Talk:Wick, Caithness

Wick, Wick Bay and Old Wick Castle

Until recently the town and bay were the subjects of separate articles, and I am not seeing a convincing reason for merging the two articles. Also, I think Old Wick Castle deserves its own article. Laurel Bush 16:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC).

However, I have now merged Castle of Old Wick with Wick, Highland! Also Pulteneytown and Old Pulteney Distillery. Laurel Bush 10:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC).

Wasn't that what I thought to begin with :-) Great minds think alike!

Still not keen on merging Wick Bay. Laurel Bush 09:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC).

Shortest street

I have measured the length myself - at 10 feet. Laurel Bush 11:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

I imagine you measured incorrectly. You probably just didn't know exactly where it started. Personally I'd trust the BBC. No offence. Alan16 ^{t}_{c} 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Who decides where it starts and ends?
(Not the BBC, I imagine)
The official figure for the length might fit if you define the ends of adjacent streets as part way round the corners where they meet the short street
I note also, by the way, that the short street seems to be one which may have no definable width
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Caithness.org

I am not sure the caithness.org link in the info box is really appropriate. The website represents itself as a "community website", but it seems to be very much a private initiative on the part of a particular Highland councillor, who is expected to be standing for re-election in May's elections. Laurel Bush 11:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

No response? Shall I remove the link? Laurel Bush 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Yup. Personally, I think that this new "website" facility at the place infobox is just asking for trouble. --Mais oui! 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I have just removed the link from this page (unintentionally logged out as I did so). Laurel Bush 09:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Dead Links

There are too many dead links in this article. I am going to delete them all, and they can be put in again when somebody wants to write about them. They serve no purpose as they are. Alan16 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Education

It really is quite badly put together. We have about 10 lines on Hillhead, then at the end it says it seems to be saying: "Oh... there's also North/South/Pultneytown as well... But there not very good, so let's ignore them..."

I will try and change it a little. And add a bit more about Wick high, as it is the primary educational building in Wick.

Alan16 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Population

"of about 7794". That is an accurate number, so it either has a population of 7794, or it has a population of about 7800/8000. The other option is to say something like: "according to the last census, Wick's population lies at 7794" etc. Alan16 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is now a reference to an external website re population[1], but It had a population of 7,333 in the 2001 census needs more context
The referenced web page is about "Wick Locality"
What is "Wick Locality"?
Does is have boundaries with other "localities"?
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

I have just put in the "Wick Locality" qualification
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The census definition of "locality" does seem a bit vague. On this page they give a reference to a publication in which localities are defined, whilst helpfully pointing out that the said publication is out of print. This page gives a bit more of a clue as to how localities were defined in terms of clusters of postcode areas, and here is a map showing the boundaries of Wick locality. I don't know how much of this should be cited on this article. Perhaps some of it would be more appropriate to the article on the census itself. --Deskford (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers
I have put a link to the map in the footnotes
Laurel Bush (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

Danish Consulate

I removed the following, "The town contains one diplomatic mission, a Danish consulate." because a visit to the Danish Foreign Missions web site came up with nothing in the UK outside London. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Placename Wick

The Norwegian-sounding placenames Wick and Watten, two places that are close to each other, are interesting, as they suggest that these names could be older than the Viking age. Viking age names typically use two words, like Freswick, to discriminate between different "vik"s or "vatn"s. Anybody know any sources that speak of this? Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is an Uig on Skye, and that Uig is an anglicised version of a gaelic rendering of Wick
If Wick is pre viking, then perhaps so is Uig
Laurel Bush (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a little information in the article on Vik, history [2] and name [3]. We can't copy-paste however, we would need reliable sources for any claim about Wick. (Funnily, there is a place called Fresvik not far away from Vik, just as there is a place called Freswick not far away from Wick). Narssarssuaq (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Right now, the sentence in the article which reads "The name Wick appears to be from a Norse word, vík, meaning bay." has a source which has no mention of "vik" or "vík" whatsoever, and upon closer inspection does not define "Wick" in the same way either. The origin of the name really could use a good source in place of this one which does not cover it at all. scotsmanRS 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"The Origins of Some English Place Names:Wick". localhistories.org. 2009-09-24. does look like a very unreliable source
I have replaced it with Wick Harbour Authority website, accessed 15 September 2011, which seems at least to establish local belief re origin of the name
(Local belief is not really an authority, however, and can be wrong)
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.localhistories.org/names.html does have me thinking the root meaning of vik may be port or trading place rather than bay
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Flag

