Talk:Rosslare Europort
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rosslare Europort Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell
Untitled
I believe this article would be better split into two:
-- "Rosslare Europort", dealing with the commercial port of that name [categories: Transport in Ireland, Ports]; and
-- "Rosslare Harbour" (Calafort Ros Láir), dealing with the community of that name which the harbour gave rise to at (original name) Ballygeary [categories: Towns in Wexford, Towns in the RoI].
The fact that the owners of the harbour decided to rename it Rosslare Europort a few years back does not mean that the community of Rosslare Harbour has changed its name. I think the distinction is a useful one, e.g. "I live in Rosslare Harbour and work at the Europort".
Other opinions? -- Picapica 11:43, 12 February 2005 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable.
- Is the town definitely called "Rosslare Harbour" and not "Rosslare"? zoney ♣ talk 13:21, 12 February 2005 (UTC)
"Rosslare" (alone) refers to the village of Rosslare (a.k.a. Rosslare Strand), which is 8.5 km by road from Rosslare Harbour. There is already a separate article about the village. I propose to split the Rosslare Europort article tomorrow (there seem to be ongoing Wikiproblems at the moment!) -- Picapica 17:06, 12 February 2005 (UTC)
Rosslare Europort, Rosslare Harbour, and Rosslare Strand now 3 separate articles. -- Picapica 19:07, 13 February 2005 (UTC)
Removal of maintenance template
This article seems very well documented. Unles there are objections I propose removing the the mainrenance template tomorrow. MarkHarper1 (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is also written as a sales piece, perhaps by an interested party - it does not have an encyclopaedic tone. Geopersona (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Now a nice piece of referenced work but does need to avoid anything that feels promotional rather than encyclopaedic. Geopersona (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Full of unrelenting dribble
The article reads like a mishmash of school essay discussion paper , business & electioneering aspiration PR. It could do with a major edit. Cobalt69 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- still full of irrelevant self serving PR blather Cobalt69 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)