This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects 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.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland 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.British and Irish hillsWikipedia:WikiProject British and Irish hillsTemplate:WikiProject British and Irish hillsBritish and Irish hills articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland 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.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I agree that it looks terrible. I've tried stacking them on the right, which is definitely an improvement. I don't want to lose the extra info by discarding one of them. But it's not perfect, what do others think?
The containing table is only needed to position one table on the left - not popular here! Glad to have started discussion on my question (posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills) about 2 infoboxes. A few more island pages already have Mountain infoboxes and are probably not significant enough to justify 2 pages. This page looks better, but stubs like Barra Head do not look so good with stacked infoboxes (unless you like lots of white space). The choice appears to be persisting with some combination, or considering a box combining the info for both (going against the Mountain Project's move to reduce the number of infoboxes). There might be merit in the Island infobox including more info on the island high point. Finavon00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late reply. I would be in favour of merging all of the additional content from the mountain infobox into the island infobox. To my mind, Ailsa Craig is more island than mountain (even though it's the mountain aspect that personally interests me). I think the missing details are: the lat/long coordinates and the listing ("Marilyn" in this case). — ras5220:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lat/long coordinates are at the top of the page, which is the norm for geography articles. I see no point in duplicating the info- we have the grid ref in the infobox instead. I've mentioned the fact that the island is a Marilyn in the "highest elevation" entry and deleted the mountain infobox. Lurker (said·done) 13:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. In a commit message, Finavon asked "Do we need prominence?" I don't think we do: for an marine island highpoint, the prominence is always the same as the elevation. — ras5222:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does being a volcanic plug of an extinct volcano really equate to it being a extinct volcano? Isn't it just a small part? --JBellis17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The 10th-century Cath Maige Mucrama appears to refer to the area around Port Ríg (modern Portree) as the airer Saxan ocus Bretan, "the coastland of the English and Welsh", indicating that the region's Northumbrian character was still notable to the Gaelic-speakers settling the region in this period.<ref>Clancy, "Gall-Ghàidheil", p. 43–44; Clancy believes that [http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G100001A/text483.html AU s.a. 913.5] ([http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T100001A/text482.html translation]), is referring to the Ayrshire coast rather than England</ref>
It is not clear as to its relevance and it would be surprising if there were Welsh or Anglo-Saxon speaking people in or near Portree in the 9th century. Ayrshire is far for more likely, but I don't have Clancy and the links are obscure. BenMacDui15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a photo that is not so obviously doctored? No idea where that sky came from, but it certainly is wrong for the photo and pretty inconsistent with that part of the world! Joss (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So has it changed shape dramatically since the 1840's, or was the guy who made that engraving exaggerating, or does it depend from what direction you look at it ?Tallewang (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Ailsa Craig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just modified one external link on Ailsa Craig. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Ailsa Craig. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 4 external links on Ailsa Craig. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
From what I can find, it was not sold. It seems that when the 8th Marquess of Ailsa, Archibald Angus Charles Kennedy, died on January 16, 2015, the island was still for sale at £1.5m.[1] At which point, it was inherited by his successor, David Kennedy, 9th Marquess of Ailsa[2]. The island is now leased by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) until 2050.[3]Plkstn (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
