Talk:Dublin/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Edits 2 External links 3 An Dubh Linn 4 History? 5 Tallest building 6 Liberty Hall 7 Northside Vs Southside 7.1 An outsider's perspective 8 The City of the Ford of the Reed Hurdles 9 dublin's modern culture 10 Population Breakdown 10.1 Populations 10.2 Population (again) 11 Entertainment section 12 "Eblana" 13 Opening paragraph 14 The infobox 15 D4 16 DART 17 Pictures/Layout 18 Southside Northside 19 Moved Sections 20 Population figures 21 Cable Car 22 Geography of Dublin 23 Disambig 24 The only city in Leinster? 25 Economy/Industry/Retail 26 Maps - transport, demographics 27 Baile Átha Cliath 28 Climate 29 Blanking 30 Government - City 31 Location map 32 CFD 33 Cities in Ireland 34 Climate of Dublin 35 West Dublin merge 36 U2

Edits

I changed the link Penny Ha'Penny to Ha'penny based on Google searches that indicated the latter. There was an already an existing page for that, so I liked to it. -- Decumanus 06:15, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I introduced a paragraph mentioning Ballyfermot in order to advertise that I have created a new page for this suburb.--Attila the Pooh 11:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

External links

Wanted to add external link to the Dublin page, www.freedublin.com. It's a non-profit site, it simply aims to capture and share free events and attractions in Dublin giving visitors and locals an opportunity to get to know and enjoy the city without getting ripped-off. Some of the other links here are much more commercial. I think its a nice fit...feedback much appreicated.Damien71 22:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Damien71. Welcome to Wikipedia - A good place to start for the guidelines around adding external links is at Wikipedia:External links. Pay attention to the "What should be linked to" and "Links normally to be avoided" sections. A quick review of these guidelines might confirm for you why your link was removed.

The simplest point from these guidlines that I can point out to you is that "Links added for promotion of sites are not appropriate". Wikipedia is not set-up to promote sites or act as a linkfarm for "associated topics/sites". If an editor felt that the link to your site was added purely for promotion then that may explain its removal. (See also Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming). If you added your site for promotion then I would recommend that you instead look at the various resources on the web which give suggestions on marketing/promotion and improving ranking in search results.

In general only links to official sites which relate to the topic are considered appropriate. Hence the link to the official Corporation site, the official Bord Failte site, etc. Alternatively if the article references a source from an external site it may be appropriate to link it, or if the site contains more extensive reference material related to the topic.

Per the guidelines - even if the website is considered appropriate based on the above - it is not generally acceptable for the person who owns the site to post it. This is because of POV concerns.

Hope this answers your question. Guliolopez 13:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

–Hi Guliolopez Ok, I respect your feedback and the guidelines. I will be adding relevent content to my site and perhaps an opportunity will exist again. However, The sites already linked have real no substance just ads for hotels, tour passes etc, they may be be a recognised body but it's just marketing, this would seem to conflict with the guidelines. Damien71 10:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

An Dubh Linn

Someone changed Dubh Linn to An Dubh Linn, but I amn't sure "an" is a word in viking.Notjim 09:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dubh Linn is Irish, not Viking, but the "an" is unnecessary/incorrect. zoney ♣ talk 11:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you suré, if it was Irish it would be Linn Dubh no? I always believed that Dubh Linn was viking but the words were cognate to the Irish, however, i have no real facts.Notjim

Dubh Linn is Early Irish and correct. The vikings called their settlement there Dyflin, an attempt at saying the Irish name and with no other meaning in any Scandanavian language, as far as I know. An linn dubh would be modern Irish for the black pool, not a placename, just a noun phrase. Filiocht 11:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks.Notjim 12:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Viking Dyflinn [dyvlinː] was not "an attempt at saying the Irish name" but rather the perfectly regular sound shift from Proto-Norse Duƀlinn [duβlinː] through i-umlaut u~i [u~i] > y(~i) [y(~i)] (here with preserved i) and dentalization ƀ [β] > f [v]. Cf. Proto-Norse uƀiR [uβirʲ] > Viking age Norse yfiR [yvirʲ] (the preposition 'over').

Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 21:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Just a minor correction. The article says the Irish is 'Baile Átha Cliath' or 'Átha Cliath'. The former is correct but the latter should of course be 'Áth Cliath', as 'Átha' is the genitive i.e. 'of the ford'. This is true regardless of how many cringe-inspiring Dublin jerseys have "Átha Cliath" on them. Correctly when we are talking about the city and county- i.e. all of Dublin- it should just be Áth Cliath. Or else, for instance, 'An Charraig Dhubh, Contae Átha Cliath' or 'Sráid Uí Chónaill, Baile Átha Cliath'.

"indeed, the letter 'y' is still pronounced like the vowel in 'ewe' in Modern Norwegian, Swedish, etc., just as it was in Old Norse; Icelandic, while keeping the spelling, has changed this sound to /i/". This statement is wrong. Can we get rid of it? The letter "y" in Swedish is not pronounced as the English "u".Pikiwedian 12:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

History?

IMHO, The History section seems a little too focused on Architecture. There's more to Dublin than its buildings. Seabhcan 13:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The history section is too long, I want to create an article History of Dublin and place most of the text in that, with a paragraph overview. Many other capital and large cities (Paris, London, New York) have similar entries, with a very short entry in the main article so that history does not dominate the article. Any attempt to edit already gives a 32kb warning - any pointers? Djegan 17:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

have moved history to History of Dublin Djegan 19:48, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as Dublin as a town (in contrast to a pre-town settlement) was founded by the Vikings and ruled by them for 300 years, i think this should take a mention in the article. User:Unregistered 17:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the guy above. Even though most of it is covered in the main article on the history of Dublin, i think it should be noted here that Dublin as we know it is a Viking settlement, and remained with them until the Normans came.

The references to Blackpool and Blackburn are red herrings and should be deleted. They are also incorrect: Dublin's lattitude is 53°20′33.98″N, Blackpool's is 53° 49.2221′N and Blackburn's 53° 44.6973′N: while one might have a case for linking Blackburn & Blackpool, no such excuse exists for including Dublin in the list. bpmurray 12 Aug 2006

I agree. I've often thought that this "coincidental fact" had little place in this article - Largely because I thought the "coincidence" was not notable. Now that you've confirmed that the "fact" part is also dubious, then it should probably be removed. Guliolopez 10:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tallest building

I believe the recent edit is correct (Liberty Hall only tallest in Dublin not the country), is not County Hall in Cork taller? Where does the new Clarion hotel in Limerick rank? Also curious as to the new tall building being built in Limerick. zoney ♣ talk 14:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Liberty Hall

Liberty Hall, at 59.4m, is shorter than Cork County Hall, at 64.3m. One George's Quay Plaza, also in Dublin is 58.8m; The Clarion Hotel in Limerick is 53m, and Riverpoint, also in Limerick, will be 58.5m.

Northside Vs Southside

More than enough information about North Vs South. I don't see how the North Vs South divide is significant enough to have two or three paragraphs dedicated to it, where as the Culture section is just two or three statements! Just my personal opinion! <unsigned>

---

Actually it is crucial. People make a big deal of which side they live on. A comparison between the rents for property on the north side and south side shows it. It is even shown on the LUAS, where the quality of workmanship in the finish is far superior on the green line than the red line. (One uses high quality bricks, the other a mixture of cheaper bricks and concrete 'made to look like bricks' cobblestones. And as a user of both lines, as so many others have joked, you get blonde Dublin 4 babes working on the green line, fat forty year old men working for the company on the red one. And the line was supposed to go to the Airport and was to be the only exclusively northside line mysteriously disappeared from the plans.)

When elected president of Ireland Cearbhall O Dalaigh made a big point of noting that as president for the first time in his life he'd now have to live on the north side!!! Major businesses deliberately locate on the southside. Government departments prefer the southside. (The Dept of Health preferred to move to the hideous office block on Hawkins Street than continue to share the Custom House with Environment. One of the reasons, as a mandarin noted, was because at least in Hawkins Street the department would be Dublin 2 not Dublin 1 (even numbers = southside, odd = northside). There was an outcry when it was suggested that the Abbey Theatre relocate to the southside because it was felt that most major cultural organisations were on the south and the north had to hold onto whatever crumbs it had.

Similarly while planners went out of their way to protect Dublin's three large southside georgian squares (Merrion and Fitzwilliam, and St. Stephen's Green) they let the finest of the original five squares (Mountjoy) be largely demolished, while much of Rutland/Parnell is in fact phoney georgian pastiche covering modern office blocks. While they rigidly protected the gardens in the two major southside squares, they allowed Mountjoy's to become a ghetto and Rutland/Parnell to be built over. And they allowed the Mater Hospital to demolish one whole side of a famed northside georgian street (Eccles St) in the 1980s while demolition of individual georgian houses has not been let on the southside since the late 1960s.

