Talk:Inverness

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

Accuracy[edit]

"3,555/(5.47%) of the population speaking the language.". This is far too exact (and obviously wrong, as people move/die etc). Better to say "approx 3500"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.156.240.17 (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute[edit]

A reference, pref. from the National Office of Statistics or the like to support that Inverness will double in size and is the fastest growing city in Western Europe. I have heard this story repeated several times but have never seen any official reports or forecasts to back this up.

Seems to me the claim should be removed from the article. It seems like unattributable hype. Laurel Bush 13:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Names in info box[edit]

Inverness isnt English? The place has no English name? Laurel Bush 10:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes it does: the big bold name at the very top is the English language name.--Mais oui! 10:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should not the "galic" name be translated like at other city pages? Does the galic not translate to "Mouth of the river Ness" or something similar? Runwolf 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City boundaries[edit]

Wondering what boundaries the city might have. I imagine those of a community council area, created in 1975, but I get the impression the Inverness area committee convener, Highland Council, is somehow also the city provost. Can anyone produce or refer to a map showing the shape and size of the city. Laurel Bush 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well I've had a good look through ward maps and suchlike and can't find anything useful to answer the question. My immediate thoughts were the town itself plus adjoining areas taking in Smithton, Culloden, Westhill and Balloch, can't find any proof though. Fraslet 19:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the only 'official' definition of the city boundaries is the 'locality' defined for the census. After searching the various census sites, I've managed to find a map of this here (number 27-28, low res PDF). I think it may be based on the boundaries of postcode areas, but I can't find details of which. This bears little relation to the boundaries of council wards (map here) - there are a few wards that are partly within the city, but extending for miles outwith it.
I'm not sure what you mean by a community council area - Inverness District Council (created in 1975) was largely the same area as the current 'committee area' (see previous map), this is a much larger area than the city, extending all the way to Glen Affric, Fort Augustus etc. Vclaw 21:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community councils were created at the same time as district councils, covering smaller areas (perhaps defined as groups of 1975 district wards). Many are moribund, but I know there is a Royal Burgh of Wick community council and I imagine there might be a community council now named for the City of Inverness. Was the City title received by any particular corporate body? Laurel Bush 11:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've now found a list of community councils in the Highland Council area here (PDF) and there's at least 10 different community councils within the city. It seems the city title was recieved by the provost link - I'm not sure if he was the representing any particular body, though it does mention that he is chairman of the Inverness Area Comittee.
Also, I just found this website that says:
Because my (very humble) property lies within the boundaries of the old Parish of Inverness but outside the Burgh I did make some enquiries as to whether it lay within the new city or not. All the answers (and my respondents included both councillors and council officials) I got were very nebulous and inconclusive. I believe Lord Lyon King of Arms refused to grant a coat of arms to the city on the grounds that the city existed only on a pretty piece of paper and did not correspond to any administrative area run by an identifiable group of people. There is no boundary because there is no city outside the minds of its would-be leaders.
Of course, that is all appears to be an unsourced, personal website, so I don't know how reliable it is... Vclaw 14:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ref to Lord Lyon King of Arms makes sense to me. The Royal Burgh of Wick (as was until 1975) had a coat of arms and the Royal Burgh of Wick Community Council now has the right to use that coat of arms. As regards the City of Inverness I get the impression the piece of paper was received by a Highland councillor, presumably appointed to do so by the council and presumably acting for the council. Perhaps there is a sense in which the boundaries of the city are effectively those of the Highland council area! - or any smaller area the council itself cares to define. (As regards the Inverness area committee area, I believe it's definition is made by the council, but using ward boundaries which the council itself can not control.) Laurel Bush 10:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Maybe Lord Gray of Contin, the Lord Lieutenant for Inverness-shire, Badenoch and Strathspey and Lochaber, should know the boundaries? I gather it was he who conveyed the piece of paper. Laurel Bush 10:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This (from the article) is interesting: The city is the self-proclaimed "Capital of the Highlands". If the city is without defined boundaries and is unrepresented by any coporate body, then I wonder how it might self-proclaim anything. Laurel Bush 10:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

From City status in the United Kingdom:

Stirling Council's application for city status was specifically for the urban area of the (now former) Royal Burgh of Stirling - proposed city boundaries were included, and so not all of the council area has city status.

I wonder whether something similar is true of Inverness.
Laurel Bush 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Letters patent, held by Inverness Museum and Art Gallery, refer only to the Town of Inverness and give no indication of boundaries. Laurel Bush 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Content of this (first footnote to the article) have changed and no longer correspond to the description in the footnote. It is now about UK cities, and includes Stirling as a city. Also, it seems to demand very close reading, and a willingness to chase up arcane references to determine the ‘city boundaries’ used for any particular statistic, especially as regards Inverness, Stirling and Aberdeen. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Culture & Sports[edit]

I was just curious if anyone, specifically the writer could explain this comment in the Culture & Sports area - 'Inverness is an important centre for bagpipe players and lovers' Firstly there is no further mention of love, nor lovers in the rest of the article. and also, I have never ever seen, nor head of anything to do with love, however, if someone could explain the comment further, I would be happy to change my views! Thanks 81.106.139.233 10:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means people that love the bagpipes, not couples. Codu (t)⁄(c) •  16:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The comment about ICT FC having the longest name of any team in the world is clearly spurious; see Nooit Opgeven Altijd Doorzetten Aangenaam Door Vermaak En Nuttig Door Ontspanning Combinatie Breda (NAC Breda). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.61.24 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population figure[edit]

Seems to me any population figure for Inverness or the city thereof needs some reference to definition of boundaries, which is far from obvious from the terms Inverness, Inverness City and City of Inverness. Laurel Bush 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

According to the 2001 census the popoulation of Inverness was 77647 http://www.hie.co.uk/HIE-Area-profiles-2003/HIE-inverness-and-nairn-area-profile-2003.pdf

  • That was the population of the former districts of Inverness and Nairn, not of the City of Inverness. RDL 21:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it my imagination?[edit]

Perhaps this is incorrect, I'm not sure. Is it true that in the last century Inverness was the only place where the cabinet met in full outside of London. I seem to recall reading somewhere Inverness town hall once housed a cabinet meeting or something similar upon the outbreak of war as a result of the prime minister being on holiday at the time?

