Talk:Corofin, County Clare

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The GPS coordinates here are for Tuam. We need to get Corofin's.

Not enough of a Wiki expert but how do we differentiate Calre and Galway's Corofins?

Agreed. The use of the map highlighting Co.Galway is confusing, given that the article is primarily about Corofin Co.Clare.

I corrected the coordinates using the OS map (Google Maps agrees), but the map in the article is wrong, showing the red spot on the Clare/Galway border. Rwxrwxrwx 10:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be merged with corrofin? 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger has been done. Rwxrwxrwx 10:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the correct spelling for Corrofin Co.Clare is with two R's ("Corrofin") and the one in Galway is with one R. The title of this page should be changed.

You are wrong the corofin in clare is also corofin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.94.152 (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Catholic Church, the Diocese of Killaloe has merged Corofin parish with the former parishes of Kilnaboy and Rath. Is this the case? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case. But what you wrote was has merged Corofin parish with the former parishes of Kilnaboy and Rath. and that is incorrect. The Banner talk 15:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake here. The parish of Corofin is a merger from the older parishes of Killinaboy and Rath. It is not merged with the two others. The Banner talk 10:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you will wish to correct the article in light of this revelation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your efforts, at present the article is correct. The Banner talk 15:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than revert an error, it would have been more helpful if you could have inserted a fuller, more accurate account. Please arrange to do same. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of criticising the correction, you could have added a source to your remark. In that case, you would have discovered that your remark was wrong.The Banner talk 00:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check the sources and be part of the solution, not part of the problem. The Banner talk 13:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you're the self professed expert on this part of the world. You'd do it so much better than I. Don't be shy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check the sources when you are not an expert instead of adding incorrect information. The Banner talk 14:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be afraid of adding incorrect information. I can't understand your reluctance to improve this article when you have the knowledge and the sources. It's like you just want to play games. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me for your mistake caused by not checking sources. The Banner talk 15:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into the blame game at all. I admit my error and have declared my fear of repeating it. I have acknowledged your superior knowledge in these matters. I have appealed to you for help. My appeals have fallen on deaf ears. I must admit to feeling disappointed at your unwikilike behaviour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, now you are again adding incorrect information to the article, even after the prior discussion above? Did you even try to find sources? Really, that is an existing option. Or you can take a look at Corofin (parish). The Banner talk 09:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the first line of this discussion. You wrote that you agreed with it. Have you changed your mind? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your indirect answer is "Yes". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tripped over your confusing question. I will admit that. At least I did not add incorrect information. The Banner talk 15:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]