Talk:Cork (city)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cork (city) is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

A Wikipedian removed Cork (city) from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Maritime. WikiProject Irish Maritime is an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of Maritime, seafaring and inland waterways articles associated with the island of Ireland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Ireland Portal

	To-do list for Cork (city):	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Wikify: check right thro' for poor link structure

[edit] Archives

• Talk:Cork/Archive01 up to and including some of November 2006
• Talk:Cork (city)/Archive02 November 2006 move (Cork -> Cork (city)) discussion and straw polls.

[edit] Waste Managment

Suggest the page has an extra section about waste management and recycling in Cork. Snowman 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DAB link

I believe that if the link is at the top, it should be of the form

as WP:DAB says Links to disambiguation pages include the text "(disambiguation)" in the title (such as America (disambiguation)). However, do we need the link at all now? Or is it obvious that anyone who found an article called Cork (city) was not looking for bottle stoppers etc? --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it helps the wildly curious... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Its standard practice to have that there just in case. And just like the case of Lift, the word disambiguation in not needed, not to mention redundant. The whole point is that people who type cork get a choice of where to go. pschemp | talk 23:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is standard practice - none of the articles linked from lift appear to have a dablink back to either lift or lift (disambiguation). The guideline I quoted above clearly says that if there is to be a dablink, it should always be to something (disambiguation) even if that is a redirect to primary topic disambiguation. If people "type cork" now, they will get the disambiguation page at cork, not this page any more. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, that's the whole point. There are lots of disambig pages that don't have disambiguation in the name. Like Phoenix and Lift and Tyre. I don't see anything wrong with that. No way Cork should be a redirect and no way there was consensus to have Cork go to the material, so please, just leave it be. pschemp | talk 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a link to a disambig page, it should go to a "topic (disambiguation)", even if this redirects to a main page, as in this case. This is to facilitate fixing incorrect links to disambig pages as by linking to the (disambiguation) page, it shows explicitly that you wanted the disambig page, and not any other one. That way, anyone can look at whatlinkshere for the main page, and anything pointing directly at the main page may be mistargetted, and should be checked, and re-targeted as necessary. It boils down to the fact that in cases where "topic" is a disamb page, direct links to "topic" are ambigious (as there is no way to know if they are correct without checking each one) so pointing links at the "topic (disambiguation)" page when needed removes that ambiguity. For example, looking at Phoenix links at Special:Whatlinkshere/Phoenix, there is no way to tell that the link from "Phoenix, Arizona" is correct, but the one from "Folk rock" is mistargetted, wheras if there existed a disambiguation redirect, the only from Phoenix, Arizona would link to the (disambiguation) page, which would then redirect to the main disamg page, thus showing at a glance that the first link is correct and doesn't need checking. Regards, MartinRe 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but this needs to be disseminated more widely, otherwise people will just revert what you just did. Has this rule been added to any relevant pages in the Wikipedia namespace? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:DAB#Links to disambiguation pages is where the above reasoning comes from, I've just expanded it a little with examples. Ideally, disambiguation pages which exist at the primary page should only have one incoming link (that from the disambig redirect) so newly created are more apparent, but very few disambig pages obtain that ideal. (Whether this article needs a top dab is another debate, all this says is that if one exists, it should go to the target as outlined above) Regards, MartinRe 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i just don't agree because this will cause issues with what then resides at Cork. Every time someone new notices it is a redirect they will try to start an article that is already covered, or try to move Cork (material) or the city there. Also, when people type in the word Cork to search, they should be offered a choice of which meaning they want. No newby searching for cork knows enough to type Cork (disambiguation). I think this is a situation like Lift where it just makes practical sense to have the disambig page at cork. The mistargetting thing is just as easy to do by looking at whatlinkshere from the current page.