  • No, it is true. Sometime in the 1930s something came up in August when the cabinet- including Winston Churchill- had to urgently decide about developments in Ireland. The most convient place was Inverness, and they met in the Council Chamber in the Town House- where there is indeed a display of the signatures of the Cabinet. This was the only time the Cabinet met outside London. --Slackbuie 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration[edit]

I think that atleast something should be mentioned in the article. Here is my suggestion:

"Inverness has recently experienced a high level of immigration, with a sudden influx from mainly Eastern European countries. This is due to such countries as Poland, Buglaria and Romania joining the European Union. However, it is extremely difficult to state the number of immigrants, as European Union citizens have the right to move around Europe without being recorded. Hypertone 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks rather POV to me (those nasty foreigners who may or many not be here), and certainly lacking citation. It also doesn't explain why this should specifically apply to Inverness as opposed to anywhere else. AndrewWTaylor 13:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you can state figures, this would be much better in either the Scotland article or a seperate article itself on the state of the EU and migration within it, if this has not already been done. 81.106.139.233 10:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Status again - and area committee[edit]

"The right to speak for the city is assumed by the Highland Council, in association with a local enterprise company[2]." What does this mean? Inverness is certainly governed by Highland Council, but the enterprise company is a non-elected body. There is also discussion above about the boundaries of the city. It seems to me that that would be area of the Ward Boundaries of those councillors who serve on the area committee. Admittedly that stretches far into the countryside. Nevertheless the chairman and deputy chairman of the Area Committee are designated Provost and Depute Provost of the city. Slackbuie 12:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Inverness area committee boundaries, or any other boundaries, referenced in letters patent granting city status? In the case of Stirling the city area seems to be that of the old royal burgh. I have tried writing, enclosing stamped addressed envelope, to the provost of Inverness and this subject, but he seems unwilling to reply.
The committee area is similar to the area of a former district of the Highland Region, and that district did have legislative designation as a local authority area. The committee area, however, does not have such designation (although wards of which it is composed do) and is purely a Highland Council construct.
Also, the "Area committee" section of the article looks a bit out of date as regards political composition, and the area, in its current form will disappear under this year's reorganisation of council management and committee structures. I am not clear as to what exactly the area will be replaced with, but it will be within East Highland, one of three new Highland Council "operational management areas". East Highland is also known as Inverness Nairn and Badenoch and Strathspey, but its area will be rather different from the sum of the committee areas with those names.
Laurel Bush 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, contrary to the above, wards are not local authority areas but, unlike committee areas, they are defined by legislation, as electoral divisions for the election of local authority councils. Also, see Highland Council press release 23 February 2007 and Highland Council press release 12 February 2007 re restructuring of management and committee areas.
Laurel Bush 18:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I now know letters patent refer to the Town of Inverness, which is not a term I have come across in statutes about local government boundaries, or any other statutory sense of boundary. I guess it is possible that the intention of the letters is to refer to a royal burgh which was abolished for local government purposes 26 years before the letters themselves were drawn up. I tend however to the view that the letters are addressed to nobody in particular, refer to nowhere in particular and, really, confer no right on anyone to use the title city. Laurel Bush 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This [1] may be of help. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. The Scotland Office webpage to which you refer includes nothing to contradict my own observations. I note the webpage does not quote (avoids quoting?) terms of reference in the letters patent. Also, so far as I know nobody has tried applying for a coat of arms for the 'city', and I can not see grounds on which it might be able to qualify. Laurel Bush 09:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The coat of arms has been refused by the Lord Lyon as Inverness is a city "in name only", should this be reflected in the description here? Inverness is a city in name only. It also appears that there was an error on the city charter so there are doubts about its validity. Lochaber News --jmb (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord Lyon does not grant city status, only coats of arms, so his views are irrelevant to Inverness's status. There should be more material on the debate over the city's governance, though. Lurker (said · done) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather the suggestion of error in the letters patent stems from argument about how a monarch should be expected to sign her own name. I am not seeing any real error, just deliberate vagueness, such that the letters patent have no real meaning.
Re Lord Lyon and coat of arms, his reason for refusal is that the city appears not to be legal personna. Is that another way of saying that it appears not to exist? A city without real existence can not have real governance. Laurel Bush (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Area committee section - update needed[edit]

The area committee section of the article is of date as regards political composition.
Also, the area in its current form will disappear under this year's reorganisation of council management and committee structures. I am not clear as to what exactly the area will be replaced with, but it will be within East Highland, one of three new Highland Council "operational management areas". East Highland is also known as Inverness Nairn and Badenoch and Strathspey, but its area will be rather different from the sum of the committee areas with those names.
Laurel Bush 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Section now replaced with a new local government section. Laurel Bush 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Err ... I seem to have doubled up on some info in the intro. But the latter is itself looking out of date. Laurel Bush 14:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Statistics worthless?[edit]

It appears to me that because the 'city' lacks clearly defined boundaries, all statistics about it are virtually meaningless and worthless. The statistics could be about almost anywhere. Laurel Bush 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am now seeking clarification from the Scottish Executive on this one. I guess, right now, that their statistics relate to the Highland Council's former Inverness management area, 1996 to 2007, pending outcome of work to relate them to new wards. (The council's management areas are ward-based.) Laurel Bush 17:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

POV Intro?[edit]

"Inverness is, at best, a vaguely defined area within the Highland local government area"

"The city is self-proclaimed as capital of the Scottish Highlands"

