WikiProject UK geography	(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)	UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
v t e This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Scotland	(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)	ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
v t e 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.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): Fortifications task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force European military history task force

Separate articles?[edit]

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)