Talk:Isabel Inlet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] This must be the worst talk page ever
Weak keep separate. Who proposed that the two articles be merged? Why should they be? Why shouldn't they be? I, the creator of this page about 8 months ago, was hoping to form an "Outer Banks" series, covering all the inlets and islands of the Outer Banks. Nowhere on wikipedia was there a tutorial on how to go about forming such a series, so I gave up. Here's one of the articles I was trying to make, but the series will never be complete until wikipedia updates their dinosaur of an editing system. Sorry to complain here, but I have nowhere else to turn and I want people to know the intention with which this article was made. 164.107.92.130 19:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, I think the inlet is deserving of its own article for the purpose of compiling inlets in the state and for category reasons. The problem is that both articles cover the same information. If this article is going to stay, it needs to include more unique information. The Effects of the hurricane article should just cover how the inlet was formed while this article can focus more on how it was repaired and how future erosion was (hopefully) prevented. --TinMan 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
As creator of the Effects of the hurricane article, I added all of that information before realizing this page existed. Thus, seeing as that page could easily contain this information, I don't see the harm in making this a redirect. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep separate. Per TinMan (now User:Triadian). I didn't have to search through a much larger article to find this information, which was good. And it works for categorization purposes. But it does need more information, and TinMan's suggestion on which articles should contain what is a good idea. --MPD T / C 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Defunct inlets
New section. I'm not sure how this "talk" part works, so forgive me (or edit this!) if I've gotten it wrong. I don't think it really belongs in the current section. If inlets that no longer exist are to be covered, they should be somewhere else. New Inlet no longer exists. Neither does the informally-named Isabel Inlet. Perhaps there should just be a section under the Outer Banks of Inlets that are no more? There are certainly many more historic ones that could be added. Seems kinda odd to only include these two no-longer-existing inlets. --Wesley —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.207.75.198 (talk) 20:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, I've added a header to your comments to separate it from above comments.
- As for the substance of your comments, I'm on the fence. On one hand, I'd like to see the other defunct inlets that you mention. That ought to be fleshed out. Now should it all be lumped together into one big article? I don't know. It all depends on how much we can get and flesh out. So I'd say let's table the motion for now and revisit it after we come up with some stuff. Regardless of how it ultimately fleshes out, though, we'd need titles for whatever historic inlets we come up with, if nothing else but to serve as redirects. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
