Talk:Hogganfield

Removed content

I rather enjoyed reading the content removed by User:Blairtummock. Details of exactly how various sections of the settlement were built seem entirely relevant. Even the comments about the types of brick used appeal to my interest in architectural decisions. (Clearly the inline link was not per MoS.

I'd be interested in the opinions of others as to the reinstatement of this detail. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit is not in question, the style and content of previous edits are. The paragraph about B&Q, the names of builders are not relevant and no other area of Glasgow has that sort of information in it - best to keep things in a similar style. There is merit in developing the areas part of this article - perhaps Tagishsimon should do so rather than reinstating unsuitable previous edits.

Re types of brick used - there was an edit in the Kirkcaldy page about this, not removed, that tracked the development from Scottish Stone to English style brick - so the precedent is there, but avoid being an estate agent or sales rep for the developer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairtummock (talk • contribs) 10:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit is in question - I'm questioning it. I have not reinstated the comments, so am unsure what your comment is trying to achieve. With perhaps a single exception, I do not have a problem with the style of the comments you removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:53, 16 October

2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines are relevant, reference-able, compact and to the point. This is a wiki, one person does not own or control what is written. My suggestion is that you write your own details about Hogganfield, write it clearly and make it relevant.

I have reinserted most of the Area text - with the exception of the B&Q digression. As you note, Blairtummock, "one person does not own or control what is written". I'm happy that the content meets the aspirations of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hogganfield. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610153821/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/institutes/sassi/spns/Richardson1795.JPG to http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/institutes/sassi/spns/Richardson1795.JPG

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) 02:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)