As a Northsider I think this article exaggerates the North/South divide. For example, I don't think that this description of Mountjoy Square is correct. Much of the Square is in fact original, namely the East and West sides; the North Side has been replaced at the Southern end, but the Southern side is also mostly intact. Also, the argument about the LUAS might have some relevance if it weren't for the fact that the Red line only travels on the Northside for a little over two miles - the rest of the route is on the South side.

Perhaps the biggest divide in Dublin now is between the East and the West? Bteeling 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dublin Bus has been accused to running its best buses on the southside, and did in a Newstalk interview admit that southside buses kept better time than northside ones, because (being newer) they broke down less often, they travelled on better streets and there were more of them, even though with lower average incomes on the northside it would be expected that it would be more public transport-friendly than the car-orientated southside. Even the law clearly is applied differently!

I could go on. In reality the division between both is notorious. It has existed since the Earl of Kildare moved southside to build his new palace, Kildare House (now Leinster House) and the cream de la cream of society followed him, leaving the northside to the poor. Northside retained pockets of wealth (Howth, some small sections of the georgian city, the Viceregal Lodge/Aras an Uachtarain) but for the most part it was far far poorer. The difference was even marked in terms of prostitution - northside prostitutes were located around Monto (Mountgomery Street), Europe's largest red light district until forcably closed down in the 1920s. Today places around Collins Barracks are the working class red light district, whereas the middle classes who pay for sex go to Fitzwilliam Square and the Grand Canal. Apparently the difference is even shown in the prices charged for sex northside and southside!!!

Hence the joke - what do you call a northsider with a job in UCD (on the southside)? The Cleaner. What do call a southsider with a job in the Four Courts (on the northside) The barrister/judge FearÉIREANN 19:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, but it is a pity that the culture section is inadequate. Filiocht 08:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

What about the IFSC on the North Side? An international money-powerhouse. And all the great buildings & bars going up on the banks of the "Wiffey"? Matthk 13:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

An outsider's perspective

NvS is definitely an issue in this city and thus requires a mention but it doesn't need to be half the article. I know a south sider who works as a receptionist who believe's she's superior to a coleague who works as a software engineer (and a contractor on €400 per day) because he lives on the north side. I know a north sider who is very much put out by all of the NvS stuff but believes she is superior to country people... and she considers Galway and Cork people to be country people. I know a very talented phycisist from the Finglas who decided to leave trinity to study in maynooth (during her pre-grad days) due to the prejudice. Harvard is doing very well to have her now. This is a section well and truely open to non-NPOV edits and it needs to be carefully policed in my opinion. Factoid Killer 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you main point but having studied in Trinity I find the story of your friend from Finglas very hard to credit. How did the "prejudice" manifest itself? --Ryano 13:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

She claims she was looked down on by the other students. People were asking if she was there on some sort of special scholarship when in actuality she'd scored extremely high in her leaving cert results. She certainly wasn't getting the respect she deserved for her academic acheivement. She chose to move to Maynooth after putting up with this sort of thing for a year. Trinity made it difficult for her to move but when she told them that no matter what happened she wouldn't be attending lectures at trinity any longer they conceded. In her final year she was selected to do some summer work with NASA. She's now doing a PHD in Boston. The work she's doing is in conjunction with UCD. She forced UCDs hand to allow this move to Boston for similar reasons (that's where she started her PHD work) but also because the equipment she had access to there was sub-standard in comparison to what she currently has access to at Harvard.

Spose I should add that i'm an Australian citizen and have lived in Dublin for a bit over 3 years. I live on the south side and my fiance is from the north side. Factoid Killer 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted that section yesterday was that I though it was a dreadful torturous trawl of the worst kind. Coming from outside Dublin myself and having lived in it for two years one has to wonder what is the agenda of someone who bangs on about the difference, considering theirs so little. Often I think that because the idea of social class is not prominent in Ireland then North vs South and Country vs City are the class conflicts - if they were not them then it would almost certainly be Pot vs Kettle! Djegan 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your reversion. I'd also like to add that I much prefer my work life here than that in Australia. But that may be because, as an outsider, i'm excluded from Nvs City v county bias. Ask any ozy about this sort of thing and they'll probably claim this sort of thing doesn't go on in Australia but that's a load of crap. Some people have such a great talent do delude themselves that they'd find any reason what so ever to claim superiority. It's usually those with the most unlikely claim who are the most vocal at asserting it. Factoid Killer 10:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The City of the Ford of the Reed Hurdles

