Talk:Scotland

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scotland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 3 months

view · edit Frequently asked questions Introduction Issues relating to the geography and politics of the United Kingdom and nearby territories can be surprisingly complex and controversial, and the subjects raised in this FAQ regarding the Scotland article are best understood in this context. We aim to be enyclopaedic and neutral. We also recognise that reconciling diverse views can be hard work as common phrases are sometimes interpreted in different ways in different cultures. We ask that editors new to this page read the following with an open mind. Where necessary, please research the facts rather than simply jumping to conclusions based on what you "know to be true". Lead section Q1: Is Scotland a "country"? A1: Numerous reliable sources support the view that Scotland is a country—see for example the article entitled Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of references at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. This view is shared with other reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe Scotland in this way. This is one of the most frequent questions raised by visitors to this talk page. However, in the absence of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to Scotland,[1] England, Northern Ireland, Wales and the UK itself. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries", and this term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community. Note however, that a country is not the same as a "sovereign state", and that "constituent country" is also used in other parts of Wikipedia. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality, compromise, and camaraderie on this issue. Q2: Why don't we refer to Scotland as a "nation"? A2: Widespread confusion surrounds the use of the word "nation". In standard British English, and in academic language, a nation is defined as a social group and not a division of land. This is also the approach taken in the article entitled nation, across Wikipedia and in other major encyclopedias (for example, the Scottish people and the Québécois are described as "nations"). The term Home Nations is generally used only in sporting contexts. It is not used in major reputable sources outside of sport. Infobox-related issues Q3: Why are two flags used? A3: There have been extremely complex discussion about these matters. The Royal Standard of Scotland (commonly referred to as the "Lion Rampant") was used by the King of Scots until 1603. Today, its correct use is restricted to official representatives of The Monarch.[2] The blue and white Saltire is the flag of Scotland and is widely used by national and local government offices and in numerous other less official capacities. As with other issues described here this outcome is to some extent a compromise solution that seems to suit all parties in that it identifies symbols of Scotland as an entity in its own right, whilst also emphasising the importance of the relationship with the United Kingdom. Q4: Isn't Flower of Scotland the national anthem? A4: There is no official Scottish national anthem. Although there is no doubt that Flower of Scotland is currently amongst the most popular unofficial national anthems in Scotland, it is not the only one, nor even the longest established. Q5: What is the reference to the "Scots language" about? A5: Scots is spoken by 30% of the Scottish population (approximately 1.5 million individuals) according to the 1996 estimate of the General Register Office for Scotland.[3] It is recognised by the European Union's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.[4] By contrast, Scottish English is a variation of standard British English. Whilst the distinction is by no means clear cut, Wikipedia policy permits the use of Scottish English words and phrases where appropriate. Scots, on the other hand, has its own site: see the Scots Wikipedia. Q6: Wasn't Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom the first Queen Elizabeth to reign over Scotland? A6: Yes, but "Elizabeth II" is her legal title, as resolved in Scots law in the legal action entitled MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. Related issues Q7: What is the difference between "Great Britain" and the "United Kingdom"? A7: See the article entitled "Terminology of the British Isles". Great Britain is the name of the largest island that the UK encompasses, and is not generally used in source material as the name of the sovereign state. Q8: Isn't Northern Ireland a province, and Wales a principality? A8: This view is supported by some sources, but the current consensus amongst the editing community is aligned to a greater body of work which describes both Northern Ireland and Wales as countries. However, the terms are not all mutually exclusive: a country can also be a principality or a province, and these terms are mentioned throughout Wikipedia as alternative names in afternotes. References Scottish Parliament. "Your Scotland questions; Is Scotland a country?". Scottish Parliament. Retrieved 2008-08-01. As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as 'countries'. The "Lion Rampant" Flag The Court of the Lord Lyon. Retrieved on 10 October 2008. "Scotland's Languages" University of Glasgow. Retrieved 7 December 2008. The proportion is said to rise to 90% in the North East. Both Scots and Scottish Gaelic are officially recognised as autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. See "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages" Scottish Government. Retrieved 27 September 2007.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Scotland was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 29, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept May 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 2, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 25, 2008 Peer review Reviewed January 13, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept January 9, 2019 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Scotland Top‑importance Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Celts (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. United Kingdom Top‑importance United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography Top‑importance United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries Countries portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

