Talk:Giant's Causeway

message: To add: More on geology/formation, legends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaihsu (talk • contribs) 18:01, 19 September 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested additions

message: I merged the Legend article into this one, though that has left some repeated information. I might get around to it, but I left a copyedit tag in case anyone else wants to try it in the meantime. I've already done a fair bit of work to it.. and please note that I have copied information from the website directly into the article as a comment, which might help other editors. I will delete this info once I feel all the info has been used - please leave it intact for now. --Mal 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard tell that the legend attached to the Giants Causeway is a relatively recent development (ie less than 400 years old) and that it was made up (or widely publicized) to attract the attention of the Romantics and the Victorian naturalists.  Is there any reliable information concerning the development, age and origins of the myth? Ammi 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of merger 

message: pasted the Giant's Causeway web site into the article as a comment below the main text.  I have deleted it, as I deleted it when I copyedited the article a couple of days ago.  I included everything from the web site in the article that I thought was appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Text like "For centuries countless visitors have marvelled at the majesty and mystery of the Giants Causeway" is wonderful for a promotional web site but not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Neither is information on visitor center amenities or driving directions.  The article links to the official web site so there is a clear way for people who are interested in visiting to find out more.  Also there is the possibilty of copyright problems.  In the US, information published by the government is in the public domain, but I don't know if that pertains to the UK, or if the National Trust is considered part of the government for purposes of copyright or considered a private agency.  At this point I think that all the site details from the web site that belong in an encyclopedia are there. Thatcher131 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough Thatcher - I hadn't considered that you'd gone through it and copyedited appropriate info from it. If that is the case then its usefulness has now ended. As for copyright - the information wasn't published as such, which is specifically why I had added it as a comment. --Mal 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Website info

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.See footnote
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.See footnote
*This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon. 
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please provide citations for all of the s.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 08:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto Peer Review 

message: World Heritage site of Ireland?! Ireland is what the Republic calls itself (and is its official name I believe). The Giant's Causeway is in the United Kingdom not Ireland and i've changed the article to reflect this reality. You can't use the word Ireland to refer to something that exists within the United Kingdom because of the words Irish Nationalist connotations.YourPTR! 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. In the context of the template, "Ireland" refers to the island (the geographical entity) rather than the "Republic of Ireland" (the political entity). You may note that there are two templates on the page; one "WH Sites of Ireland", the other "WH Sites in the UK". Both are likely valid in context. To engage in a "what the word 'Ireland' means or is assumed to mean" argument in the context of a natural phenomenon (which existed for 63 million years before the first human thought to give it a name or context) is probably not a good path to go down. (Someone[else] likely reverted your edit for this reason) Guliolopez 16:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that a causeway exists specifically to join two land masses across a stretch of water, couldn't we consider that one end is in Scotland ? We Scots don't market it as much as the Irish, but basalt columns crop up in many places on our west coast and Hebridean islands - Fingal's cave on Staffa, Kilt Rock on Skye, Howmore to Rubha Ardvule on Uist. If I remember correctly, it is locally known as the Giant's Causeway even in Scotland. It may even have been the last link when the islands divided as the sea lowered in prehistoric times ? Maybe maritime charts would confirm or deny that ? Citation needed ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Heritage Site 

message: The "popular culture references" section here includes some decidely NN inclusions. While there is some discussion about the value of "popculture" references in general, several of the examples listed here are not notable and read like fancruft that is not relevant to the context of the article subject. (A lot of the examples represent "throw away" references in books, backdrops for music videos or interviews, or whatever). Unless - for example - the Causeway was a significant theme in a notable work, it probably isn't notable here. Otherwise it seems dubious under WP:NOT#INFO. I'm going to do some summarising. Beyond that, the section may be worthy or a more complete cull in the longer term. Guliolopez 12:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is getting worse. More fancruft, with severely dubious relevance to the topic, continues to be added. (And - in my view - will be so long as the section exists). Are there any comments on the value of this content? Does it give additional context to the topic for the reader? Personally I think that the fact that someone wrote a (B-Side) song in 2003 named after a 50 million year old formation is irrelevant to the formation itself. Would like to confirm some consensus however before a cull here.... Guliolopez 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WWE and Scooter references are entirely irrelevant. The Cremaster Cycle article doesn't even mention the Causeway, so it can go as well. The Led Zep and Stone Roses album covers probably have the best case for inclusion, they are certainly of interest - the Stone Roses' debut is arguably my favourite all-time album, but I had no idea the Causeway was the background of the album cover until I read this. They are both notable works, but as you said above they are not sufficiently significant themes in them. So cull the lot I say. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture references / Trivia 