pschemp | talk 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what resides at Cork, which remains unchanged as the main disambiguation page. The disambugation redirect is in line with the DAB gudleines, and according to the "Facilitate disambiguation" section of WP:REDIRECT. Having the redirect makes things a lot easier for mistaregeted links to be fixed as a link to "Cork" is ambigious - did they really mean to refer to the disambiguation page, or does it need to be re-targetted to a specific case? To check, you'll have to look and see - and so will every other editor afterwards. This redirect changes nothing when someone searchs for "cork", so objecting on those grounds seems moot. Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages has many examples of it being used successfully, so the risk of anyone creating unnecessary articles seems low. Take for example Special:Whatlinkshere/Robert Dunn, you can see at a glance which incoming links need to be checked, and which ones are definitly correct, which is the reason behind this. After all, dab pages are supposed to reduce confusion, so creating a deliberately ambigious link goes against that idea. Regards, MartinRe 16:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement here "the risk of anyone creating unnecessary articles seems low" is dead wrong. Did you read the rest of this talk page? In the span of less than a week, multiple people and random newbies have all tried to "fix" what's at cork. Yes, it would be a redirect, but it would only stay a redirect for about 2 minutes considering the past history of these articles. I neither think that its confusing there nor is it so out of line with DAB polices. Like I said before, it works the same as Lift. LEving it the way it is makes more sense considering the issues with these topics. pschemp | talk 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not about what's at cork! It's about what (if anything) is in the dab link at the top of cork (city), and what the target should be for any other links that are deliberately links to the disambiguation page. Both MartinRe and I interpret that the guidelines say that there should be a redirect named cork (disambiguation), and that any links deliberately aimed at a disambiguation page should be links to that redirect. Then any link that goes direct to cork is obviously a mistake that should be fixed to point to the proper article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't agree. We need to focus on our website's utility for users, not its conformance to your interpretation of policy. --Guinnog 08:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what's being discussed here. No one is suggesting that Cork should be a redirect, which seems to be pschemp's objection, and objecting to something which is not being suggested is moot. Cork (disambiguation) is the redirect I am referring to, which is existing quite happily now pointing to Cork. My point is that links to the dab page should point at the (disambiguation) page (which redirects to the main page) to avoid ambiguity. This is in line with DAB guidelines WP:DAB#Links_to_disambiguation_pages, and yes, the current situation is confusing, as outlined above. Not majorly, though, as it's only one link out of many, but it is ambigious. Lift is a similar case, there is a page Lift (disambiguation) which redirects to Lift but if you look at whatlinkshere for lift, you cannot tell which links are correctly targetted or not without checking them all - any everyone else doing disambig fixing has to do the same, again and agains and again. This repeated wasted work can be avoided by following the dab guidlines, which removes that ambiguity. Linking explicitly to the dab page via a redirect does not remove any utility from users, but does make work a lot easier for everyone. So is removing ambiguity and reducing the amount of work for people a bad thing? I do get the feeling that the recent page fracas around Cork is clouding peoples judgement somewhat, as the Dab guidelines are clear on this, and also have solid reasoning behind them, so seeing people arguing for ambiguity in dab links is disappointing. Regards, MartinRe 09:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Sorry but it would have helped if you had made it clear that you were only talking about links on the tops of pages to begin with. Stop being dissapointed and start communicating better. (and thank you to scott for pointing out what you were discussing.) I wasn't the only person who thought what I did. Anyway then, go nuts. pschemp | talk 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I have no strong opinion as to whether the article should be at Cork or at a disambiguated title, but using Cork (city) as a disambiguation form goes against the convention described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). As such, I've moved the article to the correctly disambiguated title of Cork, County Cork. Warofdreams talk 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there isn't a consesnsus for that, nor are the naming conventions settled for Irish articles, I've reverted your action. pschemp | talk 04:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, you didn't even do the move right (forgot the talk page), nor did you volunteer to fix the thousands of links you changed. As I see in your contribs you are on a bit of a move tear. Hope you plan to do those moves correctly plus fix all those links too. Please don't attempt this again.pschemp | talk 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "nor are the naming conventions settled for Irish articles". There has been a clear consensus on this for almost two years. It is stated on the policy page which I have linked to. If you plan to propose an alternative convention, then you can do so there, but until and unless the convention is changed, we should use the existing policy. Cork (city) is entirely wrong, and you can see that no other place in Ireland uses this formula. While I'm amazed that you object, as you do, I'll leave this article until the dispute over whether to disambiguate is decided. If it is decided to disambiguate, then I'll propose this move, which should be pretty uncontroversial. Warofdreams talk 05:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got to wonder if its been so clear for two years why the issue has been discussed here for two years, but its obvious you haven't read the talk page here, so I'm assuming if you had, you would have just put out the proposal without making the move first considering the long long discussions going on here. Also if you had read it you would have noticed Cork already is a disambig page. I appreciate your zeal, but this is a special case due to the massive conflict already going on. pschemp | talk 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue which has been discussed for two years is whether Cork should be a disambiguation page. The question of which title should be used for the article should it be disambiguated has arisen only in the past month. I had missed this, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Warofdreams talk 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I might like to point out, that just for the sake of sanity, leaving it as Cork (city) might be the best course. It's borderline guideline at best that it should be Cork, County Cork]], and this talk page is chalk-full of flame wars over the naming, including a universal dislike of Cork, County Cork. Besides, they're right, and it's ugly. This looks like the perfect time for WP:IAR - changing this title just might be enough to send some people away from Wikipedia forever (I'm not joking about this). Is it really worth losing and offending some valuable editors so that the name, which looks ugly anyway, can fit the guideline? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The city of Cork is not in County Cork. Instead it has equal status with the county. In effect, the city is a county. So more properly then it might be titled Cork, Cork. Now thats one we never considered. Frelke 07:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the answer then. If its not in the county, then that particular naming conventions simply doesn't apply. pschemp | talk 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's not in the county, then that's correct. But is it in County Cork, or did the 2001 changes remove it? If it was removed, the article on County Cork should be edited to make this clear. Warofdreams talk 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That was being claimed by User:Djegan iirc. See the Cork (city) talk. Maybe someone needs to bitch at the Irish noticeboard. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion between county and city

