Talk:Birsay

	Scottish islands portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑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.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think that the use of "rear" in "to rear beef cattle" is correct. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the verb "to rear" means to "bring up and care for a child", but it also means "to breed and raise animals". Because of this latter sense it is the correct verb in this context. The beef cattle in the parish are both bred and raised.

Image

I noticed that two of my pictures are "hotlinked" from my site (www.worldtour-of-scotland.com), direct links to the pictures instead of linking to the page. While I like the concept of WikiPedia I'm not happy with my pictures being used that way. I could just remove the links, but I'd like to get some feedback from the Wikipedia community what the thinking about "hotlinking" (yes, I know hotlinking usually means embedding pictures) pictures is.

Armin Grewe

Brough of Birsay

Shouldn't the subsection here should be merged with Brough of Birsay, as is is generally accepted that islands have their own page, rather than duplicated on this page --JBellis 11:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As so often, you are right. Technically there is no reason why information about the Brough should not be incorporated in the parish article, but the article is out of balance. To be fixed in due course. Yrs in passing. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]