To-do list for Scotland: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-04-12 Current Main Task: Improve to 'Good Article' status Watch this page and help revert vandalism. Contribute to the Talk page where suggested improvements are discussed. Avoid making significant additions or changes without attempting to get support from other editors first. Read the Archive Summary. Priority 1 (top)

	Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: September 14 to 20, 2014 (2nd)

	Scotland notice board
	Regional Notice Boards

Ethnicities

The ethnicities section lists races. 185.85.155.174 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ethnic groups" section shows the "groups" that the "ethnicities" are under, and that's presumably done due to this section under demographics "62% of Scotland's population stated their national identity as 'Scottish only', 18% as 'Scottish and British', 8% as 'British only'". Large portions of Scotland Identify as both British and Scottish largely due to Unionism, you also can't even count those born outside Scotland as separate as that would include Scots simply born elsewhere. So unless you want to arbitrarily create as groups sections that has no bearing to Census definitions and there meaning, I think the link to "Demographics of Scotland" under the "Demographics" section will suffice. 2A02:C7E:5A64:2A00:F511:C259:C5FF:AEC (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

@Mutt Lunker: I had believed it was mentioned in the body, evidently it is not, my apologies. The source is McLeod, Wilson (2024-02-05). "The Scottish Languages Bill: prospects for strengthening and challenges for implementation". Bella Caledonia. Archived from the original on 2025-03-22. Retrieved 2025-08-10.. May I re-add my edit? Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it would sit better in the body certainly, but without MOS:SCAREQUOTES please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really a convenient place to note it without a new section, § Languages is the closest place but is about the languages themselves and nothing about their legal status.

Should we not also consider the fact that most readers start and end their research at the infobox? Wouldn't it be misleading to not at least have a note about it?

Also I should note that while I don't feel particularly strongly on the issue, I do not think quoting 'enforceable' reads as scare quoting, I feel it's reasonably obvious it's a direct quote. Still fine to remove it. Coleisforeditor (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no ref that uses the word, it isn't an apparent direct quote, no. My concern was more with "official languagues" being in quotes, as it appears to be taking a line on the meaningfulness of the designation but with "enforceable" there is no apparent purpose, so it's just confusing.

As the purpose of the infobox is to summarise the article, we shouldn't really have material there that is not in the main body. What is meant, in this case, by the languages being official may well be worth covering in Wikipedia as a whole (for instance Languages of Scotland or the articles for Scots and Gaelic) but if there isn't an evident place for elaborating the matter in this article, that's a clear indication that this is even less so for the infobox.

It may not have been the intention but the material that you added, particularly with the quotation marks, could be seen as saying that Scots and Gaelic have been designated as official languages, but, you know, they're not really. That may or may not be the case but, if noted in the infobox, it should be in reference to more in-depth, supported coverage of the matter elsewhere in the article.

What you said is an interpretation of the Bella Caledonia article, which says "this declaration has no concrete practical effect and is essentially (my emphasis) symbolic" but goes on to lay out in more detail the impact and consequences. Your wording could imply that this was actively the intent of the bill, or that it is widely acknowleged as being symbolic only. Again, that may be the case but such a bald statement in the infobox alone is not warranted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change name of Secretary of State from ‘Ian Murray’ to ‘Douglas Alexander’ AlanBobs (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Slomo666 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicities changed despite advice not to

The Ethnicities category now includes a subsection specifying "88.13% British/Irish" under the "White" category.

This is now the only page that has this within the UK Nations (I now see the same for the UK page so will copy/crosspost this over there too) . This is arbitrary, the UK census uses the previously listed categories across the UK Nations for ease of readability.

The UK census data operates "racially", it attempts to get people to pick ethnicities in order to classify them into 'racial' groups (while also gathering as much 'data' as possible).

