Talk:Cape Wrath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vikings would often turn their ships for home at Cape Wrath.[edit]

What does this mean? Under what conditions? Why? Why is this notable?Lordandmaker (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds anecdotal... certainly needs citation if it is to stay. C3lticmatt (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness[edit]

one of the last remaining wildernesses in Western Europe

It's a top contender within the UK but surely not for western Europe. If places I've visited, I'd estimate that 50% of Norway and 80% of Iceland are at least as 'wild' with less military action.--JBellis 16:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can it really be a wilderness at the same time as being used as a "military bombardment range". As a resident of Australia and Canada I have a different defintion of wilderness I guess :) Robertbrockway 03:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"One of the last wildernesses in {England/Britain/Europe}" is an all-too-common cliché used in the British media, almost always inaccurately. (In the case of Scotland these so-called wildernesses are usually of recent creation, depopulated by the Highland clearances). I've changed it to "a desolate and virtually uninhabited region"; my assertion that it's "virtually uninhabited" is based on the 5 or 6 houses marked on the Ordnance Survey Landranger map, but I don't know whether they're occupied or not. --Blisco 16:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visit[edit]

I visited the Cape last week. The driver of the minibus said that there are five houses on the Cape. Three belong to the Ministry of Defence, two are used as Holiday Cottages, but all are generally uninhabited, as of course is the light house. The two minibuses are floated over on pontoons at the beginning of the tourist year (May) and remain on the Cape for the duration of the season. Depending on tides, the first ferry crosses at about 11am, the last at about 4.30pm. It's a small boat and only seats about 8 people. Apart from council lorries to repair the "road" sent across specially or any MOD vehicles, it is impossible to take a normal car across. 88.104.226.75 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two permanent residents on Cape Wrath - John & Kay Ure (along with their dogs), who live in dwellings at the lighthouse and who run the Ozone Cafe. This cafe is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for walkers/visitors to the lighthouse. Gb009761 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two permanent residents information may be relevant to the Demographics subsection, assuming that more thorough demographs information is added to the article. The lighthouse and the cafe would fit under the Attractions / Amenities subsection. "This cafe is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year" is trivia as related to the Cape Wrath topic and should not be in the Cape Wrath article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel?[edit]

Is there a Cape Wrath hotel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Bush (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 August 2006

Yes. It's not on the Cape Wrath peninsula though, but on the other side of the Kyle of Durness, so its relevance to this article is probably fairly minimal unless the hotel is notable in its own right, or unless it was put in the context of tourism to the Cape. --Blisco 17:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hotel has now been closed for several years and has since been converted into private lodge dwellings Gb009761 (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Is it /ræθ/ (rhymes with "hath"), or like the word "wrath": /rɒθ/ (rhymes with "goth"? A programme on telly tonight (Secret Britain) used the former, but I've also heard the latter. Could we have a pronunciation guide in the def, with a ref? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always used the latter, and I'm fairly sure the locals do (as local as you get to such a place), but I can't think of a citable reference. C3lticmatt (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The locals of Durness always use the former Gb009761 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation section is pure nonsense. There is a very obvious flaw. Most Scots do not speak received pronunciation. The IPA you are using is for received pronunciation. Almost all Scots (barring people who were educated at prestige schools) are going to use neither of the indicated forms and use the local rounded A vowel, so it would corrctly be always thus: /rɑːθ/. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_English 92.26.127.180 (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try to find some sort of citation for that and then add it please. V helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

