![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
There were a couple of reverts, so to avoid misunderstandings let's discuss.
To explain my concern: the article is about Gisburn, and covers this area both in its modern senses and in older senses. The modern civil parish of Gisburn historically covered not only Gisburn Forest, but also the parish between Gisburn Forest and Gisburn. The boundaries of this older parish largely correspond to the modern ward of Gisburn. A
In terms of WP policies see for example WP:SPLIT. The subject does not seem being enough to justify splitting the article into many articles, one for the modern civil parish, one for the ancient parish, and so on? Therefore it seems reasonable to leave at least basic information about the smaller parishes where it fits? Indeed Gisburn Forest is mentioned in other places in the article, where it seems to cause no concern.
Possibly the specific sentence removed was just going one step too far, but if so let's get that rationale on record. The rationales in the edit summaries did not explain it this way.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The Guy of Gisbourne page links to Gisburn but apparently the (fictional) Guy in the ballad is from some other location. Should I break the link? Gilgamesh4 ( talk) 20:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
There were a couple of reverts, so to avoid misunderstandings let's discuss.
To explain my concern: the article is about Gisburn, and covers this area both in its modern senses and in older senses. The modern civil parish of Gisburn historically covered not only Gisburn Forest, but also the parish between Gisburn Forest and Gisburn. The boundaries of this older parish largely correspond to the modern ward of Gisburn. A
In terms of WP policies see for example WP:SPLIT. The subject does not seem being enough to justify splitting the article into many articles, one for the modern civil parish, one for the ancient parish, and so on? Therefore it seems reasonable to leave at least basic information about the smaller parishes where it fits? Indeed Gisburn Forest is mentioned in other places in the article, where it seems to cause no concern.
Possibly the specific sentence removed was just going one step too far, but if so let's get that rationale on record. The rationales in the edit summaries did not explain it this way.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The Guy of Gisbourne page links to Gisburn but apparently the (fictional) Guy in the ballad is from some other location. Should I break the link? Gilgamesh4 ( talk) 20:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)