Talk:Carrickfergus (barony)

Bold names

 * (Discussion of this reverted revert moved from User:Talk: about whether to bold the parish and county names in the article lede)

Whilst I would normally agree: "It is coextensive with the civil parish of Carrickfergus or St Nicholas and corresponds to the former county of the town of Carrickfergus, a county corporate encompassing Carrickfergus town." the start of this makes it clear that we aren't talking about alternative names for the barony. This sentence is comparing it to largely co-extensive entities, in this case a civil parish and a county, neither of which is a barony or a direct continuation or predecessor of one over the other seeing as all three co-existed together for centuries. Mabuska (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is in Category:Civil parishes of County Antrim and Category:Historical counties of Ireland. All three entities — the barony, parish and county — are discussed in the article. Unfortunately, an article can have only one title. Fortunately, an article can have multiple boldtitles in the lede. When an article discusses multiple distinct entities, it is more important that the name of each be bolded, than when it is merely multiple names for a single entity: precisely to flag to readers that that is the case. Otherwise someone browsing a list of parishes in Antrim will be confused to arrive at an article which appears to be about a barony rather than a parish. In this particular case, because the three entities happen to have the same name, one alternative would be to move the article to Carrickfergus (barony, county, and civil parish); I think that would be overkill.  jnestorius(talk) 11:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * When I created this article it was only meant to be about the barony and thought that it still was. Looking at the history of it was you who made it about other entities. Whilst that is no bad thing and saves page proliferation, the title and point of the article and the first sentence of the lede are now defunct and it needs an overhaul to make it like more alone the lines of Lecale which I did. It could also do with separate sections to detail each different entity rather than have them all in one section considering they aren't all one and the same. I've restored the bold names and will partake of restructuring the page when I have time expanding upon the different entities. Mabuska (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)