Talk:Omeath

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Omeath. 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/20111220175337/http://www.buseireann.ie/pdf/1291382290-161.pdf to http://www.buseireann.ie/pdf/1291382290-161.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert
Regarding this very unhelpful and non-constructive revert:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowRoses (talk • contribs)
 * Ui meth is explained, in the name section, where I added a source for the content that was previously there. That it was unreferenced hasn't been bothering anyone until now, how did it suddenly become a problem when I added a citation for it?
 * Warrenpoint and everything else in that section that was removed is sourced, but Guliolopez says in his edit summary it is "uncited". Since that is clearly not true, I have restored it.
 * Please find something better to do then remove links to relevant articles, piping fish to list of fish of Ireland in an article about an Irish coastal town is not an "Easter Egg" in the meaning of the policy that you cited, it is just a more specific link then the general one.


 * Hiya. Thanks for your note. With apologies if my edit-summary could have been clearer or seemed abrupt, on each of the points raised:
 * "Uí Meth". My concern here (which still stands) is that the source in question (dating as it does from 1854) does not support an implication that "Ui Meth" remains a common name for the subject in the English language. Today. Per the related guidelines, unless the Irish name is the official name or common name (in use by English speakers) then it should be in the "bracketed/italicised" section. And not "bolded" alongside the English common name. The Naming conventions (use English) guideline may be worth reviewing here also. I have tempered my initial tweak accordingly.
 * "Warrenpoint". Again, with apologies if my edit-summary did not fully expand on my concern with the citation, it was not (principally) that it didn't cover Warrenpoint. But that the synth and editorial ("some other towns", "even further afield", etc) were an "extrapolation" from the source. And not, therefore, reflected in the citation. Apologies if my eagerness to address this overstepped. I have similarly tweaked to address my concern more specifically.
 * "Fish". Personally it doesn't seem like a natural target for the word "fish". But fine. Noted.
 * Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, current version after your changes looks good to me, cheers.TheYellowRoses (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)