Talk:Munster Derby

Scope
When this was article first written in 2016 (seemingly by a chap from Limerick), it focused purely on the use of the term in that immediate period (c.2012-2017 - when Cork V Limerick was a more common fixture). Since then, and presumably prompted by Waterford's pending return to the division in which Cork play, another editor (seemingly a chap from Waterford) has determined that the term should be applied exclusively to games involving Cork and Waterford. Frankly, unless the article can be updated to accommodate both uses of the term (the historical and the more recent), then it needs serious work. Frankly it needs serious work anyway. Not least as the vast majority of the content is entirely uncited. (The history and culture sections in particular reading like original research and editorial). If the two editors (who currently appear to have opposing viewpoints on the scope of this article) can discuss and agree a compromise, I'll take stab at addressing. Which may involve significantly paring back the content. To reflect what can actually be supported by reliable sources and references.

Discuss.

Guliolopez (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In the weeks since my note above, and in the absence of additional responses or input, I've attempted to cover both apparent meanings of the term "Munster Derby". In the course of this scope change, I've removed some of the editorial (in particular the list of "notable LFC v CCFC games", which had no clear inclusion criteria. And no references). While there is still significant opportunity for improvement, hopefully these changes are considered appropriate. If there are no other comments or suggestions, I may take a stab at further changes. (In particular, perhaps, to remove the context-less "honours" table - which seems to be a listing of unexplained stats, which is uncited, and which has limited relevance to the scope of this article [the derby games] anyway). Guliolopez (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bump. The editor who has now blanked cited content in this article several times (with an edit summ suggesting that the removed content "was not included in [my] original plan for this article") should please read WP:OWN. And indeed the references in the lead and elsewhere. Which confirm that the subject and title is not exclusive to one/narrow meaning. Guliolopez (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)