Talk:Carlingford Lough
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carlingford Lough. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5QE8rvIqH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.birdlife.org to http://www.birdlife.org
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.ni-environment.gov.uk/biodiversity/designated-areas/ramsar/ramsar_carlingfordough.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 11:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Carlingford Lough. 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/20130227120523/http://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org/annual_report_2010_ulster_scots.pdf to http://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org/annual_report_2010_ulster_scots.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birdlife.org/
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) 02:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Merge proposal - Carlingford Marina
editHi. I propose to merge the (single sentence?) from Carlingford Marina into this article. And to redirect the title here. Other than this type of "republished press release/advertorial" I can find no news or other coverage of Carlingford Marina as a notable subject in its own right. It seems to be just a run-of-the-mill commercial marina business. With nothing to indicate that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH or similar. While deletion may be an appropriate action, stopping short of that I propose to simply create a "transport" section in this article. To contain the existing "railway access" content. And a new "marina" section. And to redirect the Carlingford Marina title there. Thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with a transport section in this article, but there's no need to merge a single line here. There isn't even any sources to merge. CMD (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hiya. Thanks. I've created a "transport" section. And added a small bit of content on the harbour and nearby marina. With sources. If you don't think that the redirect should remain, I'm personally happy to support an RfD discussion. I think though, for now, its probably OK. And probably better than it was... Guliolopez (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's certainly better. I'm not seeing the 1km claim in the source provided however. CMD (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. That's probably fair. I have removed it. It was in the original article. In all honesty, it didn't seem especially controversial. Relative to the other more promotional/NOTWEBHOST stuff under that title. I had considered adding other sources to provide other support. But, as with this clearly "paid promotion" "advertorial" piece in Afloat magazine, while some of these sources broadly support the more factual/objective claims ("Carlingford Marina is on the North side of the village, just beyond King John's Castle") the rest of it just reeks of promo. And I don't see the point in linking the primary source/website twice. Just for the sake of it. When, frankly, the goal here is to reduce the promotional guff. Rather than to increase it. Anyway.... Guliolopez (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Understandable, I agree the paid promotion doesn't add much. I didn't think the fact it was north was controversial, I was just curiously checking the sources since the old article didn't have any. CMD (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. That's probably fair. I have removed it. It was in the original article. In all honesty, it didn't seem especially controversial. Relative to the other more promotional/NOTWEBHOST stuff under that title. I had considered adding other sources to provide other support. But, as with this clearly "paid promotion" "advertorial" piece in Afloat magazine, while some of these sources broadly support the more factual/objective claims ("Carlingford Marina is on the North side of the village, just beyond King John's Castle") the rest of it just reeks of promo. And I don't see the point in linking the primary source/website twice. Just for the sake of it. When, frankly, the goal here is to reduce the promotional guff. Rather than to increase it. Anyway.... Guliolopez (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's certainly better. I'm not seeing the 1km claim in the source provided however. CMD (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hiya. Thanks. I've created a "transport" section. And added a small bit of content on the harbour and nearby marina. With sources. If you don't think that the redirect should remain, I'm personally happy to support an RfD discussion. I think though, for now, its probably OK. And probably better than it was... Guliolopez (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)