To display it in this way is to conflate other European statistics with a different way of measuring. For example Norway defines a Norwegian (as opposed to a "non-Norwegian") as "Norwegians of two Norwegian parents, either born abroad or in Norway", notice there is no mention of "Race", there is an overlap with what some might call an "ethnically" Norwegian person but there is no correlation with race "Statistics Norway does not attempt to quantify or track data on ethnicity" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Norway#Ethnicity. Denmark also does something similar "There are no official statistics on ethnic groups, but according to 2020 figures from Statistics Denmark, 86.1% of the population in Denmark was of Danish descent (including Faroese and Greenlandic), defined as having at least one parent who was born in the Kingdom of Denmark and holds Danish nationality." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark#Demographics .

Meanwhile, to conflate this with Scotland is to go against the Scottish governments own guidance "Due to the complex nature of ethnicity this question is much longer than other survey questions", "National identity is a self-defining concept in which a person expresses what country or countries, nation or nations, they feel most connected to and like ethnicity it involves a range of concepts" - https://www.gov.scot/publications/data-collection-publication-guidance-ethnic-group/pages/4/ . This means a person with a Polish surname could identify as Polish in the Scottish Census despite having two parents born in Scotland, however were they in Norway they would be classified as Norwegian.

There is also the problem of the "Irish" part of that "88.13% British/Irish", which although counting both was the correct option it gives the impression that "British" numbers are being 'bumped up' by Irish immigrants, it's important to note that despite me being Scottish I could be counted as "Irish" (ancestry) given how "Irish" the area I live is on the census (as most of the Irish category is Scots identifying as "Irish" due to Sectarianism, hence why it's higher in the West of Scotland).

Even the "Mixed" category has it own problems within the wider UK Census "Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups: "European Mixed, European unspecified, other European - 26,572", "Mixed or Multiple ethnic groups: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British - 11,880" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_(United_Kingdom_ethnicity_category)#Detailed_breakdown . It's a small amount but it shows you WHY the wider 'Racial' stats are used, this is people identifying as "Mixed Race" because they've conflated it with "Ethnicity". The same happens with Cornish 'despite no explicit "Cornish" option being available, approximately 34,000 people in Cornwall and 3,500 people elsewhere in the UK—a combined total equal to nearly 7 per cent of the population of Cornwall—identified themselves as ethnic Cornish by writing this in under the "other" ethnicity option' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_people#Classification , This means there aren't counted as "White" (even though I believe this specifically refers to "Other" under the "White" heading, there is sizeable about not identifying under "White" as they just see the heading "Other") as it's not under that category (you can see this is the case on from looking at the "Ethnic Groups" list itself, or you can check the census data for Cornwall and see and abnormally high the "Other "category is compared to it's racial groups: https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/choropleth/identity/ethnic-group/ethnic-group-tb-6a/other-ethnic-group/ )

I would recommend that the "88.13% British/Irish" be removed it's only used on this page and goes against the Census's own advice on the topic. 2A02:C7E:5A64:2A00:C831:39CE:7C30:787 (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors report the data from the reliable source i.e. the census in this case. The arguments you've put forward critical of the UK census and comparing it with those of Norway and Denmark belong in a criticism section of the 2021–2022 United Kingdom censuses article, if there's reliable sources backing them up. Absolute consistency across articles on the UK countries is not a requirement. If the figure had no supporting reliable source I would likely remove it, but I think this may need further discussion and consensus reached, as it's a point of view that other editors may disagree with. What may help support your case is the more neutral argument that the ethnicity figures in the infobox are not included in the main body of the article. Take a look at Help:Infobox which states they are not "statistics" tables in that they (generally) only summarize material from an article — the information should still be present in the main text. Rupples (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted per WP:BRD until a consensus is reached. The infobox can't break down each category. That sort of detail is best kept to the body of the article. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine. I couldn't find an edit summary with the change so thought the data had been included for some time. Have now rechecked and see the change was made yesterday. Rupples (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the data is accurate (as far as I'm aware) to address your previous point to me, however my point was mainly that it's too niche a topic for the average person to understand and is therefore open to misinterpretation. 2A02:C7E:5A64:2A00:C831:39CE:7C30:787 (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, I've notified and invited the editor who inserted the data, User:Reverend Mick man34, to this discussion. Rupples (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This change (though now reverted) seems beneficial to the reader because:
(a) It gives an immediate clue that there are residents of Scotland whose ethnicity is white, but they are not British or Irish. Therefore a reader who quickly looks at the article for this information will realise they need to read the text to understand further. The current (reverted) form could easily allow the reader to take away the wrong information from the article.
(b) The data is that which the UK census has decided to collect and report. An article on a country can only provide this type of data in the form that is collected by the national authorities. Other countries will have made their own decisions for their own purposes, but Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia based on its sources, can only show what is in the sources relevant to the article.
(c) When the article states that the speaking of Polish at home is more common than for Gaelic, there seems every reason to have an info box that does not conceal the non-British white residents. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but to go over your points.