I have been trawling thro' User:Spellmaster's link fixes post-move and have come across a few where the original intent in using Cork is unclear. I am not sure if the original contributors meant to point to the county or the city. Most of the articles in question seem to be bios, where it said X was born in Cork, Republic of Ireland. Most can safely be assumed to refer to the city, but in many/some I would suggest that they may not necessarily be verifiable. In those cases disambiguating the link adds an air of verifiabity to the entry that it probably doesn't deserve. There was probably an amount of inherent ambiguity in the original link to Cork that was sufficient to assist a knowledgeable reader in interpreting the information. Can anyone suggest a way - other than adding a {{fact}} to each one - in which the reader can be warned that reliance on the information as-is may be a mistake? Any suggestions? Frelke 14:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Most non-Irish bios which link to Cork (city) can't "safely be assumed to refer to the city". Mother Jones sticks in my memory as one that is clearly intended to link here, but probably shouldn't: "near Cork" → County Cork. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The article Cork was the city only for quite a while - there was no ambiguity. My understanding of Irish English is that if the author meant in the county (not the city) they would have said "...born in County Cork". Am I wrong? If a further fix is required, I think I'm also responsible for some of those changes from Cork to Cork (piped link). I'm happy to "fix" /tag them if required. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As Angus says, I don't think it is safe to assume that an editor would necessarily make a distinction between the county and the city when writing. And even if they wanted to, it is highly likely with historical articles, bios or otherwise, that the information is not verifiable. Have a look at Finbarr[1][2]. I'm not sure what Finbar was a bishop of in the 6th century but my guess is that it was not just the city. It might have been the county or the diocese. But when it was just Cork there was sugfficient ambiguity in the name and link to allow someone with a midicum of intelligence to say "Hey. This has linked to the city. I wonder if that is correct?". But now we have a situation where the link has been updated and points definitively to the city which adds an air of verifiability and respectability to it that it probably doesn't deserve. Some of this is semantics, but it is also about accuracy. I am convinced that in this case a revert to Cork would be an improvement even if it was not definitive. Frelke 14:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than linking to the disambig page at Cork which includes other uses not related to Ireland, would it be better to introduce a page at Cork, Ireland which contains links to both Cork (city) and County Cork? This could either be a simple disambig page, or could discuss the history of the borders and relationships between the entities. any ambiguous links about people who were bork in "Cork" clearly mean some interpretation of Cork, Ireland, not any other meaning listed in cork (disambiguation). What do you think?--Scott Davis ^Talk 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is sort of what I had in mind. I'd like to see something similar elsewhere. Can you think of anything comparable? Frelke 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the Cork, Ireland (or, perhaps, Cork Region?) idea... --Serge 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Frelke, I can't think of an exactly analogous situation (where the city and the county surrounding it have the same short form of their name). There's Kingston, Australia and Kingston, South Australia which are both narrower versions of Kingston, but the targets are not adjacent areas. There are also examples like the metropolitan area of Adelaide is much larger than the central area governed by the City of Adelaide which includes the Adelaide city centre. In that case there is no separate dab page, but the most general article is the one with the shortest/simplest name. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is the city and county of Los Angeles. Currently, Los Angeles is a redirect to the article about the city, Los Angeles, California, but I've seen it suggested that Los Angeles be a separate article about the area known as "Los Angeles" with appropriate links to the city and county. --Serge 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly routine to have cities and counties with the same name in the U.S. For example, these counties in California all have cities with the same name (usually the county seat).

• Santa Barbara County, California
• San Diego County, California
• San Bernardino County, California
• Sacramento County, California
• Orange County, California

It may be because the cities were often founded before the counties. -Will Beback · † · 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've created a disambig page at Cork, Ireland. Further discussion about that page should continue at talk:Cork, Ireland. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "I was born in Los Angeles" or "He was born in Orange" mean? The suggestion here is that "I was born in Cork, Ireland" might mean either Cork (city) or County Cork, which are adjacent to each other, but the larger does not contain the smaller. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In the context of, "I was born in some city", one might not even mean the county with the same name. People born in the San Francisco bay area might say they were born in "San Francisco", even though they were not born in either the city or county (in this unique case, the city and county are coincident). There are other contexts in which this happens too, of course. One might say he is flying to San Francisco to visit his friend, when he actually means he is flying to Oakland to visit his friend in Pleasanton. --Serge 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the city in the county? Facts, please.

Some people repeatedly assert that the city of Cork is not in County Cork based on the premise that the city government is at the same level as the county, as if that is a condition that is unique to Cork. As far as I can tell, the Cork situation is normal... the city is within the county, but the county government only has jurisdiction over areas within the county that are not governed by municipal governments. That is, the geographical boundaries of the city are within the geographical boundaries of the county - the size of the county includes the size of the city, the population of the county includes the population of the city, etc. Can anyone cite any facts on this question? --Serge 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the city of Cork is as far inside the county of Cork as Lesotho is inside of South Africa or the Vatican is inside of Italy. Frelke 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• The population of South Africa does NOT include the population of Lesotho; the size of Lesotho is NOT included in the size of South Africa.
• The population of Italy does NOT include the population of the Vatican; the size of the Vatican is NOT included in the size of Italy.
• The population of County Cork DOES include the population of Cork (city); the size of Cork (city) IS included in the size of County Cork.

