also the Scots for "do not/don't" is dinnae, not dae no. Contractions use -na(e) over no for not CiphriusKane (tauk) 08:59, 30 Januar 2026 (UTC)

Aye, thank ye for the explanation - that maks sense. A'll hae a go at creatin a Bishop article an merging the relevant content intae it. Thanks again for clarifyin the sco.wiki approach. BZPN (tauk) 10:19, 30 Januar 2026 (UTC)