Does this flag have any official status, or is it just a personal opinion re how a Wick flag might look?
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor who contributed the flag added a comment about it here (diff) but then removed it again. The same editor is credited as creator of the image, releasing the copyright to the public domain, but claims it is based on a flag on display at the town house. There's a photo, presumably of the same flag, here, but still no clarification of its origin or official status. Perhaps we should remove it from the article until more information can be found? --Deskford (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The flag seems to have elements from the Wick royal burgh coat of arms - which the Royal Burgh of Wick Community Council is authorised to use, and maybe, at some time, the Highland Council has allowed it to fly in the town hall - but this does not make it an official flag of Wick
Seems to me it should be removed from the article
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it from the article. I would be happy to see it replaced if someone can verify that it has some sort of official status. --Deskford (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Caithness Heat and Power (CHaP)

Current article content about Caithness Heat and Power (CHaP) looks like economical use of truth of the sort favoured by the Highland Council
The CHaP scheme was initiated by the council, with council guarantees of financial commitments, and was intended as a both a district heating scheme and a mains electricity generating scheme fuelled by renewable biomass
Because new untried technology did not work, however, it became a district heating scheme fuelled by fossil oil, with no electricity generation, and a multi-million pound financial disaster, about which there is some Audit Scotland documentation
It is on the verge of take over by a private company, which has plans to use more tested biomass technology, but the council now has no way of recovering losses of more than £13 million
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried rebalancing the story
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Harbour business

"Wick Marina". Wick Harbour Authority. 2009-09-24.looks like self-promotional material, not a reliable factual source
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request, no objections in two weeks. Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Wick, Highland → Wick, Caithness – The council area of Highland is never used a geographical description. One would never say 'I'm going to Highland' or 'that town's in Highland'. Wick, Caithness would be far more understandable to the average user of Wikipedia. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 07:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Zacwill16 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've no problem with the move but note that articles in Category:Populated places in Caithness use both " , Caithness" and " , Highland". Places in other areas use council areas rather than counties as well (e.g. Selkirk, Scottish Borders). —  AjaxSmack  05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wick, Caithness. 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/20120307184020/http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/metadata/maps/pages41_42.pdf to http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/metadata/maps/pages41_42.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231152943/http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7B5BC937-CC01-460A-A5FA-ABF63EEBD9C7/0/newwardmap.pdf to http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7B5BC937-CC01-460A-A5FA-ABF63EEBD9C7/0/newwardmap.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522060041/http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/news/newsreleases/2009/February/2009-02-13-01.htm to http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/news/newsreleases/2009/February/2009-02-13-01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080610135731/http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/inspection/5101824%20Hillhead%20PS.html to http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/inspection/5101824%20Hillhead%20PS.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504085615/http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/4489/Inspection_report_full_of_praise_for_Hillhead.html to http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/4489/Inspection_report_full_of_praise_for_Hillhead.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223143424/http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Population&mainLevel=Locality&mainText=wick&mainTextExplicitMatch=false&compLevel=CountryProfile&compArea=Scotland&compText=&compTextExplicitMatch=null to http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/browser/profile.jsp?profile=Population&mainLevel=Locality&mainText=wick&mainTextExplicitMatch=false&compLevel=CountryProfile&compArea=Scotland&compText=&compTextExplicitMatch=null

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) 13:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)