Talk:Corcomroe (barony)

Untitled
I've re-edited the page to include our adamant, but anonymous, contributor's interpretation of the name. I have re-inserted the Parliamentary Gazeteer interpretation, since it is a verifiable, quotable source. It would be nice if a source for the other interpretation could be provided. Gabhala 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I get some help here? I'm trying not to engage in an edit war, but this person keeps deleting a cited source, because he or she seems not to like it, referring to it as 'pseudo-history', despite it's obvious historical source. I've tried to include this person's alternative, despite no source being supplied. This strikes me as very POV. What's the procedure for situations like this?Gabhala 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Title
I note that the article name was changed to make way for the abbey of the same name that is rather more famous. Fair enough. But the new name, while I personally am in favour of it, seems to go against an emerging consensus on the naming conventions of baronies. See the debate here that may be of interest. This would indicate that the name ought to be "Corcomroe (barony)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)