I don't understand the comparison. --Serge 17:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"The population of County Cork DOES include the population of Cork (city); the size of Cork (city) IS included in the size of County Cork." Is included by whom? I'll give you a head start:

• Cork GAA includes city and county.
• The CSO preliminary census summary [3] gives figures for "Cork" and break them up "of which Cork City ... Cork County". One reason for giving a combined figure for city+county is to facilitate comparisons over the decades; the boundaries of the cities have changed substantially, while those of the counties (including the relevant city) have remained more stable.

What this amounts to is that the general public retain a sense of the reality of the traditional counties; private organisations like the GAA are free to exploit this; public organisations like the CSO may make accommodation for it, so long as the legal reality is not devalued. That does not make this in any sense official or legally sanctioned. jnestorius^(talk) 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, huh? Again, County Cork refers to a specific unambiguous geographic area. The city of Cork is another specific unambiguous geographic area. Does the area that is the county include or exclude the area that is the city? It's not a trick question. --Serge 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is not a trick answer: the area that is the county excludes the area that is the city. Just as the States of Germany include 3 cities (Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen), so the administrative subdivisions of the Republic of Ireland include 5 cities. This was dealt with above at #Is the city Cork within the boundaries of County Cork?. Read the links:

• LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 2001
  • SCHEDULE 5: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS (COUNTIES AND CITIES); PART 1 Counties; PART 2 Cities
  • SECTION 10

(2) The State continues to stand divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities which are the areas set out in Parts 1 and 2, respectively, of Schedule 5.

(4) (a) The boundaries of a county referred to in subsection (2) are the boundaries of the corresponding county as existing immediately before the establishment day and, for that purpose, the corresponding counties to Tipperary North Riding and Tipperary South Riding shall be North Tipperary and South Tipperary, respectively.

(b) The boundaries of a city referred to in subsection (2) are the boundaries of the corresponding county borough as existing immediately before the establishment day.

The Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 which established Cork as a county borough is not online, but Galway was elevated to county borough status in a similar manner by the LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REORGANISATION) ACT, 1985, from which I quote (with added emphasis) Section 5:Establishment of Borough of Galway as County Borough:

• 5.—(1) On such day (in this Part referred to as the "appointed day") as the Minister shall appoint by order, the Borough shall cease to be part of the County and shall, as on and from such day, be an administrative county of itself, and be called the County Borough of Galway.

Can we go home now? jnestorius^(talk) 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that contrary to your suggestion that things are unambiguous the fact that we are here discussing it shows that it is not. I would suggest that I have an opinion as to which includes what, and you may have a different one. "Officialy" they are separate entities.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frelke (talk • contribs).

[4] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

These would be the relevant sections og the LG(I)A, 1898:

69(1) A place which, for the purposes of this Act, is a part of an administrative county shall, subject as in this section
mentioned, form part of that county for all other purposes, whether assizes, sheriff, lieutenant, custos rotulorum, justices,
general quarter or petty sessions, jurors, militia, police, registration, coroner, clerk of the peace, or other
county officers, or otherwise, and a sheriff and lieutenant for the counties of the cities of Belfast and Londonderry may
accordingly be appointed in like manner as for any other county of a city named in section four of the Municipal privilege
(Ireland) Act, 1876, and as respects the sheriff in the manner of the said Act provided, and a sherrif and lieutenant
shall cease to be appointed for those counties of cities and towns which under this Act do not become county boroughs.

... (section 69(2) deals with Tipperary being one county although two adminiistrative counties, and with parliamentary counties)

69(3) The court house of a county at large, when situate within a county of a city or town, shall, while it continues to be
such court house, be deemed to form part of the body of such county at large; provided that if any court held for the
county of the city or town is held in such court house, the court house shall then be deemed, for the purpose of the
jurisdiction of the court, to be part of the body of the the county of the city or town.

The boroughs constituted county boroughs (and thus "counties of cities or towns") were listed in Schedule 2 (Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Londonderry, Waterford).

As I read it, county boroughs were constituted distinct counties separate from the "counties at large" for all purposes. Legally the two county boroughs in Northern Ireland are still separate counties.