The majority of the first section of the article has clearly been written by people with little, if any, time for the city of Inverness. It could do with a tidy, and becoming more encyclopediac. Lianachan 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent a long time searching for boundaries of this supposed city, including letters to Highland councillors and council officials and a visit to Inverness Museum and Art gallery. The existing intro seems well supported by references and avoids pretension. Laurel Bush 10:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here we go again. Whether you like it or not, Inverness is not a "supposed city". Still, what do I care, it's only Wiki after all. Lianachan 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, the existing intro looks fine. Fraslet 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It drips agenda from every sentence. I would think a separate section discussing the uncertain boundaries would be more appropriate, and would certainly look more encyclopediac and professional. Lianachan 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The status of city and the boundaries of that city have been the subject of a great deal of discussion. I don't quite understand what agenda you feel is being pushed, perhaps you can make further suggestions rather than simply making negative comments. Fraslet 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would quite clearly be a huge waste of my time. Lianachan 18:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re lead para problems, here are some suggestions:

Does not conform to WP:MOS as it does not refer to each main sub-section.
It is unreferenced from the 2nd para on.
Lots about this apparently controversial issue of the city limits, which should more properly be dealt with at length in a section somewhere, not the lead. This is an interesting but comparatively minor issue - the same applies to almost every town in Scotland, but no-one argues that this in some way diminishes their status as such.
Apparently disparaging language: 'Inverness is, at best, a vaguely defined area'. Surely Inverness is 'at best one of Scotland's more interesting cities', (although its boundaries may be hard precisely to determine). Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from happy with the current situation, because the facts make editorial decisions about the Inverness article, and related articles, such as about constituencies, current and historic, and local government areas, current and historic, very problematic. This difficulty is not resolved, however, by resort to falsehood, pretension or obfuscation. The latter sort of approach may suit the purposes of the Highland Council and the Scottish Executive. I do not believe it is appropriate in Wikipedia.
The same difficulty does not arise with respect to Aberdeen, for example, because the origin of that city can be found in statutory local government arrangements and the merger of a burgh with neighbouring areas. Inverness has no such origin and is devoid of definitive boundaries.
Laurel Bush 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The facts, however, do not dictate that the introduction to the wikipedia entry on Inverness, the capital city of the Highlands and an ancient settlement with a lot of interesting history, should be full of disparaging comments about its status. Any debate about the city limits would be far better off in their own section, as has been suggested by both Ben MacDui and myself. Their inclusion in the lead section suggests that it's a huge and over-riding issue or one of the main features of the city. It isn't, and it's inclusion there is wholly inappropriate (and, as I said earlier, positively reeks of agenda). Lianachan 11:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the above comment looks extremely POV. And I note that the boundary problem does not arise with repect to Stirling, although letters patent were sealed at the same time as those for Inverness. It seems that neither Stirling Council (which covers a much larger area than the former burgh) nor the Scottish Executive are creating the pretence that the Stirling letters patent have any real meaning. Also, please see the article City status in the United Kingdom, which seemed to agree, last time I checked, that Inverness letters patent refer to nowhere in particular. Laurel Bush 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As far as I know, nobody is disputing that - only that it should not be the major focus of the introduction to the article. If you honestly believe that this issue is the main thing that readers of the article have to know about Inverness and would be interested in then I strongly suspect you are mistaken. I'm astonished that you fail to realise that. Lianachan 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a 'city' is about as definable as a monster called Nessie, how else do you introduce the subject, without creating something misleading and pretensious? Laurel Bush 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In a section dedicated to the controversy. Lianachan 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, how do you introduce the subject of 'Inverness'?! Laurel Bush 16:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The same way the subject of every other place in the world is introduced? Just a thought. Lianachan 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I am sorry I don't have the time to offer more in the way of specific input just at present, but there are numerous featured articles including Dundee & Seattle, Washington which might provide some useful food for thought. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need specific suggestions, especially as regards whether and how 'city' should be used in the intro. Laurel Bush 10:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Generally speaking, Inverness is well known as "The City in the Highlands" so of course the term would appropriately be used in the intro. The debate, such as it is, about the boundaries and exact status is of such little consequence/interest to the general public that it should be relegated to its own section. Lianachan 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want an article of pure hype, parading fantasy as reality, or something more informative? Re intro use of 'city', I guess "is the only city management of the Highland Council ...." might work. It avoids [[City status in the United Kingdom|city]] but perhaps, for some, it gets too close to reality. The [[City status in the United Kingdom|city]] reference seems to require immediate plunge into discussion of lack of defined boundaries, otherwise the article becomes immediately misleading to the general reader. If there is a city of Inverness, then it is the most strange and peculiar of it's kind. Laurel Bush 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Is it too much to ask for this issue (really, a non-issue) to assume its rightful place as a seperate section? It is absolutely not worthy of dominating the introduction the way it currently does. I am extremely disappointed that you refuse to see this. Perhaps independant editors could have a look at it. This "issue" only seems to be one in wikipedia, it practically never comes up out here in the real world in which some of us still live. However, I absolutely cannot be arsed wasting any more of my time with this. By all means leave as it is, one of the most negative articles I can remember seeing about a place. Lianachan 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel like that. This from the way the article now comes up in Google: Inverness (Scottish Gaelic: Inbhir Nis) is a city in Scotland, ranked by the Scottish Executive as comparable to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen. ... Looks OK to me. It does give Inverness a fairly high degree of status. Laurel Bush 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last thing I'm going to say about this - I'm not concerned about the status of Inverness, I am concerned about the disproportionate representation of an issue that's so minor that I'd wager practically nobody who lives in Inverness is even aware of it. Lianachan 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new to this so hope I am goign about this the correct way. I feel it is perfectly acceptable to refer as Inverness as a city. This is becuase it is one. Ok, it may have been awarded its stauts in a different way to others but it is definately a city. It is doesn't have an official boundary drawn on a map but if somebody wanted to then it would be relatively easy. It does not include Culloden, Smithon and Balloch. In the intro to the article I feel it is fine to include the reference to what the Scottish Exec compares it to. I would not include the whole section about (POV) about what defines the City's boundary. Invocr 10:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not include Culloden, Smithon and Balloch? I believe they are within the Highland Council's city management area. I believe the places you have listed are all within the Culloden and Ardersier ward, which is one of seven covered by the management area. Laurel Bush 10:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I take back what I said. I had thought that they would not be included as the Scottish Census webiste lists them as sepearte localites with their own populations. I have found a map of the city boundary in the inverness local plan. [2] Invocr 13:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I believe the Census authority is working to relate figures to new ward boundaries. Do not know when this work might produce a result. Also, I am seeking clarification from the Scottish Exectutive as regards what sense of boundaries they currently use when offering statistics about the 'city'. Laurel Bush 10:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The 7.90 MB size of that map, by the way, makes it virtually impossible for me to access. Also, I note that the current 'provost' of Inverness, as recognised by the Highland Council, seems to be a Culloden and Ardersier councillor - Bob Wynd. Laurel Bush 12:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lead Section cleanup[edit]

