Talk:Bodyke

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Split bodyke evictions into seperate article

The bodyke evictions pretty much take up the whole page, just give it its own article. MildLoser (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Personally I wouldn't support a split. If the "evictions" text is too long (in absolute terms), then some of the quotes could be summarised a bit. If the "evictions" text is too long (in relative terms - compared to the rest of the article), then we should perhaps just expand the other sections a little. Otherwise, as it stands, the article as a whole is only about 700 words. And not WP:TOOBIG to be readable. (Is the article perhaps "slanted" somewhat towards the evictions? Sure. But that's mainly because that's what the subject is notable for. And most of the coverage is about. Hence our coverage, in the article, possibly doesn't give one element of the topic WP:UNDUE weight.) Splitting the content to a stand-along article would likely result in two (semi-)stubs. Both of which would probably duplicate/overlap with (and require context from) the other. I'm not sure that's an improvement. My 2x cents at any rate.... Guliolopez (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. It's now been over a month since this split was first proposed. While WP:SPLITCLOSE (or WP:CON in general) doesn't set a deadline for these discussions, we're well over the "normally one week or more" mentioned in the procedure page. Unless there are specific objections or thoughts, I'm inclined to remove the tag (As it doesn't appear to be driving any additional discussion or other editors to the discussion). And to close the discussion - for now (As there doesn't appear to be consensus on whether/how to progress with the proposed action). Guliolopez (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another month has passed. No input (support for the split or otherwise) has been forthcoming. I've removed the tag. Guliolopez (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]