Lozleader 09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As a postscript to the above, I would add that the LG(I)A 1898 differed from the Local Government Act 1888 which established county boroughs in England and Wales. In that Act county boroughs were specifically included in the counties they lay in geographically for purposes other than local government. The Irish Act did the opposite. Lozleader 10:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think you guys are confusing the administrative boundaries of a county with the geographical boundaries. There is no question about the fact that an incorporated municipality is outside of the administrative domain of the county in which it lies geographically. There is nothing unique about Cork or Ireland in this respect. But that fact does not make it untrue to say that the city is in the county. Unless someone can show otherwise - on a map showing the county of Cork the area where the city is is not covered - I think it's important to correctly convey the facts in both the city and county articles: the city is in the county. --Serge 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"geographical boundaries"???...what have they to do with County Cork, or are they even applicable (or is it even a widely used term, is it a term you made up so you could go on and on....)? Face the reality; cities and counties are political units created for the service of man, they are are not actually marked on the earth. Do you understand what the term enclave means? Djegan 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "in" alone has too broad a meaning to be of any use discribing the relationship of the city and county here in a clear and meaningful way, remember "be precise when neccessary". Djegan 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge: if you're looking for such a map, Google Earth has city and country boundaries. And like Djegan I have no idea what you mean by "geographical". You say there is nothing unique about Ireland in this respect. As my Germany example has not impressed you, please give an example from outside Ireland of what you have in mind. Perhaps Basel-Land and Basel-Stadt? jnestorius^(talk) 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're having trouble understanding the meaning of "geographical boundaries", maybe google can help:

Results 1 - 20 of about 863,000 English pages for "geographical boundaries"

Cities and counties have boundaries that can be drawn on a map - that's what I mean by "geographical boundaries". On every map of County Cork I can find, like this, the colored area representing the county includes the area within the boundaries of the city of Cork. Can you find a map, or information in any form, that indicates the area covered by the geographical boundaries of County Cork do not include the area that is within the boundaries of the city of Cork? --Serge 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you actually define the term "geographical boundaries" - since when did google prove that its valid in this case or is even a recognised term? I think you are confusing geographical boundary (a sea, lake, ocean, i.e. something geographical) with that of an administrative or political boundary. Djegan 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More on the boundaries of County Cork:

Cork, a maritime county is in the Province of Munster, the largest in Ireland, is bounded on the north by Limerick, on the east by Tipperary & Waterford, on the south by the Atlantic ocean and on the west by Kerry. [5]

Therefore, the area circumscribed by the city boundaries is part of the county. --Serge 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What this underlines is that the city of Cork is not in (i.e. within) County Cork (the administrative county). The city is by the sea and the boundary of the county does not include within it the city of Cork. The city is on the edge of the county and outside it. Case closed. Stop flapping you wings. You have essentially proved yourself wrong. Djegan 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Flapping my wings? What are you talking about? I'm just asking for verifiable facts. Again with the tired "administrative county" point that no one is disputing? How does what I quoted "underline" that the boundary of the county does not include within it the city of Cork? Here, by the way, is another map of County Cork, this one from county-cork.com, that clearly includes the city within the county boundaries (in green), and even lists the "city of Cork" in the list of what is IN the county. --Serge 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you need proof then click to this[6]. The city boundary is the red broken line[7]. Its a very detailed map, composed of many "tiles". The city is by the sea, the city is not in (i.e. within) the county. Djegan 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how the undisputed facts that (1) the city has a boundary, and (2) the city is by the sea, are relevant to the issue of whether the area circumscribed by the city boundaries lie within or outside of the area circumscribed by the county boundaries. This map (nor any other map that I've seen) does not show that the county ends at the city boundaries. Arguing that the city is outside of the county because the city has a boundary is like arguing that the county is outside of the country because the county has a boundary. It makes no sense. --Serge 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you have missed a very large part of what has been discussed here already on this talk page, and discussed intensively. I recommend that you review it. The city is not in the county, the city is not within the boundary of the county. Djegan 19:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read it all. It's mostly empty assertions claiming "the city is not in the county" without any supporting facts. There are some facts that indicate the city is not within the administrative domain of the county government which are not relevant to the issue of boundaries and whether the city is within the county or not. Let me ask you this: what county is the city of Cork in? a) it's not in any county (like Berlin is not in any state because it is a state itself) b) County Cork c) other. If your answer is (a), then why are there so many references to the city being in the county all over the internet, and why are you unable to find even one source that supports what you are saying: that the city of Cork is not in County Cork? --Serge 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you prove that their is a different county other than that as defined by law? Obviously you have missed the whole point that a city in the Republic of Ireland is not part/within a county. Cities (except Kilkenny) are separate to the counties of which they bear the name. You would of been correct before the 1898 Act, but obviously things have changed and that has passed you as well. Sigh. Djegan 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're the one missing something. What you're missing is that while Ireland changed to a more common type of system where cities within counties were no longer within the administrative domain of the county government, that did not remove the cities from the counties: the cities are still within the boundaries of the counties in which they lie. It is still correct to say that the city of Cork is in County Cork. It is still correct to write, Cork, County Cork:

Results 1 - 20 of about 16,400 English pages for "Cork, County Cork". 

