Talk:Omeath
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Omeath. 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/20111220175337/http://www.buseireann.ie/pdf/1291382290-161.pdf to http://www.buseireann.ie/pdf/1291382290-161.pdf
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) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Revert
[edit]Regarding this very unhelpful and non-constructive revert: [1]
- Ui meth is explained, in the name section, where I added a source for the content that was previously there. That it was unreferenced hasn't been bothering anyone until now, how did it suddenly become a problem when I added a citation for it?
- Warrenpoint and everything else in that section that was removed is sourced, but Guliolopez says in his edit summary it is "uncited". Since that is clearly not true, I have restored it.
- Please find something better to do then remove links to relevant articles, piping fish to list of fish of Ireland in an article about an Irish coastal town is not an "Easter Egg" in the meaning of the policy that you cited, it is just a more specific link then the general one.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowRoses (talk • contribs)
- Hiya. Thanks for your note. With apologies if my edit-summary could have been clearer or seemed abrupt, on each of the points raised:
- "Uí Meth". My concern here (which still stands) is that the source in question (dating as it does from 1854) does not support an implication that "Ui Meth" remains a common name for the subject in the English language. Today. Per the related guidelines, unless the Irish name is the official name or common name (in use by English speakers) then it should be in the "bracketed/italicised" section. And not "bolded" alongside the English common name. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline may be worth reviewing here also. I have tempered my initial tweak accordingly.
- "Warrenpoint". Again, with apologies if my edit-summary did not fully expand on my concern with the citation, it was not (principally) that it didn't cover Warrenpoint. But that the synth and editorial ("some other towns", "even further afield", etc) were an "extrapolation" from the source. And not, therefore, reflected in the citation. Apologies if my eagerness to address this overstepped. I have similarly tweaked to address my concern more specifically.
- "Fish". Personally it doesn't seem like a natural target for the word "fish". But fine. Noted.
- Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, current version after your changes looks good to me, cheers.TheYellowRoses (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)