I'm not going to go into the POV issue, which is why this is a separate heading. I want to mention that the current lead does not perform its required purpose. To quote from WP:LEAD (the bolding is my own):

Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).

At present, the current lead does not accomplish these tasks. There is hardly any mention of what is in the article, for example the History, Geography, Economics and Transport are all missing. Conversely what is mentioned in the lead is not mentioned in the main article.

The point of the lead section is to raise interest in the article, and to give a brief overview of what is going to be explained in more detail later. Remember, a lot of people will only see the lead section of the article. For example, if they are browsing in Google Earth or using popups.

Could not most of the current lead be moved directly to its own section and then summarised in one line in the lead? Then the resulting lead could be expanded to give an overview of the entire article. Mehmet Karatay 13:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any better way of completing the sentence starting Inverness is ...? I guess that if the first two sentences are left as they are, then the rest of the intro could be moved down page, or has content already covered further down page. Laurel Bush 15:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What would you say to something along the lines of:

Inverness (Scottish Gaelic: Inbhir Nis) is a city in Scotland, ranked by the Scottish Executive as comparable to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen. Inverness in unusual in that it does not have a definite boundary defined in primary legislation.

I think that this summarises what you are trying to say and it hopefully generates interest so that the relevant section will be read. How do you feel this works as the first two sentences? It would be good to have a reference for the second sentence but given the amount of research you've already done that hopefully shouldn't be a problem. :-) Mehmet Karatay 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. OK. I feel there should be something early in the intro to give some sense of locality within Scotland, preferably mention of a council area, but given the lack of defined boundaries, the fact that the city seems to be, actually, nowhere in particular, framing some such mention is quite problematic. For the same reason, finding a supporting reference is equally problematic. Either nobody wants to say where it really is, or it is not really anywhere! Or perhaps it is no more than that beeswax-sealed piece of goatskin in Inverness Museum and Art Gallery, which is within a particlular council area. Laurel Bush 09:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I passed through the mythical, apparently non-existant Inverness last week - I could have sworn it was located in the vicinity of the junction of the A82 and A9, across the bridge from North Kessock. Hope that helps. Lianachan 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you entered or got close to a former burgh, and it would be nice to find a map for that one, boundaries as abolished in 1975. As for supporting reference re locality of the 'city', this, which is used to support the statement about Scottish Executive recognition, also indicates Scottish Executive perception of the city as somewhere in the Highland 'region'. 'Region' is a term by which the Highland Council often refers to its council area. Laurel Bush 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Seems to me that if there is a city (in terms of City status in the United Kingdom) of Inverness then what makes it so is a combination of letters patent and recognition from the Highland Council and the Scottish Excectutive. Unfortunately, the terms of the letters patent (which seem to me to be very deliberately vague) make it very difficult for anyone to be specific about what is really being recognised.
Also, I begin to feel I have done more than enough on this subject, while hoping that my superscript references will be preserved unless and until the spin of an external webpage causes it to fly apart. Laurel Bush 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps not my last word. If you keep an intro short enough, you can have a very up-page table of contents. Not sure if that works, however, if you are looking for something like 'featured article' status. As regards the latter, specific buildings within the former county of Inverness and within or near the former burgh might be subjects worth working with. I am thinking, for example, of various churches, the Town House (which I believe holds a full scale copy of the city letters patent) and, of course, the castle (which I believe to have been designed to serve as a prison). Laurel Bush 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current "castle" was built in the 1830's as a court house. There has been a castle on that site since the 11th or 12th C though. If you're interested, there's a plan of the castle that was drawn up in 1719 here. It was destroyed in 1746. I recommend that site, by the way - excellent old maps from all over Scotland. Just the thing for we historians. Lianachan 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'll have a look. Laurel Bush 10:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have made an attempt to tidy this up per WP:MOS. It may not be perfect, but I think it is a little closer to the accepted style. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new lead. I gave it a minor copy-edit, hope the results are okay. It could still do with some references though. Mehmet Karatay 15:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - thanks. Yes, I have been taken to task for not having references in a lead para before, but if you look at today's FA, Himno Nacional Mexicano, there isn't a single one. The assumption is presumably that they are incorporated in the main text, of which the lead is only a summary. Indeed, looking through this week's FA's there does not seem to be any consistency about this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I personally prefer references in the lead sections, but I am happy to accept otherwise as long as all the facts are subsequently referenced in the article. Mehmet Karatay 08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, I wonder, is this supposed to mean, as referenced in the first sentence? Is the webpage itself perhaps the self proclamation of Inverness as capital of the Highlands? If so, how are creators of the page authorised to speak for Inverness? Laurel Bush 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I note VisitScotland.com [3] lacks a description of the 'Inverness Area'. I wonder why. Perhaps the Tourist Board can not quite work out where Inverness really is. Also, I struggle to find relevance of this to the article's intro claims about the economy of Inverness. Laurel Bush 11:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Both the scotland-inverness and Danny Alexander websites are references verifying factual material that was not otherwise corroborated in the article that I could see. The Economy section has none at all for example. There are no doubt better references to be had. My aim was purely to provide a credible general format for the lead paragraph. By all means improve upon it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to who or what Joanne Mackenzie-Winters might be and why the website might be regarded as credible verification of supposed fact. Laurel Bush 11:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Highland Council HQ architecture[edit]