--Serge 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats what this is all about, your absolute inability to let "Cork, County Cork" non-sense drop. You need to move on. As for the rest of what you said, can you prove it? Because I can prove (see above) that the city and county are not one, Cork is not within the boundary of County Cork; if you take the time to read and understand previous comments then maybe, finally, you can comprehend that. Djegan 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The proof is that on every map of Cork County, without exception, the area where the city of Cork lies is included, not excluded, in the shaded part of the map that represents the county. Therefore, the city is in the county, period. --Serge 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you actual prove "every map" and "without exception"? I think not. Djegan 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

By "every map" I obviously meant "every map I can find or has been presented here". Of course I cannot prove that there is no map out there that shows what you claim to be true - for I cannot prove a negative. But it's on you to produce such a map. In the mean time, my contention that no such map has been shown to exist stands. --Serge 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If "Cork, County Cork" is "nonsense", why are there over 16 thousand pages on the internet that reference it? Your assertions that it is nonsense, no matter how many times you repeat them, without basis, do not make it true. --Serge 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Internet searches can "prove" all sorts of things. But does it pass WP:VERIFY? Djegan 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it "proved" anything. I'm asking for an explanation. My explanation is that the refererence "Cork, County Cork" is not nonsense. What is your explanation? --Serge 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of this article states: [The city of Cork] is the principal city ... of County Cork. How can the "principal city" of a county be outside of that county? --Serge 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will put a {{fact}} on that, if a appropriate citation is not forthcoming it will be removed. Thanks. Djegan 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Cork is not the principal city in County Cork, what is? --Serge 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Does their have to be a principal city in a county? Does County Meath have a prinicipal city as well. Their is no prinicpal city on County Cork. You contention is naive. Djegan 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That'a fair answer. If Cork is not the principal city of County Cork, then it's reasonable to conclude that the county has no principal city. But that's a big "if". --Serge 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing that does strike me is that Serge has not actually proven what he contends, but expects everyone else to prove what already has been proven. Selective reasoning and vision? Yes he has produced a few internet search results, without any specific citations. A commercial holiday website that "proved" his case (I could create my own website, of better standard, and manufacture my own "facts" and "proofs"). Unless he provides sound facts and proofs I suggest that he return to whatever he was doing before he opened this fork. All I see is his self-held opinions and blatant dismissal of the sound facts others have contributed. Djegan 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've provided several links to maps of County Cork, both official and tourist, that show in shading that the area where the city lies is included in the county. You have not been able to produce a single map that shows that the city is not in the county. Not one. You have no argument whatsoever. --Serge 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You have not accepted the map above I linked to (that shows the city is not in the county - notwithdstanding the other written sources), but obviously that would disprove your tired attempt at developing a theory that suits your own ends. Yes, "blatant dismissal of the sound facts others have contributed" is your lot. If you have anything sound to add I will reply to you, otherwise I will ignore your essay. Anything else is paramount to trolling. Djegan 21:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, Djegan, what do you mean I haven't accepted the map? I accept it. I acknowledge it shows the city has a boundary. So what? How does that show that the city is not in the county? Which facts that others have contributed have I dismissed? This whole section is supposed to be about facts that show that the city is not in the county. You've contributed facts, but not facts that show that the city is not in the county. None. Nada. Zip. --Serge 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You really dont know what your talking about, just making it up as you go along. Or trolling? Enough said. Djegan 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, please stop making claims for which there is no basis. You made the claim that the city is not in the county. Now, back it up with facts, and list them below. Your claim always seemed odd to me, so I researched it. All I can find are facts that are contrary to your claim, which I've listed below. Please stop making claims for which there is no basis. Thanks. --Serge 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering all thats been discussed this is absurd (and what is below is even more so). Its not flame war its a fiasco. You clearly do not known the difference between opinion and fact. Your hung up on Cork, County Cork and cannot get over it. Your arguement is one sided, and a one-man (or one-woman show). Do you thrive off of this sort of thing, i.e. conflict and disagreement. I suspect so. Djegan 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a fiasco. Its like saying because people in the UK still use miles, feet and inches they are not officially a metric country. Wrong. David D. (Talk) 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Except the big difference is that one can find evidence supporting the claim that the UK is officially a metric country, and it is very difficult to find evidence that indicates that the city of Cork is not in Cork County. --Serge 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to me to suggest that the city of Cork is not part of Co.Cork. Would you similarly suggest that Dublin City is not in County Dublin? Or would you argue that "County Dublin" does not exist as there is no such administrative entity? Irish Local goverment divisions are important but comparisions to regional or national boundaries as given above are not really useful. Halib Frisk 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I have just gone and looked at the Dublin pages as I guess I should have before posting here and it appears that "County Dublin" indeed no longer exists! It seems to me that the traditional 32 counties have an existence separate from the legally defined local government areas. It also seems that clarity has been lost (as in the Dublin articles) where precedence is given to local government boundaries, which after all are subject to frequent change at political whim over the traditional counties. I lived in the same house for 30 years, the local government changed from Dublin Corporation to Co. Dublin to Co. Fingal but I always always aware that I lived in Co. Dublin. Would your logic lead to replacing Munster, with "Southern & Eastern Region" in the Cork (city) article? Halib Frisk 08:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cork is in Cork County? List of facts only.