Is the 'Reed' really needed? It may be more 'accurate', but it does not reflect common usage. Filiocht 11:29, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

dublin's modern culture

the entry needs a section "modern culture":
cinema, night clubs, dating services- the section should be suitable for age ranges under eighteen.

and information about europe's largest brewery, but i am not from dublin.

as far as i can see, dublin has more than historic writers (which have their place), museums(good for one day/year) and so called ghey's. there are people "prefer not say" and these would probably like to visit dublin.

Akidd_dublin 200501261250

Most of the information you proprse would be better situated for a travel guide and not an Encylopedia. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 16:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

to express it politically correct, the entry should contain information which is specific for dublin. most big cities accomodate special population groups. generally, its a wrong way to split up (a travel guide) into sections for young children, elders and people with handicaps.

the UGC is visited by thousands each day, and worth mentioning because it's part of the infrastructure.

entries i miss: guiness brewery, the spire and much more!Akidd_dublin 200502131006

It's an encyclopedia not a tourist guide!! People going to the UGC or using dating services is NOT relevent! Paul75 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Population Breakdown

Could anyone break the population down into the percentages of different sexes, ages and races etc like other cities?

will anyone mind if i add a note that the population of greater dublin is 1.5million? reply in 24 hours or ill take it no one cares

If it is placed in the right context (i.e. clearly stated what is meant by Greater Dublin) then I think it is not an issue - however as their is no "Greater Dublin" legally it might be more appropriate to state in County Dublin the population of that well defined area. Djegan 20:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no greater any city legally! If this figure is to be used for Dublin it will break from the standard set from EVERY other city article in Wikipedia. For the population of the City of Dublin we have a separate article relating to that municipality just like we have one for the City of London and the City of Sydney. Factoid Killer 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This IS the City of Dublin article - as unlike London, theres no seperate City (Cities in its case, actually) and area, hence only the actual population should be quoted. The concensus is for that, not what you want, and its unlikely to change. --Kiand 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Its obvious to show that this is an act of severe desperation when you pronounce that User:Kiand and User:Djegan are one in the same user[1]. Well their is always Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser if your that desperate. Djegan 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to take out a map of Dublin, that shows official boundaries, and see how large the City of Dublin is in the county. Two articles would be a pointless exercise in duplication - their are already well defined articles on County Dublin and Greater Dublin Area. The City of London is tiny compaired to the City of Dublin. Gain some perspective, check the official figures and official sources. Greater Dublin Area encludes Meath, Louth, and Dublin and is far to big to be introduced on infobox in any meaningful way. Any figures apart from those of the city are just used to "sex-up" the city figures. Dublin is not London. Djegan 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph gives a diverse range of figures beyond the city, the infobox should not be a dumping ground for city egos. Djegan 20:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can be shown by the fact that other editors have maintained the status-quo, not the dubious claim that I am a vandal by maintaining it. Their has never been a calmour to the contrary of the status-quo, see Talk:Dublin#Population_figures, Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Issues_with_population_information, Talk:Cork#Population, Talk:Cities_in_Ireland#ROI_population_figures for specifics. Djegan 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if anything, the consensus has been that only the city figures - that is of the city as by law defined - should be included and that no other figures such as county, town, greater area, metropolitan, etc should be included as to do so gets away from the focus of the article. This article has always been about the City of Dublin, never about some vague entity that includes the counties of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, and Wicklow - the Greater Dublin Area. If you want County Dublin, Dublin GAA, Greater Dublin Area - follow the links. Djegan 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree This article should only have the city population shown because the article is for a defined area and so should the population be too. Besides which the Dublin Region and Greater Dublin area populations are in the article text. ww2censor 02:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree Per User:Djegan, and previous consensus discussion (even on this Talk page at Talk:Dublin#Population_figures), the population of Dublin city is (per 2002 census) 495,781. Certainly, the population of the Greater Dublin Area and Dublin Region are higher, but these figures are tracked (correctly) in the articles for those areas. Reversion of numbers relating to the region beyond the city is not vn, rather in keeping with consensus on this issue. As this consensus was agreed prior to more recent edits, and if felt the discussion should be reopened, please consider doing so here before adding in pop figures for "Greater Dublin Area" or "Dublin city and wider extra-urban area". Guliolopez 09:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree Reasons as above. Ecozeppelin 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Populations