There is a user adding blatant advertising information about the "Ozone Cafe". Please read the rules of Wikipedia at: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion where it states: "articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable". QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole bunch of stuff that I'm not actually all that happy about in the article just now. The use of blank sections heads and the mixing up of content doesn't help for example - there's history stuff half way down the page for instance. There are good refs for quite a lot of this as well - but too much that's out of place or unneeded. I'm particularly concerned about the range safety information - which is now, btw, out of date. Yes, we need to mention it's a live range and access is restricted, but Wikipedia is not the place, imo, to be specifically stating range closure times - let's provide a link, sure, but imagine if the information were wrong or changed and not updated.
I don't know if I have time to get to the article and give it a good going over today. I might do - but I'd be interested to hear any other pov on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hid the empty subsections. The article information previously was intermixed and I agree that the all the history information should be under the history subsection. Much of the content probably does not belong in the article, so feel free to edit as needed. It appears that this information was copied into the ariticle. Now that the structure of the article is more in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure, editors will have a better idea of what to add and where to add it in the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to enough reliable source material about Ozone Cafe to justify its own article.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The Cape Wrath article probably could have some information about the Ozone Cafe tea shop in the historic lighthouse at Cape Wrath. However, the Ozone Cafe information should be limited to that which is in the above linked articles and then only as it relates to Cape Wrath (e.g., the cafe's phone number, hours of opertion, John & Kay Ure missing their first Christmas together in over 35 years, John & Kay Ure began the long process of renovating the old lighthouse keepers cottage, etc. does not belong in the article). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gut feeling says to see if we can get a paragraph or two in a separate section in this article first - and then if there's much more than that it probably needs to go to it's own article with a one parag section. I agree that cites aren't too much of a problem, but I think it'd be good to see what we can get that people can agree on here first probably.
I think I'd look for it's own section as well - as well as one for the lighthouse and, probably, the MoD too. I know that's not standard per UKCITIES or anything but, then, this is hardly a settlement as such. I'd call special case requiring different sorts of subheads - although etymology, history, geography are all entirely valid and sensible. Probably infrastructure as well I imagine. Given the right to buy case currently going through the process perhaps a section on land ownership might be appropriate? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been given permission by the administrator to remove anything that is a Copyright violation, and I can remove anything that is unsourced. As the admin states above things like "the cafe's phone number, hours of opertion, John & Kay Ure missing their first Christmas together in over 35 years, John & Kay Ure began the long process of renovating the old lighthouse keepers cottage" are not appropriate.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that's a copyvio goes, for sure - although I think there's possibly the case of at least one source using text from wikipedia rather than the other way round (the ferryman's page fwiw). Not sure though but it looks that way. There's an argument to be made about whether renovation might or might not be relevant btw - depends on what the sources say as such. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add, as I forgot of course, the Durness article could also use some cleanup for the same sorts of reasons. And we seem to have an article on Achiemore, Durness which I wonder whether it needs to be merged in with this - as it's cape side and, afaik, there's no current population cape side other than the cafe? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think Achiemore should have its own article as it is its own settlement but it should be mentioned that it is within the parish of Durness.
Having Achiemore as a stand alone article is fine. Achiemore could be handled in the Cape Wrath article using Wikipedia:Summary style. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where to take the article[edit]

The current article was headed in the wrong direction, particularly since editors merely add information without an overall perspective of where the article is headed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure provides that. Regarding adding material, Wikipedia's article formula is very simple: 1. gather all information about Cape Wrath from Wikipedia reliable sources that are independent of the Cape Wrath and then 2. boil that down into a thorough and representative survey of that relevant literature. That's it. The goal is to work towards and move the article towards meeting the WP:FA criteria. As for gathering all information about Cape Wrath, you can start by using what comes up in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I'd start with Google Book source information first and then enhance that with Google news information. As for boil that down, the article now has proper section headings per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure and you need only focus on one subsection at a time. Perhaps each of you could take a subsection and develop it using what you find from Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Take a look at some of the articles listed in Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles and you can get ideas of how to improve the Cape Wrath article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is important to provides cites to the source material. An example blank cite string for a book is: <ref name= "">{{Citation |page= |title= |author= |publisher= [[]] |publication-date= |isbn=| pages= |accessdate= |url= }}</ref> Except for the lead paragraph, each sentence and table entries should have a cite attached to it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Also, if you want to write about the history, I'd start with the oldest source material and then look into what was published later in time. This search brings up material from 1757 through 1799. That would be a good place to start. Once you gather the important info from those, perhaps look at books between 1800 and 1820 and summarize the info from there. Keep repeating until you've look at book info through 2013. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Ngram Viewer is a good way to cheery pick the reliable source material. This ngram search shows writers were interested in Cape Wrath from 1780 to 1787. You might find a definitive scholarly book looking in that time range. This ngram search shows interet in Cape Wrath picked up again around 1830 to 1840. This ngram search shows increase interests in the topic 1881, 1904. Continuing one, 1922, 1950, 1982 seem to show additional interest in the topic. If you want to add something to the article, you may want to look for published material from around these years. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a bit of a go at it, removing shed loads of stuff that is really tourist information more than encyclopaedic. Some of it might want to come back in again and the edit certainly isn't finished yet (I may well have been too harsh in places). This is more a "by eye" going over from what I know about the place and it's history - it needs sourcing and doing properly yet. I have some sources lined up and think I know where there are others as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs More Clarification Of Geography[edit]

I already edited the sentence stating that this corner of the mainland was "separated from the mainland by the Kyle" but some additional context on why exactly this part of the mainland is only accessible via ferry would be useful to someone like myself who does not live in Scotland and got the impression that Cape Wrath was an island, from the way the article is written. Biturica (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cape Wrath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cape Wrath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cape Wrath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cape_Wrath&oldid=1199219755"