Is it just me or is this quite absurd considering all thats been discussed? Djegan 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts that indicate city of Cork is NOT in County Cork

No one fact constitutes proof. But we should be able to assemble facts that indicate whether the city is part of the county or not, and see if one side or the other is more compelling. --Serge 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please include in this section only citations of facts that indicate the city of Cork is NOT in County Cork.

1. County Cork website lists county population to be 324,843 (in 2002)[8], which excludes the population of the city of Cork.
2. Rather than enter a senseless and borish tit-for-tat I am not going to repeat the points that prove that the city is not in the county, authoritive sources, including acts of parliament and official maps have been cited. The issues have been fleshed out in the talk page above but one editor is refusing to accept any of them and I suspect trolling at the heart of it. Its seems that we were guarenteed perpetual voting until it was made clear that that was unacceptable to vote on facts. If anyone else has serious doubts about the city your invited to make you case and I will respond. Thanks. Djegan 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Facts that indicate city of Cork IS in County Cork

Please include in this section only citations of facts that indicate the city of Cork IS in County Cork.

1. Reference to city of Cork being principal city of County Cork[9].

   Thats a commerical holiday website, and not a particularily good one. If you want to use it as a reference dont be surprised if it gets removed. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Again, none of these prove anything by themselves. But the preponderance of references like this, compared to the apparent dearth of any contrary evidence, speaks volumes. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Various maps of County Cork that show the Cork city area to be part of the county [10] [11] [12] [13].

   Those maps are just dot indications of the location of the city and show no boundaries of the city. Cork is a small city but non-the-less has boundaries distinct from the county. You have a understanding of mapping that leaves a lot to be desired. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   If you're correct, then it should be easy enough to produce a map that shows the Cork City limit boundary to be coincident with County Cork boundary. Cork is small, about one 200th of the size of the County, but that's still big enough to show up as a different color on an accurate map of the County. Why are there none? --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Another map of County Cork, this on the official County Cork site, that includes city area[14].

   Same as point 2. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Ditto.

4. County Cork boundary description that includes area where city lies[15].

   Its an extract from a 1931 publication, need I say more. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Are you claiming that the city was part of the county in 1931? --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Reference on County Cork council site about providing service to the "South Cork City Hinterland" area[16].

   County Councils often supply services to City Councils because many cities are not big enough, the concept of been a agency or contractor comes to mind. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   This is true in the U.S. as well, where cities that are not governed by the county government are still considered to be in the county. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Over 16,000 references to "Cork, County Cork" in google [17].

   Their are "8 billion web pages"[18] that google searches so whats your point (I am sure 16,000 could "prove" just about anything)? Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   The point is you won't find any references to "Cork, County Limerick". Do you know why? Because Cork is not in County Limerick. It's in County Cork. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Reference to "Cork City area" being in County Cork[19]

   Another misinformed holiday website. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   So you say. Based on what??? --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

8. A reference in a report to the Cork County Development Board states: "Cork City is a key Urban Area in Cork County..."[20].

   Actually one source from a public body, now I am impressed but they do not override the fact of the law. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   A fact you cannot cite! --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

9. "Cork City is the second city of Ireland. It is the first city though of County Cork in which it rests."[21].

   Its a one page website, prob waiting for someone to actually buy and use it, so its hardly a source. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Better than anything you've got. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

10. This statement, "At 2,878 sq. miles, Cork is the largest of Ireland’s counties. In the most southern part of the island, County Cork has a total population of a little over 420,000 of which approximately 127,000 live in Cork City."[22], by including the city population in the county population, clearly implies that the city is in the county.

    Another of your holiday websites. I am sure if I looked that I could find many instances of Northern Irelands population been counted in Irelands population (remembering Ireland is the name of the state and island). Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    Isn't it interesting that all of these holiday sites somehow happen to make errors in favor of my position, which you claim is wrong (I guess we're supposed to take your word for it?), and none are consistent with your position, which you claim without basis is a "fact of law". --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

11. Cork County Council Headquarters are located at the County Hall in the city of Cork[23]. Of course, it's possible for a political headquarters to be located outside of its boundaries, but it's unlikely.

    County Halls of Ireland where often located in the city of the same name and outside the county they served. But that does not prove that the city is in the county, merely that county hall is in the city. Its an anomaly. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    For the headquarters of any political entity to be outside of the area that it governs is very strange indeed. Again, it's not proof in and of itself, but combined with all these other points, and in the absence of but one counter-point, it's quite compelling. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Archive this page?

