Talk:Kilmarnock

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

Economic Blight, Etc.[edit]

With the deepest respect, the section on Economic Blight reintroduced by Demonblade is not NPOV and falls foul of the site rules and does not meet the normal standards of Wiki. In particular it:

- fails toplace the economic decline within an appropriate context which would, in turn, provide readers with a full understanding.

- makes value judgements regarding the quality of the 1970s regeneration efforts which, regardless of their accuracy, have no place in Wiki.

- does not properly explain the role that planning blight had in the redevelopment of Portland Street, concentrating instead on the decline it caused.

- includes unsupported assertions regarding the views of the townspeople

- contains factual errors; the HS CARS scheme for the town centre has been approved and the HLF THI scheme is due for determination shortly; it also overlooks the TCLI scheme.

Unless anyone has any substantive comments, I would intend to revert to the changes I made earlier today.

--MacLeod 15:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There's no doubt that the Portland Street section of town was basically a screwup for many years. While the rest of the redevelopment had met a mixed reception, some good, some bad from Kilmarnock Cross down to Titchfield Street, Portland St declined sharply. I think a number of factors contributed here. For one, the bus station used to be a busy point, when it was closed it affected passing trade. The market kept a lot of passing trade but shops declined. The area did become more unkempt looking, and the fire which levelled Bambers did nothing to help. Face it, Portland St lay essentially derelict for a number of years before the rebuilding started and the regeneration doesn't seem to have brought back any prosperity there. Douglasnicol 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to rewrite the urban blight section regarding Portland St to be a bit more NPOV. If you don't know the place well its a bit hard to describe, but I have emphasised as well that the 'chain store makeover' is not a factor unique to Kilmarnock. Douglasnicol 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the problem is that during the 70s and 80s Kilmarnock (like many former industrial towns) saw massive changes in town centre retail patterns; we need to place these issues in context to provide a npov. It seems likely to me that it would have suffered a similar fate to Titchfield Street, but we can't really let that come into ther equation.

--MacLeod 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think though that Portland Street suffered from a variety of factors which lead to it being derelict for so long. I don't know how much was possible bureacracy from the Council delaying things. Douglasnicol 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--MacLeod 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)== KILMARNOCK ARTICLE DISCUSSION AREA ==[reply]

Article expansion[edit]

It may be helpfull if we could discuss ideas for expanding the Kilmarnock article here. Douglas Nicol has made many valuable contributions. Similarly Steven Milloy has contributed as well. If you have knowledge of Kilmarnock, perhaps about it's history or early developement, then contribute and grow the article.

It's great to see this page expanding - I'll try to add some history. In the meantime, could one of you in Kilmarnock take some pictures, maybe in sunshine? Church, Dick Institute, park, shopping centre... Mark Nesbitt 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the praise, one reason I have a decent knowledge of Kilmarnock, is my Mum is Kilmarnock born and still remembers much of the old layout of the town prior to development. I've also got the two books that are listed in the Further Reading category. Douglasnicol 13:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a digital camera. I would be willing to get out and take a few pictures. But I am not sure how to upload them and assimilate them into the page. I could email them accross to Douglas or Mark and one of you could put them on the page (If you know how). milloy6@aol.com

Hi Steven - feel free to email me pics at mark.nesbitt {at} gmail.com It's easy but somewhat time-consuming to upload and place pics, so I'm happy to divide the work. I don't know Kilmarnock so will need short captions. Assume you are happy to release pics to public domain - allows greatest flexibility in use (eg in other wikis). Thanks MarkMark Nesbitt 21:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats me above (digital camera). Wasn't logged in, silly me! Had some thoughts about maybe mentioning Willie Ross. Was he the Secretary of State for Scotland and Kilmarnocks MP at one time. Check your books Douglas. Contemporarily, Des Browne MP is (i think) Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I can see the possiblity for another heading here...maybe 'Politics'.--Stevenmilloy 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no Climate section here? The Ayr page has one!! Seriously though I would like to compare Ayr and Kilmarnock temperatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranmegade (talk • contribs) 16:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BMK[edit]