message: Unless there are other opinions, I'm going to summarise the Trivia section. Again. Since the last review, it has reverted to its long and unwieldy state. (With recently added references to non-notable book covers, throw away refs in Hellboy, the Simpsons, etc). This detail is - in my view - very very weak, of limited encyclopedic value, and represents the type of miscellaneous/random trivia that the relevant guidelines suggest we avoid. As noted before, this formation has been around for millions of years. The fact that it is mentioned fleetingly in a recent feature film, or was on screen for 5 seconds in a Simpsons episode isn't really relevant, and is a "symptom" of the subjects notability, rather than contributing to it. Compare to a "list of films and books the Great Pyramid of Giza is mentioned in" at the foot of that article. It would be ridiculously long and pointless. I may be misreading the guidelines here, so will await any other comments before engaging in some more summarisation (again). Guliolopez (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia revisited

message: I have separated these. However I have one ref. which refers to "slow cooling of the great pool of molten rock,..." I'm nor sure which is correct. Ref. Wilson, H.E.1972. Regional Geology of Northern Irelad Ministry of Commerce Geologiucal Servay of Northern Ireland, Belfast, Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Osborne 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History/Geology

message: The article seems to say that the origin of the rock is as an intrusive lava....  If it is an intrusive rock, it should be referred to as magma. If extrusive as lava. It is currently geologically incorrect. --86.145.68.88 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intrusive or Extrusive

message: where in NI is this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on the North East coast in County Antrim. Is mentioned a few times in the article. There is also a coordinates link up the top right. Guliolopez (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:
55deg 14' 28 N
6 deg 30' 43 W
This being the centre of the Grand Causeway
Current co-ordinates refer to Port na Pleaskin some 2km away.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.188.137 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: I've swapped the UNESCO World Heritage infobox for a  which incorporates the UNESCO information as a section. I've kept the original infobox (commented out) though, in case anyone takes issue with this edit. Any thoughts? Fattonyni (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geobox/type/nature 

message: After I reverted the most recent change of this I realised there had already been a number of swaps of format prior to my edit -- so I thought I would ask for a consensus: Should the list of similar structures be in bulleted or prose form? State your view below.
* Bulleted - it is far more legible and well-seated in Wikipedia's standard formatting. I also find it neater. Fattonyni (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Revise to Prose, summarise, move down as per Guliolopez's idea (below) – This sounds like a good solution -- I agree that not all of the instances need to be mentioned in the list; perhaps just 3-4 of the most notable ones. This would make the prose much more legible and tidy, and avoid it having too much impact on the overall article. Fattonyni (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. It seems that there was apparent consensus in the above, so I've gone ahead and restored the prose formatting. I also moved it down below the "features" section. I also went ahead and summarised the list - removing those which didn't have a mention in an article of their own, or significant coverage in a related article. (I did this on the basis that this article ISN'T a "list of basalt column structures around the world". And shouldn't become one.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar structures: bulleted or prose? 

message: Was it Samuel Johnson who said this about Giant's Causeway. Does that merit a mention on the page somewhere? Martyn Smith (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Worth seeing but not worth going to see'

message: Scenes from the latetest film - Your Highness, were shot at the Giants Causeway.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1240982/
It could be worth mentioning....Homebirdni (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a new section on 'Film and Television' and noted 'Your Highness'. Feel free to add to the section. I've a feeling 'Game of Thrones' was filmed there also.CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi guys. Apologies for not picking up this earlier, but we've had a debate (see notes above from 2007 and 2009) about trivia references before. And the consensus outcome was not to put trivia/pop-culture references in the article. (Every fanboy felt it was worth adding every passing reference in every TV show/book/etc ever written. To the extent that the trivia section was so large and full of irrelevant and fleeting references that it impacted the quality of the article. Hence the decision was to avoid trivia references entirely.) In keeping with that consensus, I've reverted the section again. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Highness 

message: Did I see this in one of the Harry Potter movies? 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Potter? 

message: Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust pilot 

message: The image captioned: "Engraving of Susanna Drury's A View of the Giant's Causeway: East Prospect, 1768" is fanciful isn't it? Shouldn't there be something in the text or caption to point out that no part of Giant's Causeway in real life is as grand as this? Polar Apposite (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The engraving is fanciful is it not?