Talk:Loch Tay

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loch Tay. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040803104643/http://www.incallander.co.uk/lochtay.htm to http://incallander.co.uk//lochtay.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it actually called Tay Tay though
So someone's recently gone through and changed mentions of the name to "Loch Tay Tay", and the citation is this event where they unveiled a sign. I can see that Loch Tay (Tay) Highland Lodge have renamed and that the sign exists, but I can't find any indication that a legally binding change has been made to the loch itself. I'd assume you'd need a public consultation to do that, and that the sign is more of a stunt by the Highland Lodge & Heart Radio. Would very much like to see something definitive either way. 2A01:4B00:D107:9400:9175:59F9:6888:B77 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No. It isn't. It's only something that radio station did as a publicity stunt. This is NOT the actual name of the loch and it should be changed back. 2A02:C7C:D094:5500:E4C8:A571:C735:D57D (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to prove a negative, but I would say that the lack of official sources, such as a comment from our tourism board or national government, should be taken as a sign that this is simply a stunt. 2A02:C7C:D094:5500:E4C8:A571:C735:D57D (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was the idea of a business and enacted by the radio station, neither of whom have the power to change the name of the loch. 2A02:C7C:D094:5500:E4C8:A571:C735:D57D (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Removed the unsupported name change. — hike395 (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The edits by appear to be vandalism. I reverted the edits that broke the hatnote (which refers to Lough Tay, a completely different loch in Ireland), and which incorrectly altered the title of a reference. I will let other editors decide whether to revert Feargr0und's other edits. — hike395 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, it's clear from the statement by the First Minister that the renaming was performed by a radio station (i.e., doesn't have official status), and is "temporary". I would suggest we revert this back. — hike395 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Placement of Tay Tay naming
MOS:LEDE states
 * As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article

The human history of Loch Tay stretches back 5000 years. There is only one mention of the human history in the lede, and that is that a radio station renamed the loch after Taylor Swift. That is not mentioned again in the text of the article, and also appears to violate WP:DUE and WP:NOTNEWS.

It makes more sense to me to move that paragraph into the "In popular culture" section, which is where it was before the latest rounds of edits. Can we move the paragraph down to that section? I think that is a more balanced presentation. — hike395 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can move Swift's name down to the popular culture section. But the fact that the lake was renamed should be mentioned in the lead and the infobox as in the case of any renaming of any structure/physical feature on Wikipedia articles. All alternate names of a location is always mentioned in the lead and the infobox. "5000 years" or not, a rename is a rename. If the Buckingham Palace was renamed as something else by the Crown offices, then that name would be mentioned in the lead+infobox even though the article would continue to use the older name as the article title.  ℛonherry  ☘  13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My proposal is to move the entire paragraph down to "In popular culture", leaving nothing in the lede or infobox. The guideline WP:PLACE states:
 * ...other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information.
 * Do we have any evidence that "Loch Tay Tay" is used significantly often in available English literature on "Loch Tay". If not, then the fact that the loch was renamed (by a radio station, not by an official geographic naming body) does not belong in the lede at all. — hike395 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It says, "other names, especially [...], should be mentioned in the article." Availability in English literature is a special case, not mandatory according to your quote of the guideline. I'm not familiar with the Scottish/British law on the authority on renaming places (What is the "official geographic naming body" in Scotland though? Because you cannot base your argument on a theory of an non-existent agency), but the source says the lake was "official renamed" in an "official ceremony". And we have to stick with the sources.  ℛonherry  ☘  14:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your source, global.com, is the company that owns Heart Radio. That's a primary source: the "officially renamed" and "official ceremony" was declared by the entity that was renaming and performing the ceremony. That does not prove that a governmental entity renamed the loch. The First Minister of Scotland claimed that the rename was "temporary". There's no evidence that "Loch Tay Tay" is going to ever be used significantly often.
 * I still believe that mentioning the renaming in the lede is undue emphasis on routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities (per WP:NOTNEWS). — hike395 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not aware the First Minister called it a temporary name. Can you direct me to that source?  ℛonherry  ☘  18:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Multiple news sources mentioned the temporary nature of the rename, which is why I thought it was good to revert after Swift left Scotland.  — hike395 (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm good with restricting that information to the pop culture section. Based on the sources, it looks like it's only a temporary name change. That makes it undue in the lead.
 * Thanks! I will make the change. — hike395 (talk)
 * By the way, while The Independent and The Times are reliable sources, Mirror is a deprecated source on Wikipedia. Just letting you know. I hope you're not using it for any of your future edits. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  22:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! — hike395 (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)