Here's a question, I'm sure any savvy people that know Kilmarnock are aware that BMK was an acronym for Blackwood & Mortons Kilmarnock. What I'd like to know is that there was a woollen factory in Western Road run by a company called Blackwood Brothers, they also at one time owned the former mill in Kilwinning. Any connection between the two companies? Douglasnicol 21:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it Douglas. I believe there is a link as you suggest.--Stevenmilloy 23:59, 4 March 2006

http://www.geographyhigh.connectfree.co.uk/prinayrskilmanockphotos.html has some great old photos.--Stevenmilloy 00:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mark. First sign of sunshine i will take some pictures and email them over to you - have you got broadband? --Stevenmilloy 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a discussion with a friend, i found out that there was a link between Blackwood and Morton. Around 1900 the connection was broken. Blackwood went to make yarn and Morton concentrated on building up carpet manufacturing. Information is sketchy, even though i am a former employee, so i think it will take a while to get enough solid information of a standard fit for inclusion into the main page. I'll keep digging though. --Stevenmilloy 09:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had been wondering about that. The name of Blackwoods itself isn't the most common. Another thing, I know at one time BMK had three factories in Kilmarnock. There's the one now largely demolished in Riccarton where Safeways and Aldi etc are, the only remaining part is an office block. There's another one near the 'New Bellfield Tavern' on Queens Drive which is partly sublet to small businesses now, and there's that one that features in a pic in the link that has been given. What does that third factory do now (if anything). I also put in the info about Saxone, but I believe there is a company that still manufactures shoes in Kilmarnock near where Food Giant/Kwik Save was, though I'm not sure what they were called. Douglasnicol 18:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas you are correct in what you say. However, the office block which stood empty for many years near Safeway, was demolished a couple of years ago. BMK actually had FOUR factories in Kilmarnock.

1: Burnside Street. (Safeway). 2: Riverside (Barbadoes Rd Closed Feb '05). 3: Lawson Street (Bellfield Tavern). 4: Brittania Mill (Morrisons). 5: Douglas Reyburn (Mill Street - behind Howard Arms Pub).

Site #1 produced woven. Site #2 produced woven and tufted latterly inc Reyburns as well. Site #3 Took waste and made underfelt named "Springback". Site #4 Was where the carpets were finished/despatched.

Site #5 Was wholly owned by Stoddard/BMK and supplied most of the yarn requirement. For a while after Saxone pulled out there existed a small shoe making operation, but this too dissapeared several years ago. --Stevenmilloy 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea WHY the BMK office block was left standing for so many years after the factory was demolished? Douglasnicol 14:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trams and other transport[edit]

Kilmarnock had a tram system which linked it to Hurlford. This is mentioned on the Hurlford page but not in any detail.

One of my local history books has details on the tram system including a map of the network. I can put in the information. Douglasnicol 23:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news about the trams. I'm kind of tied up (looking for a job) at the moment - may not be as 'visible' on here as of late. Will 'keep my hand in' though.--Stevenmilloy 22:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thats some basic tram info put inDouglasnicol 14:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a brief entry on the bus station. Douglasnicol 14:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JOHN FINNIE STREET[edit]

I'm concerned that the reference to the Finnies having a say in tenants of John Finnie Street might be inaccurate. Do we have a source for it?--MacLeod 22:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have two books on Kilmarnock, the older one has quite a bit of info on the town and only mentions that the Finnies put quite a bit of financial backing into both the planning and construction of the street. There's no mention either way of their approval being needed. I would say that if anything has affected the quality of shops in John Finnie Street is that it is now very difficult for cars to park there, meaning a lot of what could otherwise be passing trade is lost, however, that's just conjecture. Douglasnicol 11:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic depression and urban blight, npov?[edit]

I'm worried about the content of this section:

  • "This decline has its origins" -- can you justify that?
  • "in a disastrous 'redevelopment'" -- what was disastrous about it, pov?
  • "fine buildings make way for a 'concrete jungle'." -- pov, again??
  • "old sturdy Victorian and Edwardian buildings were replaced by characterless flat roofed retail units." -- Again this doesn't seem to be neutral at all.

