Talk:Kilculliheen

Truth?[edit]

There is defiantly not a Borony of Kilculliheen currently in County Kilkenny and there wasnt one in 1824 when the Grand Jury of County Kilkenny mapped this area as part of the Barony of Ida, also this land is still part of Kilkenny today so while the Parliamentary Gazetteer disagrees I think this article, which is otherwise a good start to a Kilculliheen(Parish) or Kilculliheen(Area) article, is a bit made up.Ω ENGLISH LOCK Ω 18:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely is a barony of Kilculliheen in Kilkenny. See I.R. Uimh. 520/2003 — An tOrdú Logainmneacha (Contae Chill Chainnigh) 2003 Schedule, Section A (Administrative units): Chapter 3 (Baronies): Number 9. jnestorius^(talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Townlands[edit]

I don't think listing the townlands in an area, assuming it's worth bothering to do at all, needs to be done in a table. There has been discussion previously about whether a barony split by a county boundary is ipso facto two baronies. No evidence in support of this implausible claim has been offered. jnestorius^(talk) 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned that you would have reverted all that work without coming to this page first. Many hours of research went into that table. Many sources were consulted and maps painfully scrutinised. The article itself is replete with examples oftransfers of land over the centuries. The table simply makes that more explicit. What was it introducing that was not already in the article? The townlands mentioned now lie in County Waterford. The townlands mentioned now lie in County Kilkenny. Are these facts disputed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete any information; I moved it to the preceding paragraph and added references. No original research. jnestorius^(talk) 08:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you deleted the table not because it contained erroneous information and not because the information ought not to have been there, but because it offended your artistic sensibilities? Are we really down to discussing wallpaper patterns here? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Wikipedia edits are changes of style, format, presentation, etc rather than of content. Many Wikipedians do nothing but copyediting. jnestorius^(talk) 21:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I'll take it to arbitration elsewhere. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try WP:THIRD jnestorius^(talk) 07:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Hi, I appreciate the work that went into the table; however, since it is so small, it probably should be presented in prose form. This is especially true since the second data column of the table was entirely composed of cells containing "yes". The first data column was a list of "no" values followed by a list of "yes" values, enabling this to be easily presented as a sentence or two of prose.—Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kilculliheen. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]