Would I be right in thinking that the Highland Council HQ buildings represent a re-use of premises of the historic Inverness county council? Apart from the way advertised by council billboards fronting Glenurqhart Road, the buildings not unattractive. Laurel Bush 14:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

River Ness[edit]

What does this river flow into? At present we have one idea in the intro and something else down page. Laurel Bush 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It flows into the Moray Firth, the Beauly Firth is further east. And the term Inverness Firth is no longer used Lurker (talk · contribs) 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Beauly Firth is further east than what? Beauly, yes. Inverness or the Moray Firth, definately not. Do you mean "further west"? Lianachan 21:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. That is what was there in the geography section until sombody started playing around with it. And it corresponds with what was in Moray Firth last time I checked. Laurel Bush 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Infobox issues[edit]

It is clear that the issues relating to the contents of the infobox for this article are rather more general than specifically about the city of Inverness. The whole issue of the UK infobox place may well continue to be controversial, but (at some possible risk to my sanity) I suggest a dialogue at the relatively neutral territory of Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/examples. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your attempt at diplomacy has failed. I note that 3RR has just been broken by User:Breadandcheese. I have requested that he self-revert but he denies that he has broken 3RR. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the former, I fear so - no good deed goes unpunished, as they say. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[edit]

I view of the edit war over the use of a flag, I have protected this article for two weeks (see Wikipedia:Protection policy).

I suggest that in the meantime editors resume discussion of the flag issues at Template talk:Infobox_UK_place#Flag. If that discussion is not reaching a consensus (which seems likely to me), an request for comment would be appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for taking action to halt this ill-tempered debate. However, I need to say that I have no intention of discussing the matter at Template talk:Infobox_UK_place#Flag. Why there and not here or at WP:SCO? It's pretty obvious what the outcome of discussions there are likely to be. I did attempt to raise the issue and various related matters at a more neutral related page, (see above) but the discussion was then moved to Infobox_UK_place (doubtless with good intentions, but without any prior discussion of the subject.) Have you seen the related debate at User_talk:Lurker? I am curious as to the views of the less-involved would be as I have a by no means comprehensive knowledge of all our protocols. If it is true that a template project can both insist on the use of a particular template and insist on the conditions under which it may be used by other projects, that's interesting news. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a belated reply. I have no particular preference for Template talk:Infobox_UK_place#Flag; I suggested it because it was where Mais Oui pointed me when he raised the issue on my talk page. WP:SCO may be fine too, but wherever it's taken, the issue here clearly applies to all Scottish places and not just to Inverness, so my intention was to direct discussion away from here to a centralised location. As I have already suggested to Mais Oui, an RFC may be appropriate too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It ended up back there after I had initially attempted to start it at a more neutral venue - Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/examples. This is all a bit if a constitutional guddle really (both in the micro and the macro: see also WLQ). Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If it is true that a template project can both insist on the use of a particular template and insist on the conditions under which it may be used by other projects, that's interesting news." - where did you get that information from? If it is true it looks like we have been holding the trump card in this debate/guerilla war all along, but just did not know we held it!? Please link to the appropriate page. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is by no means as definitive as you imagine it might be. It is simply the engaging debate between M. Lurker, M. Bread&Cheese and M. Jza84 on the talk page linked to above during which the first says:

(I) "do not consider the consensus on what fields should be included in the infobox to be binding on the Inverness article as I believe infoboxes can and should be adapted by contributors to the articles which choose to use them. The Inverness article will be changed when a consensus to do so is established."
and the last
"a codified consensus does exist and thus it is you who has to achieve a new consensus" referring I think to the March 2007 consensus at Template talk:Infobox_UK_place.

It is a curious situation, that must surely have emerged before. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 11:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a RFC would resolve at least that matter? --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea - framing an agreed question and providing appropriate and balanced background information would be a helpful first step. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 09:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I note this dispute was not resolved at the time, and fell out of everyone's minds. I'd like to readdress it and remove the flag. Would anyone like to raise an objection and shall an RFC be necessary? If so, would you care to assist in framing an appropriate question?--Breadandcheese (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

The page move is nonsense. Can we get this page moved back to Inverness, and if Laurel Bush wants it moved she can hold an WP:RM. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've moved it back. Please go to WP:RM to open a request for a move, though I don't see a reason for this one to change. Black Kite 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look a Nairn. If it works there then it should work for Inverness. Laurel Bush (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Why confuse people by taking them to a dab page and then making them click another link when the vast majority of them are looking for Inverness?? Black Kite 18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Nairn page was only disrupted yesterday and should be restored to its old location. It cannot stay where it is, and so certainly is not a precedent for this! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you're right, if only for the hundreds of incoming links and to fix the cut and paste move. Fixing this now. Black Kite 18:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I'm struggling deciphering if www.inverness-scotland.com is a government site or a promotional site. If it is the latter, I believe this should not be included in the infobox. Also, I believe that there is an overwhelming consensus, and policy that states the use of flags in the template is depreciated and to be avoided. I suggest we respect that. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I also refer to MOS:FLAG "in general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. the United States of America or Canada) not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a "nation" or "country" in its own right. " and "Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance" - as I posted a notice some time ago, and nobody's bothered to object, I'm going to remove that.
The website linked to is government-related "This site is owned by the Highland Council and maintained by the Area Development Office. It was jointly funded by Highland Council and HIE Inverness and East Highland." --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from City of Inverness and Area, Highland council website that there has been some change in name of the committee and the manager's title from City of Inverness to City of Inverness and Area. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Population[edit]

I can see a comparative graph but I not see a population figure here. Nor can I see any reasonable basis on which such figure might be derived. Laurel Bush (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