It seems like this only discusses one point of view and without reference. While I'm certainly no fan of Kilmarnock town centre (and I'm too young to remember the "old sturdy Victorian and Edwardian buildings") I'd like to see at least a reference for this stuff and possibly some more positive statements (if they can be made!!) about the area. OoberMick 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I share these OoberMick's concerns; see also note above about the Finnies which I don't think is correct. --MacLeod 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree - a lot of the original content of this page appears to have negative undertone. Today i renamed this section to Regeneration. I trust it is the correct term (Mccarthystumble (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Notable People Discussion[edit]

I started this section, and would be interested to hear the other contributors viewpoints. Should the Notable people be limited to those who were born in Kilmarnock, such as Margaret McDowell and the McIllvaneys, or should it also include those who were not born there but are residents there, or have been residents? Some town entries in Wiki include famous residents, others limit it to those born there. Opinions? Douglasnicol 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Des Browne? He is the MP for Kilmarnock, but he is neither born, brought up, or is resident there, shouldn't this be removed? Douglasnicol (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Portland St pic[edit]

To whoever removed the Portland St pic, and left the rather snide comment, you miss the point. Portland St now may not be a main shopping street, but it WAS. The main shopping streets of Kilmarnock prior to the extensive redevelopment were Portland St, King Street and Titchfield St. People unfamiliar with the town often group them together as one street. Oh, and BTW, it wasn't me who uploaded the pic, in case you think I have an ulterior motive. I've reinserted the picture, but I've recaptioned it to make it NPOV. Douglasnicol 14:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

Just wondering what the source is for the population of Kilmarnock (60,000)? The East Ayrshire Council website has a pdf [1] detailing the 2001 census figures, and states a population of 43,588. Which figure is correct? AllanMcD 12:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commute time and housing prices[edit]

Recent edits implied that the now relatively short commute time to Glasgow is having a positive impact on the housing market. Can we get that backed up with sources? Is there any historical data available on housing prices in Kilmarnock and Scotland as a whole, to provide a baseline? Also, how does the train work for commuters - is their commute time comparable to that of drivers on the 77? MrZaiustalk 19:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My First Cult / My First Music[edit]

I have tried to add both My First Cult and My First Music on several occasions and met with at best animosity or sheer rejection. We are vital to the regeneration of music in the area and would like at least some feedback on why we are constantly excluded. If you need further information regarding our activities then we are willing to help you out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.20.198 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks section[edit]

I'm not against this section, but in my opinion at least, it looks really untidy. It needs a few things, some clarification for one on some of the places of interest, maybe a seperate article on the Burns Monument including how it got into such a state. Secondly, something like the Clydesdale Bank, what one, there are at least two, if I remember right, Clydesdale Bank buildings, the one in Riccarton near the former Safeways, and the one one near the multi-storey carpark. Douglasnicol (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Douglasnicol: Point taken - now that you mention it, "shabby" is probably the most apt word, now that I look at the section with hindsight. I don't fully agree with pautting the burns monument in a separate section but perhaps it would be good to have a link to a separate section with more detail. Perhaps the same could be applied to each of The Places of Interest? (Mccarthystumble (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This also relates to the merge tag, but I have to say that giving every part of the Landmark section a seperate article doesn't work, streets especially. Perhaps the Dick Institute, Burns Monument and War Memorial, but others can be a bit dodgy. Douglasnicol (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag[edit]

Kilmarnock Cross currently gives no context and little real encyclopedic info. I am suggesting that it is merged back here. I have also PRODed James Shaw Statue as being non notable - it doesn't even say who James Shaw was. Again it could be mentioned in the main article but doesn't appear worthy of a separate page. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited info from Rambles Around Kilmarnock. James Shaw went on to be Mayor of London. I suggest the James Shaw page remains and is not merged with the main Kilmarnock Page (Mccarthystumble (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

See reply at Talk:James Shaw Statue. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Merge. The Kilmarnock Cross article is among a recent spate of new articles on individual streets and sites around Kilmarnock that have little or no context to explain their significance, and which would be better served as part of the city's main article. See also King Street, Kilmarnock, John Finnie Street‎, Laigh Kirk, Howard Park Kilmarnock, George Hotel, Kilmarnock, and Burns Monument, among others. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think with hindsight I realise the pages should be merged. apologies for inconvenience caused from my inexperience and I would have no objections to merge (Mccarthystumble (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Vote to Merge. see my above comment (Mccarthystumble (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Vote to Merge. Lets get this and other articles about streets meged in the Kilmarnock article. Naturally, they will need some editing to bring them up to the standard of the main art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmilloy (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vote to Merge had a look, it's much back in the original article like you say and in my opinion, should be cut down. as for the King Street, Kilmarnock article, i would support deletion and place the info back into Kilmarnock, albeit also cut down and think about finding sources. Kilnburn (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Merge - seems fairly straightforward.92.18.178.125 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)92.18.178.125 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

