Talk:The Laird o' Cockpen

Scotland Mid‑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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Layout on a mobile device

The forced two-column layout is nearly impossible to read on a mobile device. I attempted to fix this, but my edits were reverted. please suggest a fix here. Frietjes (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are being, at best, disingenuous. Take a look at your "fix" again, which had the effect of constraining the table to a maximum width of 100em for all users, which looks ridiculous.

{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%; width:90%; max-width:100em; margin:2em auto 1em auto;"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Corbett (talk • contribs) 18 January 2018 (UTC)

then remove the max-width:100em. that seemed reasonable considering that poem itself is only 35em (we aren't talking about px units). are there other problems with accommodating for mobile browser windows? Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that I can't be arsed do you mean? Eric Corbett 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the max-width parameter is there for the benefit of those readers with a wide monitor. Eric Corbett 21:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

right, so we should be using px units and not em units? Frietjes (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Eric Corbett 00:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is your monitor 1000em wide or 1000px wide? Frietjes (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. But we're talking about the maximum width of the table display anyway, not how it looks on my monitor. Eric Corbett 00:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at this on four different screen sizes, including mobile; it is easily read in the current two column format on all my devices. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagaciousphil, this is what it looks like on my phone: File:The Laird o' Cockpen on Samsung phone.png. if the notes would automatically drop below the main text on a narrow screen, the text would much easier to read. I don't know if it can be accomplished with {{div col}} using something like User:Frietjes/LoC1 or if {{col-float}} would work. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagaciousphil, Eric Corbett, RexxS, Great Brightstar, TheDJ, and Jdlrobson: any help in making this easier to read on mobile would be appreciated. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sagaciousphil has already tried this page on her iphone, and I've just tried looking at it on my Windows phone, a Nokia Lumix 920, and it looks fine to both of us. And frankly I don't see the problem with the screen dump that you downloaded. Eric Corbett 17:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but the nature of this ‘discussion’ is so toxic that ill refrain from from participating. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic? You're a bit of a delicate flower. Eric Corbett 23:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest using one column, and doing the "translations" at the bottom in a simpler style, e.g. "fashious: adj: worrying, annoying"; "yett: door". Since Carolina was a Scot, and the song is about a self-important Scots lairdie, people are not going to have any trouble working out that "fashious", "yett", etc. are Scots words, not words from some unrelated language. 184.56.20.130 (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some time after Nairne's death in 1845

s:The Book of Scottish Song/The Laird o' Cockpen, published in 1843, contains the two additional stanzas which were supposedly added some time after 1845. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two added lines completely contradict the tenor of the poem/song up to that point, and thus cannot have been written by Carolina. They were surely written by a man (there are several possible candidates) because at that time and place in history, that women could and would refuse to marry, as Mistress Jean did with her curt dismissal of the self-satisfied Cockpen's proposal/demand, was scandalous and, to men, frightening. See, e.g., Faderman, L., (1981) Surpassing the Love of Men:: Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present. 184.56.20.130 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]