Talk:Bouladuff

Untitled
Why is "Baronies of Ireland" redundant, but not "Lists of towns in Ireland"? Neither is referenced in the body of the article. Yet both shed light on a higher order, of which the subject of the article is a member. The link to Barony is to the term in general, not to Ireland in particular. I think that the "See also" link should be restored. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Barony link no longer is to the general term; I changed that. Whoever looks for information on baronies will be interested in the Irish version; thus there's no reason to link to baronies in general. (That process is called disambiguation in Wiki-speak, by the way.) Huon (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this your way of saying that your decision to delete the "See other" link (which linked to the "Baronies of Ireland") because it was "redundant" was incorrect? At the time of the decision, it was not in fact redundant - but you did not know that at the time. Which raises the question, if redundancy was not the motive, what was the real motive for your decision to delete the reference? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we try to keep this discussion centralised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, with links and diffs as necessary to specific articles and edits? Also, please assume eds. are contributing and debating in good faith and are not pursuing some unspecified hidden agenda. RashersTierney (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I replied at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. Concerning the chronology, you'll find that on this article I had changed the link target form "barony" to "Baronies of Ireland" three days ago, before the "see also" section was created. This article happens to be on my watchlist, and it thus gets a little more attention from me than the others. Huon (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Inch, The Ragg
For the second time today I've re-added a source on Bouladuff's alternate names. Since the Tipperary Star is a reliable secondary source, I see no reason why the source or the information itself should be removed. It's not as if there's a surplus of reliable sources discussing Bouladuff. Huon (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)