An inexperienced editor, Hurlfordkillie, has recently made lots of edits to the article, introducing some fairly major stylistic problems such as including the text "Editing Kilmarnock (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" in the article. They've also added a map of the UK (?), some low-quality images, opening times for local attractions, etc. I'm reverting all of their edits because the article is now a mess. Some of it might be salvageable but I don't have the time for that now, so if anyone objects they can use the article history to restore useful edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see what you mean about the pictures - the text is all over the place now. I am concerned though when you say "Reverting all of their edits" who are "they" and what edits are you referring to? Would you be kind enough to clarify. Many thanks (Mccarthystumble (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry to be unlcear. I was referring to User:Hurlfordkillie. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the image showing Kilmarnocks weather in May really relevant? Douglasnicol (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to see any relevance to the Kilmarnock page. I also think the quality of some "in-car-shots" need discussed as they may detract from the over all quality of the page (Mccarthystumble (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Outstanding Conservation Area[edit]

propose setting up a section detailing the Outstanding Conservation Area or should it be incorporated into an existing article? Here is a link to some info on the matter and it's current progress KILMARNOCK TOWNSCAPE HERITAGE INITIATIVE (Mccarthystumble (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Protection[edit]

I feel this page should be unprotected --Mixedupworld (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it was fully protected, it wouldn't help prevent any disruptive editing from registered users, such as happened today at Scotland and which resulted in you being blocked for 31 hours. Full protection would prevent any registered users from editing it. Far better to await the sockpuppetry investigation's decision and then take action (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th).) Unprotecting it would leave the article open to vandalism by unregistered users, including registered users who would like to evade a block. The possibility exists, and so–Request denied at this time.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

will this article ever be unprotected--Martinnutini (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase i have realy nice pictures for the article --Martinnutini (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not going to be unprotected by myself yet. The actions on Scotland this evening have shown that it would currently be unwise. Also, your over-use of the same heading in consecutive sectuions on this talk page (removed by myself) which is similar to some possibly disruptive editing by yourself on Scotland sow that it would be protective not to just yet.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th) also means it would be currently unwise to unprotect, and I propose to wait until a result of that investigation is posted, and then I will review the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(About adding pictures/photos: a reply to Martinnutini and a edit conflict): I've decided to wait until I review whether unprotecting would be advisable. In the meantime, I have a solution to your desire to add pictures/photos to the article: (a) add the pictures to Wikipedia Commons (register here if you do not yet have an account with them.) (b) make sure you have given them an appropriate copyright notice when you add them, or they may be quickly deleted. (c) Post a link to them on this page just as you would in the article, using the image template, as common stuff is linked automatically even though it appears to be on a different site, and also add a note saying where you would like the links to be made, and what the caption should be. (d) I will review them and add them if all is well. I hope that satisfies your desire to add pictures/photos to the article. I suggest your add your requests for photo/picture placement all together in a section titled "Photo placement Request". I'll create the heading for you. Best wishes.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Placement Request[edit]

Add you requests for images to be placed in the article here, by adding an image link, the caption you would like, and where you would like it to be added in the article.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kilmarnockacademy.jpg
View Of Kilmarnock Academy From Train Station

Ok, put the "thumb" field in here, to reduce the size for now. Also, remmeber to say where you think it should be placed.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's been blocked for evading a block via 'sock-puppetry'. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already onto it. I did think I was being particularly accommodating in assuming good faith, but given we're spawn of the devil if we aren't in some quarters, that's that.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Railtower.jpg
Kilmarnock Railway Station Tower

and i would like this picture in the transport section or in the economy and the picture of kilmarnock academy in the Education section--78.148.56.202 (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since (a) your comment above indicates that you were the person who added the first photo, though (b) using the anon address, 78.146.78.46. And, (c) further, since 78.146.78.46 was User:WalkingTelephone |(evidence seen by looking at the editing history of User talk:WalkingTelephone), and (d) User:WalkingTelephone was banned because of sockpuppetry involving User:Jack forbes, who has been disruptive, then I am not going to add any of these photos until the position is further clarified.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Done[edit]