The figure is there nonetheless. How the information was derived is speculation, but a Government website would seem to satisfy the conditions of WP:V. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That figure of 66,600 must be for the Inverness (former) committee area (much the same as the previous Inverness district). This is a large area which includes lots of surrounding villages, ie Beauly, Fort Augustus, Drumnadrochit, Cannich, Tomatin, Ardersier, plus all of Glen Affric, Loch Ness etc. So its misleading to use this figure as the population for the city of Inverness (by which I mean the "urban settlement"). See [4], which gives the population of the Inverness area as 66,576.
Instead, for the population of the city of Inverness, I suggest the population from here - ie 51,832 for Inverness (incl. surrounds), with a note saying it includes Balloch, Smithton, Culloden and Westhill. --Vclaw (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Census - Area Profiles, Highland Council website seems to be for groups of wards roughly corresponding to council management areas. The wards were abolished last year and so were the management areas. 2001 Population of Main Highland Towns & Villages, Highland Council website gives 40,949 for Inverness city and 51,832 for Inverness (incl. surrounds) but does not define boundaries of either. I have reason to believe however that the Inverness city figure is for a contiguous urban area that may stretch across the Kessock Bridge. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It doesn't stretch across the Kessock Bridge, because that is the North Kessock locality, which is listed separately. The boundaries are defined by the General Register Office, and available here in a not very clear PDF (see map 27-28). Note the GRO defines the Inverness settlement as the locality of Inverness plus Westhill, and defines the Culloden settlement as Balloch + Culloden + Smithton. --Vclaw (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have paper letter and map from the General Register Office which seems to contradict the above. Must fish them out sometime. Laurel Bush (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps a clearer approach is needed for the population figure to the far right of the article. Since we are talking about urban population and the population of the area's hinterland, perhaps these terms (or some others which may be more appropriate) could be used? The current decision to list three figures with a 50%+ mark-up between two is quite misleading. I suggest something like:
Population -
Urban: 40,949
Greater Inverness: 66,600
Greater Inverness seems to work in that it is in an oddly similiar situation to that of a large city like London or Glasgow; the crown does not recognise some parts as being technically within the city's boundaries despite the fact that they are completely tied into the city. While we're here, does anyone know what Milton of Leyes is classed as? It is an area of Inverness? comment added by Hypertone (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 March 2008

London or Glasgow; the crown does not recognise some parts as being technically within the city's boundaries despite the fact that they are completely tied into the city? If they are not represented on the city council then they are not completely tied into the city, and the city council writ (nor that of the directly elected mayor in the case of Greater London) does not cover them. Inverness has no council and can not be compared with London or Glasgow. Because London and Glasgow have statutory boundaries it is possible to relate statistics to Ordnance Survey mapped boundaries, and to be very clear as to what the statistics are really about. This is not the case for Inverness, and I do not think we should be inventing our own notions of boundaries, in addition to the various official or semi-official notions that already exist. Seems to me we just have to accept that it is not possible to be very precise about Inverness. Laurel Bush (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

What Hypertone calls 'Greater Inverness' is the Inverness district/committee area, so that is what that population should be described as. I think we need a separate article about the district to avoid confusing it with the city - all of the other (former) Highland Council/region districts have articles - see for example Nairn (district) which is quite clearly different from the article about the town, Nairn. This whole argument is rather silly. For example Dingwall has no official council boundaries, but there's no dispute about its population, you just check the census reports for the settlement of Dingwall. And no one is suggesting we instead use the population for the Ross and Cromarty district/area, but it seems some are suggesting we do the equivalent for Inverness. Why? --Vclaw (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Dingwall is somewhat problematic, but at least there is not a claim that Dingwall is a city which can be compared properly with places like Aberdeen and Edinburgh. I think you will find that the census settlement of Dingwall consists of contiguous postcode areas where the population density is above that deemed to be the threshold for an urban area. Therefore it is not really possible to know what settlement of Dingwall means without lists and maps of relevant postcode areas. And the definition may change from one census to the next. (Things were clearer pre 1975, when Dingwall was a burgh with statutory boundaries.) If the population of the Edinburgh or Aberdeen council area changes, this is a change within a constant area (unless there has been a change to statutory boundaries, but that would be pretty well known and understood).
I would agree with the idea of an article called Inverness (boundaries) where issues of this kind, in relation to Inverness, can be properly discussed, and covering the historic county and distrit of county, until 1975, the district of region, 1975 to 1996, and the council management areas, 1996 to present. But there would be overlap with the Inverness article because the nearest the "city" has to a representative body is the Highland Council committee covering the current management area, which is similar (but not identical) to the former district of region.
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Why are we even making such a mountain out of a molehill? Two figures next to one another with such variation is misleading to the public, so I say we either specify their difference and explain it in the main article or we agree on which is more accurate. Hypertone (talk

How would we work out the difference or which is more accurate? Pretending that things are more clear cut than they are (which seems to be what some people want to do) would be misleading. Inverness (boundaries) now exists, by the way.
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings[edit]

Important buildings in Inverness include Inverness Castle, Inverness College and various churches.

"Inverness College" presumably refers to the "Executive Office" building, perhaps something should be written about the original use of this building and its history. I would have expected a mention of Dr Bell's School, Abertarff House, Greyfriars church and the Town Steeple. --jmb (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms and the Flag[edit]

Reference #22 provides, no doubt, evidence that the city has been dinied arms. I'm no expert on the subdivisions of council in Scotland, me being English, but I though this may be relevant: http://books.google.com/books?id=0EBiwcy4x5EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA159,M1 showing a coat of arms for the Burgh of Inverness. Is it still in use? I'm not really interested, but I thought it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarry1250 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old royal burgh of Inverness did indeed have arms, but they reverted to the crown when the burgh was abolished in 1975. Some community councils have been allowed to re-matriculate the arms of former burghs with certain changes added, but AFAIK I know this has not been possible as the town (sorry city!) is divided into a number of community council areas. Lozleader (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to add the Inverness Flag somewhere in the page, I think it would make a fine addition. User: Paul Zawkiewicz October 28, 2019

Layout, wording, cleaning up[edit]

