Talk:Clogher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Northern Ireland (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Recent pagemove[edit]

I was wondering - why do you think Clogher, County Tyrone should not be the primary topic for Clogher per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? I don't see anything that really rivals its claim to the title. Thanks, --JaGatalk 12:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I will concede that the most notable other things, the two dioceses, take their names from the village (or city). That arguably gives the settlement priority. But it is a very small settlement (I removed the link to Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service: Clogher is not listed because it's so small); whereas there are only a select few dioceses in Ireland. However, I have no strong feeling on this, so if you think it should be moved back I will defer to your opinion. jnestorius(talk) 19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I wouldn't worry about it either, but your pagemove has resulted in a bunch of links that now go to a disambig page which need cleaning up. Perhaps you wouldn't mind fixing these? In my experience I've found that good-faith pagemovers often overlook the need to fix the disambig links they've created. --JaGatalk 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Fixing double redirects is part of the process of moving; redirecting inlinks to the dab page is not. Normally a good portion of them aren't meant to link to the moved page; that's a symptom of the need for the move. Each can be moved by someone who knows which article it ought to point to. jnestorius(talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's considered proper etiquette to clean up after yourself after a move, but you certainly aren't required to. --JaGatalk 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I hadn't seen that. My take has been that the important thing is to prevent inlinks to the wrong target, and leave dab-page inlinks for the bots. In this case, most inlinks are to the village page, which suggests my move was ill-advised. I will redirect those links if you like, but would it be better to undo the move? jnestorius(talk) 07:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't feel too bad; most users are unaware of it, and it's just a request, not a rule. Either is fine; I wouldn't have been upset if you chose not to change anything - I only wanted to make you aware, not tell you what to do. I was going to move it back myself (or, more likely, take the easy route and change the redirect to point to this article) but I was worried I was overlooking some reason to have the disambig. Thanks for being so civil. --JaGatalk 19:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary move[edit]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: And back it goes. Yes, the RM backlog is a pain, but they have to run for seven days, so this one isn't terribly overdue. Give me a few moments to move things around and get them sorted out. Courcelles (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)



Clogher, County TyroneClogher — Restore longstanding location which was moved without agreement. Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Inoffensive move request, OK'd by the original mover (above) - probably doesn't need to wait 7 days. --JaGatalk 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: if and when this movereq passes, the disambiguation page currently at Clogher would first be moved (again) to Clogher (disambiguation) and then Clogher, County Tyrone would be moved to Clogher. (I've got the dab on my watchlist, so I'll go back in and rearrange its entries to reflect the new/restored primary topic then.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The move should have been performed days ago (per JHunterJ), but there seems to be quite a backlog over at WP:Requested Moves. Perhaps you could ask an admin directly? Cavila (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronunciation?[edit]

For those of us unfamiliar with the area, a guide to pronouncing the name would be helpful. --rossb (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clogher. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clogher. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clogher. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clogher. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)