Talk:List of counties of Scotland by area in 1951

Where did these figures come from?
Where did these figures come from? Some are wrong. For instance, Morayshire, is a lot larger than is stated. A 1937 gazetteer gives the figure of 304,931 acres, is this obviously refering to the post-1890 administrative county, and not the traditional county. The real figure I imagine is over 400,000 acres. I will try to find the real figures, but if these were taken from the 1911 britannica, the chances are that many will be wrong. 80.255
 * The figures came from a wide variety of gazetters. Obviously some will be disputable, as even gazetteers from the same era tend to disagree. Hopefully we can get the right figures give or take an acre here or there. Owain 18:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest that would be able to provide the most accurate figures, although calculating them, especially for the larger counties, might take some time. I'll have a look and see if I can come up with an accurate OS figure for Nairnshire a bit later, perhaps, and we can then compare it with the figure given on this list. 80.255 18:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Areas
Was that gazetteer really used as the only source for the list, in contradiction to the above claims? The only figure for the area of Cromartyshire I can find on VoB is 220,586 : hardly "an acre here or there". Morwen - Talk 10:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, the figure Bart gives for Argyll is 2,092,458, Inverness 2,616,498 : these figures evidently did not come from Bart. Morwen - Talk 10:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a wiki. Change it then. Owain (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did, and you reverted me, can I remind you?  Morwen - Talk 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be so facetious. You didn't edit the CONTENT, just removed the sources as I was adding them. I agree that the Cromartyshire figure was wrong, as I incorrectly added some of the detached portions to the total itself. Owain (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You added a source which the article was not based on and in fact disagreed with, which is tantamount to academic fraud - if you are going to replace this with an actual valid list based on the source cited then the time to cite that source is then. This is to say nothing of the utter dubiousness of composing the article by taking figures from random gazetteers, which made such a nonsense of the list - and of the similar list List of English traditional counties by area that you should be ashamed.  And if you were doing maths to make this list, it sounds like original research to me.  Morwen - Talk 10:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was based on it, but disagreed because of a misunderstanding of the figures. Academic fraud? Original research? Get a grip! I added together a detahced part to another figure I though represented the main body but in reality represented the total. This is not academic fraud or original research, because the figures came from the same article in the same gazetter. Errors creep in, that's why we have multiple editors scrutinising articles. Get off your high horse and FIX IT. Owain (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just Cromartyshire that's at issue here. I checked three figures against Bart and none of them agreed.  I imagine some might.  The article says 1,990,471 acres for Argll: this is the figure the 1911 encyclopedia britannica gives, but the figure Bart gives is 2,092,458.  Bart doesn't give a figure for Cromartyshire that I can see, so this presents a fundamental problem in using him as a source.  Using figures from different source distorts the ordering - as shown by the mess on the English article you made, - when looked at the actual 1831 census figures the ordering was different!  it just compares apples with oranges.  Why are you telling me to "FIX IT" whilst at the same time telling me not to edit the article in edit summaries?  Mixed messages somewhat?   I'm certainly not going to edit this article until you explicitly withdraw that edit summary rather than saying two different things to me at once.  Morwen - Talk 11:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New table
So, looking at this, it seems Bart is excluding inland water and foreshore. I am vaguely concerned about the quality of the OCR of the gazetteers: the figure Groome gives for Perthshire is evidently wrong, but would we notice an 8/9 misreading? Morwen - Talk 11:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So anyway it doesn't appear we can come up with a list of the areas of counties of Scotland prior to 1890 from the information at Vision of Britain. There are other sources we might look into: the census for 1881, or a clean scan of Groome : but unfortunately Groome doesn't always specify for single figures whether they are including water/foreshore or not. The earliest census areas I can find on VoB is for 1921: which is a bit odd. Alternatively, we certainly could have an article List of Scottish counties by area in 1971 or something.


 * Let's go for the 1971 list. Do you have that data? MRSC 18:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can get this out from the British Library no problem : it's recent enough they have it on the shelves. Poking around VoB, for some reason it looks like the data is weird.  omits Aberdeen(shire),  lists Aberdeen city but not shire.  Morwen - Talk 08:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Clackmannanshire
For which year is this figure? Are the other figures correct by this source? MRSC • Talk 19:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1973 figures
I have area figures in square kilometres (to the nearest 5), based on the Registrar General's pop estimates for 1973, source:World Book Encyclopedia, 1976 edition. Unfortunately, the counties of cities aren't mentioned, presumably included in the counties they were taken from. Lozleader (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I ask you to amend the article using that data? MRSC • Talk 12:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keay lists area data for most of the pre-75 counties, but at first glance the cities are missing here too. The implication is that the areas did not change from 1929-75, although I cannot be certain of that. Incidentally, in reply to your (MRSC's) comment at the AfD, you are quite right I was simply putting down a quick marker in the hope that nothing would be done to delete the entire article before I had a chance to do the research. As a penance I will upload the pre-75 data asap - unless you beat me to it perhaps Lozleader could check the data against the World Book source. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  10:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you efforts. Do you know if the area data you have is from the 1971 census? MRSC • Talk 11:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be, but my source is Keay & Keay, who do not specify an original source.
 * If the counties were unchanged from 1929 or earlier to 1975 I wonder if the page name should be changed to "List of pre-1975 counties of Scotland by area"?
 * There are a number of discrepancies between this list and the individual county articles, but as most of them do not specify sources for their infoboxes it is hard to check. For example, in addition to area differences, K&K list Hamilton and Newton St Boswells as the county towns of Lanarkshire and Roxburghshire rather than Lanark and Jedburgh, and this may be in error. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  11:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what figures Lozleader has, as we still have some contemporary figures missing (Berwickshire, Bute, Orkney, Renfrewshire, West Lothian and Zetland). MRSC • Talk 12:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I would expect that there were some boundary changes between in 45 years! Anyway, for what it's worth these are the World Book figures:

As far as the "county towns" are concerned... Paisley was the HQ of Lanark County Council from 1890, and Newtown St Boswells of Roxburgh CC from at least 1930 (haven't been able to figure out when the county offices were opened there). As we have discovered at Talk:County town, the definition of a "county town" can cause problems! Lozleader (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should amend the article to these figures as they represent a complete dataset. I wonder if county towns are really within the scope of the article title (especially given their flexible nature)? MRSC • Talk 14:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are assuming that the table represents the period c.1930 to 1975 then in the few cases where there is some ambiguity about a 'county town' this can be noted. I'll do so for Roxburgh. As far as I can see the information is not tabulated elsewhere.
 * The above table is missing several counties, including Argyll, Ayr, Angus and Aberdeen.
 * It's an interesting dataset - why to the nearest 5 sq. kilometres one wonders? - in only a few cases are there differences that might not be explained by slightly different measurement systems, Selkirk being a clear exception. The World Book data set is close to the figure given in 1911 and in the previous version of this article. Tricky. Ben MacDuiTalk  /  Walk  20:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops! The four counties beginning "A" were on the previous page! added them now. Too many mince pies must soften the brain... Lozleader (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Conundrums: Bute & Orkney are different by 17 and 40 sq km, although with complex shorelines that is likely to be different measures of the same places. Dunbartonshire is awol above. Renfrew is 54 km2 and Aberdeen over 60km2 different between the two tables and that is quite a large discrepancy for relatively straightforward landward areas without substantial shores, lochs etc. Selkirk and Midlothian are wildly different. Keay provides very specific figures but in both cases my initial reaction would be that the World Book may be more accurate. More research needed I fear. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found another source from the 1951 census. Needless to say this provides further variations on the theme, but may resolve some of the above. I'll add this data to the article and hope it provides clarity rather than adds to the confusion. I'll probably need to refer to the World Book - if you have a full ref that would be handy. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  13:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bute fixed, Orkney remains different, but then all of these numbers are different from the figure now used by the new Council, for the same place. Renfrew is much closer, Aberdeen still does not square with the above. See article for my Selkirk explanation of the Keay anomaly, but I have no explanation for the Midlothian figure above. Mince pies all round. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a complete dataset available for 1951. I think the article should be amended to List of counties of Scotland by area in 1951. I'm not sure what should be done with the other elements? Perhaps they could be added to other articles? MRSC • Talk 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Having found the 1951 info I am much more confident of the Keay data. Although there are a few missing, there is only one entry (Selkirk) which does not make sense. I suspect their data is from the '71 census as population figures from this are sometimes referred to in the same entry. It's clear from A Vision of Britain that there were minor boundary changes going on regularly, and probably re-surveying as well. I'd therefore suggest keeping this data and calling it List of counties of Scotland by area 1930- 75. There may be 1931 data too that could be added. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not much inclined to keep data that has come from a variety of sources/years. Reporting a clean, complete data set is much more encyclopedic. MRSC • Talk 15:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about encyclopedic, but I don't take the view that its more useful to have several lists when one would do. Besides, census information may be neat and verifiable, but it is not always entirely accurate either. I thought this project might even have resulted in a Featured List eventually but there you go. In the absence of census data for '71 I'm considering re-creating the the pre-75 data as separate list. You can always AfD it. I confess to being surprised that this article has had three different names in such quick succession without any obvious consensus supporting that.  Ben MacDuiTalk  /  Walk  15:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I've moved the county town data over to Counties of Scotland as it seems more apt there, and also created List of counties of Scotland by population in 1951 to compliment this article. There is still a problem with Aberdeen which needs to be resolved: VoB seem to have got confused with the shire and the city. Going forwards, if it is possible it would be good to get a List of counties of Scotland by area in 1971 to compliment List of counties of Scotland by population in 1971. MRSC • Talk 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the census of 1951 and 1971 to my reading list for the next time I'm at the British Library, with luck that will elucidate the Aberdeen figures. MRSC • Talk 10:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)