I Think this article should be discussed to be done up with more and better information. --89.240.133.182 (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristopher, this is getting out of hand. I must stress to you that Wikipedia is not the same as MySpace or Bebo - its a serious website, with the view of sharing information as an educational tool, not meant to be "done up" with fancy images and subheadings. Wikipedia's editors are serious volunteers who want to write an encyclopedia. You're constant barrage of subheadings, copyright violations and multiple accounts simply will not be tollarated. Infact, with each edit you make that doesn't have community backing or works against our style guides will put articles out of your reach to edit with special protection.
What I'm saying now Kristopher, is, find something else to do with your time. Your distuprion to our editorial processes is very, very unwelcome. Take some time away from Wikipedia, perhaps look at Facebook or Bebo (where you have an account), and come back in a few months when things have died down and you've matured a little. I think this is going to be best practice going forwards from here. You must now take notice that creating new accounts simply results in you being blocked and greater investigations into your identity being made. We can infact learn of all of your ip addresses, and if needbe, simply block every single one of them forever. Seriously Kristopher, I'm not saying Wikipedia is never going to be ok for you, but it's certianly not the right place for you right now. Best of luck. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest town in Ayrshire[edit]

Surely Ayr is bigger, Wilkepedia's own page gives Ayr at 2001 census 46,431 and Kilmarnock 2001 43,588. 86.150.32.85 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot can change in seven years! I'm surprised too, but it's been some time since I was last in Killie and Ayr. The claim *is* cited, by ayrshirescotland.com, so I guess the claim is valid. It might be worth having a dig though, ayrshirescotland.com strikes me as a business portal site, the Scottish Exec or Parliament might be a more reliable source.
Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've found a source from 2006 (General Register Office for Scotland) that's more up to date than the 2001 census. It shows a small decline for Ayr, and a small increase for Killie - not enough to change the 2001 positions, though:
Ayr,"46,050"
...
Kilmarnock,"44,030"
I'm going to ping Mrzaius, and leave this here for a few days, before changing the article but richt now I'm inclined towards changing "largest" to "one of the largest".
Cheers,  This flag once was red  07:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and done. Extrapolating from the GRO data, Killie will be back to "the largest" very soon, but we can cross that bridge when/if it happens ;-)
Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect population facts[edit]

The first paragraph of this article incorrectly refers to Kilmarnock as the "largest town in Ayrshire" when the largest town is actually Ayr. According to the 2001 census Kilmarnock had a population of 43,588 whereas Ayr had a population of 46,431. It is highly unlikely that Kilmarnock has somehow managed a population gain of around 3,000 on Ayr in the past seven years. The populations can be compared at Scottish Government census 2001 results website:

http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Population&mainLevel=Locality&mainText=Kilmarnock&mainTextExplicitMatch=null&compLevel=Locality&compText=ayr&compTextExplicitMatch=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.24.8 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - Even later population estimates (such as the 44,170 figure on the Kilmarnock article) do nothing to support the idea that Kilmarnock has leapfrogged Ayr population wise. Having lived in Ayrshire all my life I can say that neither down has drastically expanded over the course of the last several years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.24.8 (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic place name?[edit]

I'm not to sure about the correct Gaelic placename, but at least there should be an "h" in it. So I changed it from Cill Meàrnaig to Chill Mheàrnaig.
Other versions I found use the following versions:

  • Cill Mheàrnaig. Akerbeltz Dictionary
  • Cill Mhearnaig Placenames collected by Iain Mac an Tailleir, SMO
  • Cill Mheàrnag Gaelic-Engish Dictionary Colin Mark, ISBN 0-415-29761-3, page 728
  • Cill-mheàrnag Edward Dwelly, Illustrated Gaelic-English Dictionary, Birlinn Limited, 2001, ISBN 1841581097, page 2018

But maybe someone else has some better sources. --Sionnach 08:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KIRKSTYLE Primary School[edit]

