Talk:Scalloway

Cleared Auld Bruk !!!!

For some reason this page looks ok on MS Internet Explorer, but looks crap on Firefox, or vice versa. Is There any fix to make it look the same on both??
Or must we all bend over and be shafted by Bill Gates???
Signed,(I Hate Microsoft)Robbie 16:32, 8 March 2007 (MST)

That bloody dog ... ;-) shows only proper results when minimizing the letter size one step ... :-( looks like as both browsers make use of different side width standrads ??? 91.64.2.53 16:38, 8 March 2007 (MST)

... and that stupid dog did not reckognize that I was logged in although cookiees etc. pp. allowed :-((( Islandhopper 16:41, 8 March 2007 (MST)

Or must we all bend over and be shafted by Bill Gates??? - NO, should be possible to define that somewhere in the HEAD section of the site ... IF Mozilla and following the specific definitions as done for IE5.5 to IE7 ... but that's far beyond my capabilities ... :-))) Islandhopper 16:46, 8 March 2007 (MST)

Has that resizing something with the above conflict with Firefox/IE to do...it looked good with 250px on my pooter.., Oddrun 07:05, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

No, problem of space available ;-) Go back to the version of March 12 and look at it carefully: Using standard setting in both IE and Firefox as most of the users do the pic top right is moving out of frame with the effect that (sometimes) thumb text will not be full visible so that the users have to do an extra click at the horizontal scrollbar ... it's just one click, but over several pages it gets a nasty thing ... ;-) Islandhopper 08:37, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

I've looooked on all of the pics on all 12th of March edits, and the earlier too, can't see anything wrong, but I suppose that my pooter is outdated. ..On some pages, one was the one about'Dutch Buss', I think it was that one, well, I can't see pics at all, only gray squares with the text. I could see them earlier... There are one or two other places too.., Oddrun 09:03, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

I've just discovered something....I usually have the 'Favorites' bar on the left side of my screen open, to get easy access to other pages....,well, when it is not showing, some pages looks totally messed up !!...Now I don't know what to do anylonger !!!! That must be the same to others too !! I looked at 'Clickimin Broch'....and some others...Oddrun 09:27, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

I've looked at a lot of pages now with Firefox, IE6, and IE6 with Favorites open (strange girl Oddrun, you only need 'pedia and CL open anyhow,, HE HE)
Many pages look very different in the various formats, I think we'll just have to live with it unless there is a way to make all browsers look the same.
It just means that we may have to discuss layout more until it looks good in all both IE and Firefox. perhaps the easy way is that some of us who use both formats can compare and make a page look the best compromise. If that makes sense ;-)
Robbie 11:05, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

I often need to open a page to find useful information while I'm working with something, he he, ;-), but you are right,,,but maybe Islandhopper's strange commands to show pics on the same line, that with the |middle| thing on it, will help +++ I understood nothing of it, but i don't need to, just copy and paste the command, like I did with the lighthouses...,CHEERS ! , ;-), Oddrun 11:19, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

My strange commands ... ho,ho,ho ... :-))))) Look at Scalloway page and switch on/off the content box an look what happens, because the pics are not arranged in a table ... anyway. There is not only the prob of IE vs Firefox. We do offer (as usual on wiki) different skins ... but for most of the skins only the main page looks better, while all the rest ... "uuuoorgs" ;-))) Islandhopper 12:11, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

I thought about what you did on Unst Boat Haven, that thing can be useful on such things, can't it??? I'm scared away when it comes to more than one pic on a page anyway !! ;-), Oddrun 12:21, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

You are right! That one might help (at least for 2 or more pics in a line) and/or the "other little thing" which I've found on the German wiki but not on the English and which I've described in the forum (the one which places any following text for once and ever below an inserted pic without the trial and error of adding lots of returns). But I think for the moment we are all more or less somehow muddling through ... surviving of the fittest ... ;-) sometimes get a feeling of being 20 years younger :-D Islandhopper 12:59, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

HO HO, the average age for 'pedia contributiors are rather high....I feel like an idiot sometimes...,but my 25 years old nephew have got the idea that I'm clever with pooters ;-))), we are all learning, and needing 'teaspoon' lessons from time to time ! I'm very happy each time I can make something to work the way I want !!! , Cheers, Oddrun 13:17, 24 March 2007 (MDT)

Where on earth does the second paragraph of this account come from?

To Anon :
What do you mean???
--Oddrun 06:45, 9 December 2007 (MST)

Anon,, if you could put ~~~~ after your posts on talk pages it would make it easier to see who is writing what. Thanks.
Robbie 06:49, 9 December 2007 (MST)

To anon user :
This link is what we used for info about the boatbuilders from Norway, if that is what you are questioning about.....
http://www.kulturarv.no/kulturarven/index.aspx?artikkel=1524
--Oddrun 07:02, 9 December 2007 (MST)

The bit about being four hundred years before Ikea and their flat packs tickled me :-)
Heimdal 07:56, 9 December 2007 (MST)

It's well known that boats were imported into Shetland in parts up to the 18th century. There is no evidence, as far as I know, that Scalloway was a port for that purpose; or that Norwegians involved in the trade settled in Shetland.

Well, Nowegian history says that...
http://tysnes-sogelag.net/mambo2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=44
--Oddrun 11:21, 9 December 2007 (MST)

Can I return to the point made here? The statement may be made in a modern article, but to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for it. Brian 11:33, 28 April 2008 (MDT)

No problem Brian, just delete the information. As I've said many times, information which we have gleaned from books and websites is extremely unreliable. Which is 90% of the reason that I watch TV instead of reading books,,, (Oddrun will kill me for saying that, she has about 3000 books, mostly factual),, ;-) :-))))). I prefer to see evidence with my own eyes. I'll trust my eyes but never trust written words.
So I'm happy to with it being deleted. I wouldn't think Norwegian historians are any more reliable than most writers....
Now, I'd better hide before Oddrun gets home ;-)
Robbie 12:04, 28 April 2008 (MDT)

I'll just add, as a quick question to Brian.
And this is purely to put my old braincell straight, as I've had a very thoughtful night about the validity of all the information contained within Shetlopedia.
With the exception of pictures, which I find to be irrefutable, can you please tell me which sources of information you would consider to be reliable.
We have proved from research, and debate that: 90% of books and authors cannot be trusted; 99% of websites cannot be trusted; Ordnance Survey maps cannot be trusted; Shetland Museum cannot be trusted; Norwegian records cannot be trusted; Personal knowledge cannot be trusted; etc.. etc..
Question is, simply.
What, or who, can we trust??????
Or would I be right to assume that history is best just forgotten???
Robbie 15:31, 28 April 2008 (MDT)

Well! This is going a bit far! There is plenty of reliable information out there, by contemporary writers and in contemporary records, good historians, the Shetland Museum displays, most of what is on OS maps, etc. What should be avoided, I suggest, is /secondary material without clear sources/ (such as the Norwegian article cited above). Brian 12:02, 29 April 2008 (MDT)