If their is a consensus I would like to archive this page completely, to this point. Its increasingly clear that its of little benifit to anyone at the moment as its just been used as a loop for endless discussion, off topic. We need to starts a new slate. Wikipedia is not a democracy and it is not a blog either. Djegan 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe archive back before the is-a-county nonsense? I'll do it and add the proper {{archivebox}} if you like - Alison^✍ 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer the whole page as one editor is inclined to believe nothing excet his own spin on things, irrespective of the sources presented and endorsed by several editors previously. We need to move on. Djegan 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Serges answer to everything is a vote which is very unhelpful and not conducive to implementing WP:VERIFY correctly. Djegan 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Alison, Djegan keeps reverting my edits and I don't want to get in a revert war with him. If you look in the history that he keeps reverting, you will see my comment in agreement with the archiving, even most of the "is the city in the county" discussion, except for one section. I'm asking for the one very short section entitled Talk:Cork (city)#Cork is in Cork County? List of facts only. (and its subsections) to not be archived. It's a brand new section from today, and took me considerable time to put it together. I really don't want it archived. My solution was to move that one section to the bottom of the page, but, again, Djegan keeps reverting me. So, please archive all of the article naming stuff, and, if you want, most of the city/county stuff, except for this one section. Thanks. --Serge 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge I have reverted your latest edits because you seem intent on perpetual voting until you get your way. Its one thing voting for the article name, but voting to "prove" factual accuracy is a serious misunderstanding of wikipedias policies and not acceptable.You need to read and understand WP:VERIFY. Thats why I think we should archive this whole page.

We need closure on these votes. Otherwise, if need be an admin will have to be gotten involved. People need to be realistic. Djegan 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What votes?? I just closed the one and only strawpoll. --Serge 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing some common sense to prevail. I am going away for now. Djegan 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge please respect the talk page and stop frustratning process by moving sections around, I will report you for 3RR or vandalism if it comes to it. Djegan 02:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, the reason you gave for reverting me before had to do with "perpetual voting" (even though the section I moved had nothing to do with voting). All I want to do is preserve a list of facts relevant to the unresolved issue of whether the city is in the county or not. Why are you reverting this move? It's not like I won't recreate that short section here after the archive if it gets archived. It's a brand new section from today. There is no basis to archive it already. --Serge 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge you need to get real. Ultimately it is your integrity, not mine. If you dont want certain sections to be archived say which but that does not guarentee anything if it is archived, etc. But stop moving around sections en-masse. Your "facts" are misinformed and misinterpreted in some cases. I am going away now. Djegan 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys can't even agree on how to archive the page??? This is just unreal. I'm going to wait a while and see if I can compromise somehow and get the job done. Do we need to put this to a vote or a strawpoll, hmm?? - Alison^✍ 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think rather than archiving the discussion it should all be moved to Talk:Counties of Ireland as it is only relevant there. The point arose here only from the debate over whether "Cork, County Cork" was a good choice for renaming the article. Since that debate is over, the question is irrelevant. However, the distinction between the legal definition of "County" as one of 29 current units of local government, and the traditional/historical definition of "County" as one of 32 former units, is one worth emphasising: not to denigrate or deny the reality of the latter definition, but rather to clarify it, and to avoid misunderstandings and Ohyesitis-Ohnoitsnot tedium on Talk pages. I suggest it's time to split Counties of Ireland into separate articles Historical counties of Ireland and County-level divisions of the Republic of Ireland. jnestorius^(talk) 11:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? What is the PURPOSE of this "City in/not in County" discussion? Are we trying to move towards a NEW page move? To "Cork, County Cork"? As has been discussed (for reasons I am still failing to grasp) over the last *2 MONTHS* (a discussion which has involved dozens of contributors and 10s of thousands of words) "Cork, County Cork" is NOT a valid or appropriate name for this article. Can we just leave it as it is, and go back to using this talk page as a forum for discussing how to IMPROVE this article? And not as a forum for discussing endless MOVES? Guliolopez 12:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The only thing this discussion has to do with naming is that it originally came up during the naming discussions (it was argued that "Cork, County Cork" is not acceptable because Cork is not in County Cork). My interest in this issue is with respect to improving the article: I think the article should clearly state, with citations, which ever it is. It should say Cork is, or is not, in County Cork. Or, if it's a known ambiguous situation, then it should say that. --Serge 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugenots

Just a note to ask someone in the know to add in a bit about Cork and its Hugenot heritage. Thanks--82.14.83.232 10:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] website

Could one of the editors of the Cork City main page advise me how to get Chenta Music School's new website listed? It really is a great site and of interest to young Cork people. Thanks, 213.209.180.50 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Ed

If it's only of interest to young Cork people, it's probably not appropriate to be referenced in Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:External links. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "Nightlife" section

I'm removing the Nightlife subsection as I think it's absolutely pointless, it's just a list of pubs and clubs in Cork city. I think expanding the "Culture" section into something more like the Culture section for Dublin city would be more appropriate. There's very little mention, if any, of Corkonian writers (eg Frank O'Connor), Painters, Playwrights, the music scene or theatre, etc, in Cork. I'll try to expand it along these lines and it'd be great to get some help... Andrewharrington2003 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)