First off their race is White not their ethnicity (as the census in scotland breaks white into another 6 categories ), Second as stated in my original point you can’t conflate that “they are not British or Irish” (In they sense that they are foreigners) because unlike somewhere like Denmark who uses a legal criteria (one Danish parent) to determine that someone is not of ‘Foreign background’ Scotland allows people to determine their ‘identity’ as stated “a person expresses what country or countries, nation or nations, they feel most connected to”, so if someone concludes that scotland is 12% foreign residents then they will have came to the wrong conclusion “The non-British population of Scotland was 397,000 (7.4%) in the year to mid-2021. The non-UK born population was 523,000 (9.7%)” - https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/publications/population-by-country-of-birth-and-nationality-july-2020-to-june-2021/#:~:text=The%20non%2DBritish%20population%20of,compared%20to%20the%20previous%20year . This is nationality “non-British” and country of birth “non-UK born” but not ethnicity as “White: British” does not mean White holding British nationality, it means listing your only country of origin as Britain.

So it’s not “concealing” anything to point out that to use this metric is conflating data wrongly, and goes against the purpose of using the census data as it was intended to identify broad racial groups.

There are 18 possible Ethnic options to chose in the Census, which is why they are all sorted under race, for ease of understanding. 2A02:C7E:5A64:2A00:3D32:A0B8:D92F:5FBB (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commas

@Rhain, isn’t it very good that you seemingly have dipped into my edit history and started reverting some of my edits in relation to the removal of unnecessary American-style commas? You even added this page to your watch-list (clearly anticipating and perhaps desiring a dispute), asserting your own preferences on an article you had no history with and despite the fact that several months ago at Grand Theft Auto VI you made it clear you were not even aware that "US" is preferred in British English over "U.S." You aren’t aware of the basics of British English, and your understanding of English appears to be thoroughly Americanised, so why do you make edits on the matter? "On Saturday morning I went for a walk round my favourite park," for example, is a perfectly ordinary British English sentence. It’s not incorrect and we don’t need a comma after "morning", and such a comma would not make the sentence any clearer. We don’t need a comma after the brief adverbial phrase "In 1603" either. Keeper of Albion (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not on my watchlist; you reverted my edit, which pings me automatically. You attempted a similar edit in August, which was reverted, and you were asked to start a discussion​; you did not, and instead made a similar edit in October. The changes you've made—which you've admitted are a matter of preference—are not dictated or supported by the MoS; it's fine that you write that way, and nobody is claiming that it is incorrect or extraordinary, but consensus ought to be sought before continuing to force it into articles when faced with reversions.