I've made a few changes to the layout, what is everyone's thoughts on them? I placed toponymy as a sub-section under history (there is no need for it to have its own seperate section) - as an aside, I'm trying to look for information on the heraldry of Inverness to add to article. I changed the wording, but no the actual content, of the opening three paragraphs of the article so that it was more flowing. This entire article is in drips and drabs and really doesn't flow too well at the moment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.218 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. As far as the heraldry of Inverness is concerned: at present it doesn't have any. The Royal Burgh matriculated arms on 9 February 1900 (Lyon Register, xv, 74). These included design elements dating from the seventeenth century. These reverted to the crown in 1975 on the burgh's demise. The Inverness District Council matriculated arms on 7 September 1975 (Lyon Register lix, 34) These repeated the main parts of tye burgh arms ("our Lord upon the Cross") and the cornucopia from the burgh crest. Sadly the dromedary and elephant supporters of the burgh arms were not allowed! These arms themselves disappeared in 1996. The present Highland Council has a very complicated coat of arms which again includes the figure of Christ crucified in reference to Inverness (can't find the ref for that this moment, but I do have it...) I have an image of the burgh arms which is public domain. It would need to be made clear that the arms are obsolete, however, and as the city has no corporate existence it can have no arms per Lord Lyon. Lozleader (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Density[edit]

Why is their a density statistic in the infobox given that there is no defined "city" (i.e. council area) of Inverness? If the density was figured using some statistical definition of the city, then that land area statistics needs to be added to the density figure, otherwise, the density figure is worthless standing alone like it does. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate[edit]

Several reports from the Inverness weather station suggest at the current climate data is incorrect. For example, the record low temperature for February is recorded as -11.1'C, but records show that at the very least -15.1'C was recorded on the 14th of February 1987 [5] and also -13'C on 10th February 2010 [6]. As such, I suggest that the current climate data is likely incorrect, potentially in all regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.245.85 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population (again)[edit]

The page has again been afflicted with people arguing over the population of Inverness. There are quite a few different figures knocking about so let me put down here what they are and where they come from, so people understand which one they are trying to put in the article.

Firstly there are the official locality and settlement figures from GRO Scotland. The most up-to-date versions of these are the Mid 2008 estimates, as this is a biennial publication published 18 months in arrears. Mid 2010 estimates should be published shortly however. These figures are calculated by aggregating urban postcode units. The methodology can be found here: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/geography/scosett/annex-c/introduction.html and a map of what is included in Inverness can be found here: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/images/map14.jpg. These are the most accurate and reliable figures as they are aggregated up from the smallest available building blocks - postcode areas with populations of 50-100 as opposed to datazones which have populations of 600-800 and contain large areas of rural

°The 2008 GRO mid year Locality figure for Inverness is 44,220. This is the core population of Inverness itself and is what should be used to compare with other cities/towns etc.

°The 2008 GRO mid year Settlement figure for Inverness is 56,660. This figure is arrived at by combining the Inverness locality figure with those of neighbouring Balloch (1,430), Culloden (4,210), Simthton (2,230), and Westhill (4,560). this should be regarded as the most reliable comparable figure for a "Greater Inverness area".

°The figure currently used in the article - 60,890 - comes from a Highland Council profile for the area described as "Inverness (incl. Culloden)" and the source is given as 2009 GRO mid year estimates. This will be an aggregation of the available 2009 datazone level figures from GRO. It will therefore slightly exceed the actual population of the urban area as it will also include surrounding rural areas which are combined in the datazones. This figure is the most up-to-date but not as reliable as GRO settlement figures and cannot be compared with numbers given for other Scottish localities/settlements.

°The figure of 73,476 covers the entire Inverness "District" a former administrative division of Highland council. This figure certainly should not be used to refer to Inverness in any article about the urban area of Inverness as it will include all people in the surrounding area such as Fort George, Ardersier, etc that would certainly not be considered part of Inverness.

I would advise using the GRO 2010 mid year estimate settlement figure when it becomes available (Feb/March 2012) as it will be reliable, comparable to other areas and up-to-date. It is likely to be somewhere between the current (datazone derived) figure and the 2008 settlement figure. I would guess about 59,000.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linked to the discussion on population is the reference in the article to Inverness purportedly being one of Europe's fastest growing cities. The reference given is one drawn from an article in The New Statesman which makes the bald assertion with no evidence based on comparisons with other European cities. This is not a credible reference and ought to be deleted. This assertion as to being one of the fastest growing cities needs to be substantiated by reference to a credible authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald2409 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climate information[edit]

The climate information was removed by an anonymous user because the information was for Kinloss. What there is to understand here is that most climate recording stations are actually outside of the cities they intend to collect the information for. The recording station for Inverness and area is in fact located nearby in Kinloss. There is no station in Inverness. When the information was on the wiki page, it was properly labeled as Kinloss for people to realize this. There does not seem to be a significant difference in geography that would alter the climate information in any meaningful way between Kinloss and Inverness and I believe that is why the government approved this location for the station.

I am reverting the removal of this information.Air.light (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertone, you change the information back and state correct information "Kinloss is not Inverness" but do not address what I have mentioned here. The weather monitoring station for Inverness and area is located in Kinloss. Will you please consent to this change? In my opinion it will improve this article to have the climate information for the area included in it.Air.light (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinloss is both considerably further east and more exposed to the Moray Firth. To compare the two in terms of their climate is completely improper. Moreover, the weather station at Kinloss is not situated there in order to monitor the climate of Inverness (they'd have put the weather station somewhere in Inverness proper if that was the salient purpose!). Rather, it is there to monitor the climate of Kinloss, a military base, which is common practice throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Inverness is some 30 miles from Kinloss which is meteorologically quite considerable in UK terms. Until a proper alternative is sourced I suggest it remains excluded from the article.

