Talk:Black Devon

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Comments[edit]

Should be re-named to Black Devon (Clackmannanshire) Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are there other Black Devons? I see no need to disambiguate at present. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some stuff, which has one reference per item (more available if needed) so that should be ok. However we still need to provide references for the original stuff, before the notice can be removed. But it is now wrong, we do have some references, just not a full set. Please do feel free to fix that. I am not sure which notice should be applied.

Could we perhaps just justify most of the good stuff that was already written by referring to a map?

Tiger99 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and another possibly daft question. Is it still a stub, or are we at or near the point where it can be regarded as a proper article? Tiger99 (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found some time to insert adequate references, except that I can't find much about the fish. Anyway, I think the tag claiming that there were no references can safely be gone. I have left the two stub tags. Someone more qualified than me in the finer points of Wikipedia can review these! I don't want to provoke needless controversy. Been there before...

Tiger99 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Black Devon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]