The information added to the listing of schools is misleading, mainly since Kirkstyle is unlikely to be regarded as 'fairly new' when it existed in 1959, being built much earlier than Bellfield. The reference to head teachers is nice but stating a month of retirement without the relevant year seems unhelpful and is especially out of sequence since no other school lists staff details like this. Bobinscotland (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinning with Sukhumi[edit]

Some anonymous IP users seem to find the use of the Abkhazian flag objectionable, one first vandalising it and replacing it with the Somali flag, and then another (with a track record of vandalism) replacing it with the Georgian flag. While Georgia may claim sovereignty over Abkhazia, it has not exercised de facto control of it since 1993. Abkhazia is a de jure state, recognised by at least one member of the United Nations, and therefore there is nothing wrong with using the Abkhazian flag in connection with Sukhumi, its capital. I am therefore reverting this anonymous edit, and suggest that anyone who disagrees with this should discuss the matter on this talk page. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another anonymous revert. If you don't like the word Abkhazia, or the Abkhazian flag Abkhazia, please discuss it here, but in my book, saying "Georgia (country) Sukhumi, Georgia" is like saying "England Kilmarnock, England". Bofoc Tagar (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am not that anonym, I will discuss this issue. Abkhazia isn't a souverign state, but a part of Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaeser (talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It hasn't been part of Georgia since 1992. Abkhazia is a state which has now been recognised by several members of the United Nations, and therefore it IS sovereign. The Georgian government may want to exercise sovereignty over Abkhazia, and Georgian territorial ambitions may have powerful backers in the West, but in the real world, the Abkhazian people will never allow this to happen after last time. Until and unless that invasion happens, Sukhum is in Abkhazia, not Georgia, and the Abkhazian flag is appropriate. In Scotland we understand that having a powerful neighbour doesn't mean that we are PART OF that country. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this POV pushing or I'll have to ask administrators to act. Only 4 countries agreed that this is so called state. Other hundreds don't agree - so this is Georgia.--Gaeser (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Your view is quite incorrect. Abkhazia has always been a region of Georgia, so Abkhazia is like "England Kilmarnock, England". --Gaeser (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly simple. The people of Kilmarnock say Kilmarnock is in Scotland Scotland, not England England. The people of Sukhum say Sukhum is in Abkhazia Abkhazia not Georgia (country) Georgia. If the twinning committee of Kilmarnock and Loudon District Council wishes to pursue contacts with its twin it has to contact the Abkhazian authorities, not those of Georgia, whose current government would like to invade Abkhazia, and hasn't run it for 18 years. The fact that only a few countries recognise the government of Abkhazia is neither here nor there; what the locals think is what counts. Also, the idea that Abkhazia "has always been" part of Georgia is historically illiterate. Until Stalin (a Georgian) changed the constitution of the USSR in 1931, Abkhazia and Georgia had equal status. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