Hypertone (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed a stat was wasn’t sited saying Inverness has 69 days of falling snow, which seems drastically overstated and wasn’t able to find any source that backed it up other than content farms which seemed to scrape this article. Maybe if it included sleet, it could be closer to accurate, but again was not able to substantiate that. The mountains in Scotland get a decent bit of snow, however Inverness is a low lying area, and 69 days seems inaccurate given my knowledge of the area...but if anyone can find a reliable source feel free to add it and clarify that statement TechAtlas (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are records for the Cairngorms, the mountains which get a lot more snow than Inverness...and their days of snow falling are around 5-15 per year, which definitely seems to confirm the inaccuracies of the removed quote

https://www.onthesnow.com/scotland/cairngorm/historical-snowfall.html TechAtlas (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population again![edit]

Hi Hypertone, You need to be careful about just removing population figures from this article. As you can see from the archives there are many and varied ways of defining Inverness depending on if you include Westhill, Culloden, Smithton and Balloch,. This article has had some very poorly sourced and inaccurate population figures at times. The version you keep removing showed three figures: one for Inverness (including Westhill), one for Culloden (including Smithton and Balloch) and one for the two combined. In order to keep it simple we didn't go into all that detail.

As you appear not to like the Inverness and Culloden terminology I have changed it to a Greater Inverness figure and used for consistency either the GRO Scotland Settlement figure (2008 onwards) or the sum of the Inverness and Culloden Settlement figures pre 2008 which equate to the same area. To make citation easier I have changed to using the Inverness locality figure for 2003 - 2010 from GRO Scotland which is smaller than previosuly shown as it does not include Westhill.

It is very important to show both these figures as previously people have switched between definitions to try and prove a very rapid expansion of the city which actually merely reflected changes to boundary definitions. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to comment on my talkpage from Hypertone as below:

Following your recent edit of the Inverness article, I'm looking to discuss these matters with you. Firstly, I think "Greater Inverness" would likely include more than simply the various settlements to the east of Inverness (of which I think it would certainly be difficult to claim that Westhill was an autonomous and separate entity in the form of a village). Perhaps what is currently term "Inverness" could be described as "Central Inverness", what is currently "Greater Inverness" could simply be "Inverness" and what we would call "Greater Inverness" should include the population of commuting villages, such as Kessock etc. Many thanks! Hypertone (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hypertone, The main issuing is sourcing. At Wikipedia we can't decide what the boundaries of Inverness are, we can only report the figures as others define them as. We currently have two definitions of Inverness provided by GRO Scotland / Records of Scotland listed in the page. These are the 2 figures in the article. Sometimes wider Inverness Council Management area / district population numbers have been inserted in the article. These have been removed as they included settlements such as Ardersier, Fort George and even Nairn so are not useful for defining the urban area population of Inverness.

So the two figures we have are from GRO. They define them as the locality of Inverness and the settlement of Inverness. The article briefly explains this difference and provides a link to the GRO page on this that gives more details about how they are defined. (It's to do with contiguous postcodes of a certain population density if you're interested). A different definition including Kessock etc would need to be sourced, not just dreamt up by us.

This leaves us with the issue of names. I personally don't think that using the phrases Inverness (Settlement) and Inverness (Locality) would be useful as people won't know immediately what these mean. So my two suggestions have been for the larger figure to either use Greater Inverness (to indicate it includes more than just the core urban population) or Inverness & Culloden (to describe geographically what is included in the figure). Happy for you to suggest other terminology or other sources but we can't just make up new definitions of what to include in the urban area.

For me it is best that the Locality figure is the one called Inverness. On the GRO Scotland page describing Localities vs Settlements: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/population/estimates/special-area/settlements-localities/background.html they say "Localities are intended to be more representative of the towns and cities in Scotland. Some settlements cover an extensive area, and consist of more than one distinct town or city." The example they give is the Settlement of Glasgow which includes the localities of Glasgow and Paisley. Few would argue that Paisley is part of the city of Glasgow but it does form part of the wider Urban Area (Settlement in GRO terminology) so they report both numbers. In the same way GRO Scotland judge Inverness to be distinct as a city from Culloden as a village but also provide the combined population figure for information.

The locality figure is important to include to help people understand that the population can be defined in different ways. I used to see a lot of vandalism of the List of towns and cities in Scotland by population page as people would come from the Inverness page, see the different (smaller) figure listed for Inverness and alter the Inverness figure to 50,000 or 80,000 depending on which dodgy source on the Inverness page they were using. The two figures help explain that there are different ways of defining the urban area and help explain what are population increases and what are definition increases. For example when GRO started including Culloden, Balloch and Smithton in the Inverness settlement figure in 2008 people took that change to say that the population of Inverness had grown in 2 years from 45,000 to 56,000 in that period. In reality of course the actual increase had been from 54,000 to 56,000 as well as there being a definition change.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Inverness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Inverness/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Definitely moving in the direction of GA candidature. Needs some more references, a little clean up, a couple of quality photos and expansions of the 'Geography' and 'Famous People' sections. 'City status ' issue might be controversial. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inverness. 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) 10:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Inverness. 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) 00:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Inverness. 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) 23:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Inverness. 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) 06:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inverness. 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) 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inverness The name[edit]

Hello all.

I would like to describe how this name Inverness sound in the years of an Icelandic speaking individual. First, Öndverðanes (Ness is nes in Icelandic meaning peninsula, big or small) "Öndverða" mean the opposite (Inverse) so Inverness becomes the "opposite ness" seen from North Kessock. The ness across the Beauly Firth. (The firth that bends)

Population in the Lead Section[edit]

Someone vandalised it and put a bunch of 69s in the population numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomaeons (talk • contribs) 10:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something might wrong[edit]

I coming from Norwegian Wikipedia, and checking out this article I notice that Torvean is linked to Torrean civilization. Context indicate that Torvean is a place near Inverness... Please check this out. --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell clock tower[edit]

"The only surviving modern remnant is a clock tower."

Although this clock tower is approx. in the location of Cromwell's Citadel I think it's actually the remnant of a cloth factory from the 1700s which became a rope factory in the 1800s. This is detailed in the book Slaves and Highlanders by David Alston. Wigigigi (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the alteration I suggest above. Wigigigi (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inverness&oldid=1212052756"