Talk:James Ferguson, Lord Pitfour

The "trick"
Perhaps I'm being more than usually stupid, but I don't understand it at all. He mixed in his servants and then proved that his servants were innocent. So how did that help anyone? --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dweller, unfortunately, neither of the references I had clarify it any further (the Clan Ferguson ref is available online, see page 249). I guess (using WP:SYNTH) the prosecution thought if some of the rebels were innocent, it meant some of the others must be as well? It just goes on to say 'it had a most salutary effect on the trials'.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's awkward. Hard to speculate on what the source means without breaching NOR or, as you say, SYNTH. Perhaps the text could say something along the lines that it was a measure designed to confuse? Ironically, that much seems clear. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I found another ref, which handily is online, so have now included that, jigged the wording a little and hopefully it's clarified it? Thanks for highlighting this as it's (I think) helped improve it!  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  14:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Linking to List of Deans of the Faculty of Advocates
could you explain your reasoning behind removing the links to List of Deans of the Faculty of Advocates? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The first time you "corrected" the link was not appropriate as readers would not be expecting the link to simply go to a list of the names of other Deans. The next time it was linked was also inappropriate as readers would expect an explanation of a Dean rather than be directed to a list of names. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 12:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for you reasoning. I agree about the first but not the second. The list opens with a explanation of what the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates is (IE "the head of the Faculty of Advocates") and is therefore more than just a list of names. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * contrary to the claim made above, I do not believe the very brief two sentence lead in the list article, which I note is poorly written and grammatically incorrect, does not sufficiently explain what the Dean is (surely even a child could work out it is the head of the faculty?). An extremely brief search reveals there are ample scholarly sources that could be used to create some decent opening sentences to provide a better overview of the work of the Dean. The list is incomplete and contains unreferenced entries for people who do not seem notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. To link to it anywhere within this article is, however, deceiving readers so the most that might be warranted would be a link in a See also section. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverting now with a rude Edit summary, “spurious link”. Not likely to induce confidence. Far from being “spurious”, linking to articles regarding posts non commonly understood is pretty much the essence of Wikipedia. POTUS does not require linking, as nearly everybody on the planet who can read English will know what that post is (and can easily look it up if they do not), while Dean of the Faculty of Advocates is definitely not widely understood outwith the country. Mais oui! (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , I'm surprised you have reverted citing WP:BRD; as you can see (and also indicated in my edit summary) there is already discussion here. Your edit linked to a list of Deans (hence spurious) rather than what it used to be, a link to the Faculty of Advocates - the re-direct was altered recently here by the editor who created the list. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 16:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you read the faculty article, it's all there, the list adds nothing. Links are supposed to be useful. J3Mrs (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)