Okay, since there is a lot of arguement over the population figures in the infobox, I think is should be discussed here what to do. Maybe a poll would be relevant? Just to clarify -

• City of Dublin - 495,781
• Dublin Urban Area - 1,004,614
• County Dublin - 1,122,821
• Greater Dublin Area - 1,565,446

Personally, I think all the above popualtions should be included. There boundaries are set by law, so they're all official and accurate as they are from the same census. Other articles (such as Stockholm and London - London's populations are only estimates aswell...)do it so why not Dublin? Jvlm.123 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost this article is about the city (this has always been the case), their are other well defined articles for County Dublin and Greater Dublin Area - focus on expansion should be on these - the Dublin article needs a rewrite not a redefinition. Reading thru it makes much to be desired. The article exceeds the 33k limit and expanding its remitt or that of the infobox is not a good idea. Dublins population is that as found at the Census 2002 as conducted in accordance with the law, not an estimate.

The article is about the city - the infobox is about the city and its crest, motto, map, coordinates, area, population and website - all relate to the city and not County Dublin or Greater Dublin Area - so why make an exemption on the population figures - because of our egos?

The cities of the Republic of Ireland are well defined (their boundaries can and have changed) and the city of Dublin is a large city by area (compaired to the tiny City of London) - lets not try to pretend that County Dublin and Greater Dublin Area are part of it when they clearly are not - those two places have their own identity.

What next - including Northern Irelands figures in the Republic of Ireland infobox? What if I want to include the crest of the defunct Dublin County Council (because it relates to County Dublin) or a map of County Meath (because its part of the Greater Dublin Area)? No. Lets stick to the facts and not the fiction. Djegan 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've included sections in the article that summarise the Dublin Urban Area, County Dublin (Dublin Region) and the Greater Dublin Area, I hope this clears things up. However, I would appreciate it if someone could possibly improve the sections - the are under the "Government" section. Jvlm.123 15:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we give an authoritive source that their is a "Dublin Urban Area" - that is to say - a place that can be well defined and shown to exist as a political, geographic or other such administrative area - google only shows 76 hits[2]. Its not enough to show that their is an "urban area" of Dublin thus their must be a "Dublin Urban Area" as a matter of course - are we introducing terminology from Northern Ireland, viz Belfast Metropolitan Urban Area and Derry Urban Area and applying these to the Republic of Ireland? we are not in the business of inventing terms, sources please. Djegan 18:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On furthur research formal Urban Areas seam to be common in the United Kingdom - Sheffield Urban Area, Nottingham Urban Area, Liverpool Urban Area, Greater London Urban Area, Aldershot Urban Area, West Yorkshire Urban Area, etc - in short are we applying terminology of the Office for National Statistics, United Kingdom on the Republic of Ireland? An authoritive source is a must if the "Dublin Urban Area" terminology is to be retained. Djegan 21:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth noting their is a Dublin Metropolitan Area. Djegan 23:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mention that though is there a population figure for it? Here is also a source for the "Dublin Urban Area" population - http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&des=gamelan&dat=200&geo=-102&srt=pnan&col=aohdqcfbeimg&pt=c&va=&geo=516005375 Jvlm.123 08:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats not an appropriate source as it does not mention "Dublin Urban Area"; the CSO Census 2002 Volume 1 Population Classified by Area gives 1,004,614 as the population of Greater Dublin Area (in the census this denotes "Dublin City and its suburbs" but has fallen out of use with the wider definition of Greater Dublin Area) the same as your "Dublin Urban Area". I am going to rewrite the Government section as I think it is expanding in an inappropriate manner. Djegan 10:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

For all of this defining the Dublin City Council area as the "city proper" is inaccurate. Ask (apparently almost) anyone in Dublin and they'll tell you the population's around a million. It's unnecessarily technical to require some kind of administrative boundary to define what Dublin is. Surely we should give more weight to what most people consider Dublin to be. We don't even have to engage in guess work; the CSO offer a clear definition of what suburbs are included in Dublin. What's more the use of the word "conurbation" implies that there is more than one city which form the Dublin urban area. Caveat lector 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Population (again)

I have reverted the changes to the infobox as this article - like it or not - is article is about the city and that is the city that Dublin City Council have administrative effect over. The boundaries of the city are clearly defined in law and on maps, but putting in values for "Urban Area", County Dublin and Greater Dublin Area is a pseudoscience and ego trip. This issue has been extensively discussed on these and related pages as can be seen above. In any case the third paragaph quotes additional figures for outside of the city of Dublin. I have no problem if people want to mention additional values in the narrative (as part of general discussion) but putting them in the infobox is a step to far (the infobox is about the city - its name, arms, map, location, area, population and website).