invade , illitarate - carefully with words, they show only your own attitude and awful knowledge of history. The United Kingdom agrees, that this territory is part of Georgia. I hope you know, that a town can't recognise a state - it's a privilege of parliament or foreign Office. --Gaeser (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, this city is called Sukhumi, from svan Tskhumi.--Gaeser (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gaeser, this is not an attitude. I'm just stating facts. But first, I need to correct my reference to Kilmarnock and Loudon District Council. This should of course read East Ayrshire Council. This only illustrates my point that we need to use the up to date status of bodies we refer to. The position of the UK government is neither here nor there, but if you go to their website [2] you will see, yes, that the UK government subscribes to the general EU and NATO position you state. Given the UK's alliances, this is what one would expect. However, their country profile of Georgia states of the UN peace process relating to the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict: There has been little progress on agreeing the outlines of a comprehensive political settlement based on a possible division of constitutional competences between Georgia and Abkhazia. The current position of the UK Government therefore is not and cannot be the end of the story. The article also outlines the history of the constitutional status of Abkhazia, which you might care to read. The situation now is if I want to go to Sukhum, I have to enter Abkhazia from Russia. If I want to contact the authorities in Sukhum, I have to go through the Abkhazian government. That's the up to date position in the real world. The name Sukhumi has currency in the west, but is the Georgian word for the place, and is no more valid than Sukhum, the name I use to refer to it, which is Russian. The origin of this name is actually Turkish, and ultimately Greek. Svan doesn't enter into it. The Abkhazians themselves refer to their capital as Aq'wa, which is unrelated. Bofoc Tagar (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting theory. The article is about UK town. The position of UK is quite clear. The town doesn't have the right to give a state independence. As about the word, your knowledge in etymology is worse than in history. Even Russian wikipedia writes that it's a svan word. As for the flag read WP:WEIGHT.--Gaeser (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've indented you, Gaesar. I hope you don't mind. It's just that it makes it easier for people to read who said what. I don't know if you've ever been to Kilmarnock. I suspect not. If you ask the average inhabitant of Kilmarnock what country their town is in, I can guarantee you the vast majority will say Scotland not UK. And it is a statement of fact. Similarly, Sukhum, or Sukhumi as you call it, is in Abkhazia. That is an incontrovertible and verifiable statement of fact, and no-one can disagree with this. However, to state that Sukhum/i is in Georgia is disputed. I don't know how you do things in Georgia, but in Scotland, what other towns a town can twin with is nothing to do with the central government. From a practical point of view Kilmarnock, or rather East Ayrshire Council has to deal with the Abkhazian authorities. Oh, and the Russian Wikipedia article says nothing of the sort about Svan, and Wikipedia is not a source anyway.Bofoc Tagar (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about what people may, or may not, say about the country of Kilmarnock or Sukhumi will not solve this issue and is totally irrelevant. Does anyone have a good cite from either town about the twinning that can resolve the matter? Whatever the cite says goes. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the twinning section really applicable, anyway? Kilmarnock and Loudon Council used to be twinned to several towns, but East Ayrshire inherited the twinning arrangements when unitary authorities came alang.
Regardless, I agree that we need a decent ref. East Ayrshire's website seems to be poorly the now, but Google's cache from 22nd April still shows only 5 towns (i.e. Sukhumi isn't listed).
Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if a cite cannot be supplied, I say remove it entirely as not verified. Problem solved and those POV pushing can go bother some other article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'll have a further ponder about whether the twins list belongs here or at East Ayrshire, and post at both talk pages later. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the dispute about Sukhum's twinning, a good cite has been produced that says that the "friendship link" that Kilmarnock has with this town is considered by East Ayrshire Council to be in Abkazia. Irrespective of what may be disputed elsewhere by other parties, and what may be written elsewhere, this is who the East Ayrshire Council says the link is with, and what is cited on the Kilmarnock and East Ayrshire pages. Please do not change this again unless you can cite a better reliable source that says otherwise. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the flag on this has been removed. See manual of style on this. Inserting flags into the middle of text is discouraged, for good reason. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I didn’t know about the “flag rules”. Apswaaa (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sukhum" is listed as "Sukhumi" on its own Wikipedia page; surely there should be consistency? LacsiraxAriscal (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kilmarnock. 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 13:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kilmarnock. 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 02:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kilmarnock. 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) 20:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kilmarnock. 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) 05:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kilmarnock. 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) 08:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kilmarnock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 14:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Failing this based on the cleanup banner which I note was added after the article was nominated. The notable people and residents section is not the only section which contains unreferenced material. For example, the population figures in the Burgh of Barony, 1592 section and entire paragraphs in the Political overview and Education sections.

Other comments to help you bring this up to GA standard for a future nomination:

  • The lead is a bit long and a bit erratic. I'm not sure all of that information is relevant for the lead. As an example, Arbroath was recently reassessed as a Good Article so that could be a good starting point for the kind of thing to include. See MOS:LEAD for further guidance as well.
  • The History section stops in 1996. What has happened since? It also jumps around. I would make this more linear so that someone could follow the history of the town chronologically. There's a big focus on the formation of East Ayrshire Council but nothing about the local government reorganisation in the 1970s. I don't think you need to go too in-depth on either tbf but it would be worth a mention given Kilmarnock was the administrative centre.
  • a form of municipal government which passed away in 1975. "passed away" is one of the words to watch, just say what actually happened especially when this is not a euphemism for death.
  • The headings hierarchy is off. Economy, transport and education are not demographic information so shouldn't be subsections of demography. Again, see the Arbroath article for an example of how to organise these sections.

I think you've done a lot of good work and the article has improved but there's still a lot to do. Peer review may be an option to assist you and guide you through improving the article.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kilmarnock&oldid=1207976681"