I'm not sure where you got the idea about my understanding of "US" vs "U.S." (another difference not strictly enforced) or why it is still bothering you—I suspect, perhaps, because I happened to revert this change of yours several months ago amidst your dozens of other alterations—but it is neither relevant nor correct. To clarify, British and Australian English are my primary varieties. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relative population map

130km
81miles

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

   

Relative population map.
Total Scotland population (wikidata:Q22) = 5,404,700 (2016)

---

[Hide/show council populations]

1

Orkney (population 22,270 in 2019)
wikidata:Q100166

2

Aberdeenshire (population 261,210 in 2019)
wikidata:Q189912

3

Aberdeen City (population 227,560 in 2018)
wikidata:Q62274582

4

Argyll and Bute (population 85,870 in 2019)
wikidata:Q202174

5

Angus, Scotland (population 115,820 in 2020)
wikidata:Q202177

6

Clackmannanshire (population 51,540 in 2019)
wikidata:Q207268

7

Dumfries and Galloway (population 148,860 in 2019)
wikidata:Q126514

8

Dundee City (population 149,320 in 2019)
wikidata:Q2357511

9

East Ayrshire (population 122,010 in 2019)
wikidata:Q209135

10

City of Edinburgh (population 524,930 in 2019)
wikidata:Q2379199

11

East Dunbartonshire (population 108,640 in 2019)
wikidata:Q211889

12

East Lothian (population 107,090 in 2019)
wikidata:Q207257

13

Outer Hebrides (population 26,720 in 2019)
wikidata:Q80967

14

East Renfrewshire (population 95,530 in 2019)
wikidata:Q211925

15

Falkirk (council area) (population 160,340 in 2018)
wikidata:Q216802

16

Fife (population 373,550 in 2019)
wikidata:Q201149

17

Glasgow City (population 633,120 in 2019)
wikidata:Q55934339

18

Highland (council area) (population 235,540 in 2018)
wikidata:Q208279

19

Inverclyde (population 77,800 in 2019)
wikidata:Q208271

20

Midlothian (population 92,460 in 2019)
wikidata:Q206934

21

Moray (population 95,820 in 2019)
wikidata:Q211106

22

North Ayrshire (population 134,740 in 2019)
wikidata:Q206926

23

North Lanarkshire (population 340,180 in 2018)
wikidata:Q207111

24

Perth and Kinross (population 151,950 in 2019)
wikidata:Q207679

25

Renfrewshire (population 179,100 in 2019)
wikidata:Q211091

26

South Ayrshire (population 112,610 in 2019)
wikidata:Q209131

27

Scottish Borders (population 115,510 in 2019)
wikidata:Q211113

28

South Lanarkshire (population 319,020 in 2018)
wikidata:Q209142

29

Stirling (council area) (population 94,210 in 2019)
wikidata:Q217838

30

West Dunbartonshire (population 88,930 in 2019)
wikidata:Q208121

31

West Lothian (population 182,140 in 2018)
wikidata:Q204940

32

Shetland (population 23,210 in 2012)
wikidata:Q47134

There seems to be a problem with the map added in these recent edits, in regard to the "Hide/show council population" function. Clicking on it produces no result for me (I've tried Chrome and Bing incidentally) though I somehow, once, got it displaying that a table was there (not sure how but I think it may have been from clicking on "full screen" at the top right, then using the back arrow to the article, but I can't replicate this). From this glimpse of the table, I ascertained that the numbers appear to solely relate to this key, were it visible, and the order, if significant was not clear (not, e.g. relative population, order of size, alphabetic).

Viewed in the context of the article, almost all the numbers in the map are superimposed upon each other, so illegible and can't be accessed functionally. If the map is expanded to full screen and zoomed into, the numbers can be seen but I can see no key so they have no evident purpose in this view. Hovering over an individual number gives the council name and population figure.

There is no number over Aberdeenshire council but, on investigation, it is hidden behind the number at adjacent Aberdeen council.

The title of the diagram is given "relative population" map, which led me to think the numbers somehow indicated relations in size, like another aspect complementing the existing cartogram, but there appears to be no relative aspect to it. Should it maybe be just "council area populations" or the like? Depending on puropse and without these problems, the map may be a useful addition but this is not yet clear to me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above.... simply an accessibility nightmare. This might be useful on the demographics page if it was centralized and large enough. Wonder if we should have a wider talk on these due to accessibility concerns and how they should be displayed and when they should be and not be used in small versions. That all said I've always been weary about links that bring readers outside of English Wikipedia without warning.Moxy🍁 17:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]