Talk:Kinnaird Head

Separate articles?

This one article covers Kinnaird Head (the geographical feature), Kinnaird Castle, Kinnaird Head Lighthouse, the Wine Tower, and the Museum of Scottish Lighthouses. These probably ought to be five separate articles. --Deskford (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I can see why this would be suggested. Here though, the article prose size is only 1637 B (283 words). The constituent parts of the article, such as the museum, are closely integrated; sources and how much can be written may not be of sufficient breadth to justify multiple standalone articles. Handling cases like these as a single unit can actually work quite well I've found. Take a look at Skerryvore and Flannan Isles, both Good Articles, for examples. –Whitehorse1 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Whitehorse, a single substantial article is better than a series of three-line stubs. It would be very hard to separate the information on the castle, the lighthouse, and the lighthouse museum without extensive repetition. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points. My suggestion for a split came at least in part from the profusion of categories and templates at the bottom. I added the "Scottish Museums and Art Galleries" template, but felt this slightly inappropriate as the main subject of the article is the headland, with the museum a subsidiary subject. Whether split or kept as a single article, I feel there is potential for considerable expansion by someone who knows more about the subject(s) than I do. --Deskford (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

After copyedit, the information seems fine in a single article. If further expanded, one or more sub-articles could be created. If no objection, I'll remove the {{split}}. Finavon (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I seemed to be the only one in favour of splitting, so I'm happy to drop the proposal. The article is looking more coherent after your improvements. --Deskford (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)