Talk:Kilglass
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Village of Kilglass
[edit]While Kilglass village is a part of Kilglass parish, I do believe that articles of this sort (in the category towns and villages of X) are intended to be primarily about the named town or village itself, rather than the parish of the same name. (There's no reason, of course, why someone can't start another article about the parish as a parish if they have sufficient noteworthy material.) -- Picapica (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't quite agree. It seems to me that while an article on a village should indeed be primarily about the village, it should also cover things relating to the village (schools, sports, parishes, local electoral areas etc). If any one of those things is big enough to be require a split out into a separate article, then that split should be done per WP:SUMMARY, but when then article on the village is as small as this one, there is no point in splitting out the parish — it just leads to a proliferation of tiny stub articles.
- I'm not very impressed with the style of the parish coverage in this version — it looks like two articles joined together — but it would be easy enough to restructure the article to say something like "The parish of Kilglass includes the village and a wider area including Enniscrone." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually, I think I do agree with you! I wasn't arguing that there ought to be a separate article about the parish, just against making it – as seemed to be the aim of some recent reversions (changing village to parish in the first sentence) – the primary focus of an article entitled "Kilglass". Your formulation of "The parish of Kilglass includes the village and a wider area including Enniscrone" is exactly what I was aiming for myself in my latest edit. (I was a bit doubtful about red-linking the parish, however, and I'll undo that.) Thanks for your thoughts. -- Picapica (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kilglass. 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/20110926213740/http://www.the-kingdom.ie/news/kfideyaucw/ to http://www.the-kingdom.ie/news/kfideyaucw/
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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)