Administrative areas outside the city, viz Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin, are simply too diverse and different from the city to simply and ambigously "drop" these values into the infobox to bump up numbers. Boundaries are not a minor technicality that can be ignored, if we were to open that door then why not include the population of Northern Ireland in the Republic of Ireland? I am sure their is enough pov warriors out their who would agree. Djegan 17:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to see a 495K figure for the population for Dublin as in currently in the infobox. If anyone asked me the pop of Dublin I would say over a million, and I would be thinking of either the Metropolitian Area, or the Greater Dublin, not sure which, but I would definitely not be thinking of the population of the Corpo area. However, I see that the intro paragraph gives all the figures for all those 'other' areas, so I think the lowever figure in the box is ok, as long as there is a ref note to explain which area it refers to, and as long as the other pop figures are also given in the article. The same situation exists for the Los Angeles article - the city 3.8m - given priority in the infobox, the county 10.2m - not listed at all in the article, and a Metrop Area 12.9m (or 18m) given secondary priority in the infobox, given priority in the intro para in the article. If the infobox template is too limited to provide the info needed, then you could modify it.--Rye1967 01:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it is understandable that urban Dublin has approx one million people what people dont seam to understand is that this article is not about urban Dublin - its about the city of Dublin the capital of the Republic of Ireland. The consensus on this page has been that this article should be primarily about the city and not urban Dublin. Anyone who is familiar with Dublin knows it is a sprawling city and urban area but that does not mean that we give a misleading definition of it. Anyone that thinks that Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, Dun Laoghaire, Howth, Ronanstown and Tallaght (to name just some of the main urban areas that form part of urban Dublin) should be included in this article (about the city of Dublin) or its figures needs a reality check. Dun Laoghaire for example is all but a city/town in its own right, Tallaght is the other side of the M50 like many other of the aforementioned, most of the others are in the former Dublin County Council area and where in open country until relatively recently. Their in urban Dublin by chance - if people want to start a urban Dublin article they are welcome - we already have County Dublin, Greater Dublin Area and Dublin Metropolitan Area - diverse views and facts are not been repressed here, just focused in the appropriate articles. The Oireachtas decides on the boundaries of cities of the Republic not lets get the population figure up to one million by any means cause it makes us feel more superior.

The consensus is shown in this and other articles referenced above. I have a 1:50,000 map of Dublin on my wall and I suggest anyone in doubt do likewise in the first instance and gets an idea of the diversity of the city before dispatching on a quick fix. Djegan 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I continue to agree with Djegan on this. While (as a Dublin resident) I know that the population of the greater urban area exceeds 1MM, this article is not about the wider area. It's about the city proper - as defined by the relevant statues, and should include the pop figures that reflect those boundaries. (In the same way that the Los Angeles article refers to the city population as 3.8MM, though we know that the LA super-urban area has a pop exceeding 12MM. Guliolopez 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Entertainment section

...seems to have some spurious text that I wouldn't know what to do with. -- Beland 05:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"Eblana"

The earliest reference to Dublin is in the writings of Ptolemy around the year A.D. 140, who calls it Eblana. The name Eblana is close enough to Dublin (shared b, l and n) to cast doubt on the derivation of Dublin from Dubh Linn - the name could not have mutated from Dubh linn into Eblana and back to something very similar to the original. This suggests an alternative unknown derivation for the name Dublin.

I don't get why this is considered a reasonable objection. Who said that Dubh Linn was the original name? Cities' names can be changed, after all. Isn't it possible that the Irish renamed the settlement at some point after AD 140? - Nik42 19:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with Ptolemy's map. Its said to be from 140AD, but the only copies in existance date from the middle ages. Most of the information in these maps certainly dates from 140AD, but it is highly probable that extra, new information was added to these copies. Afterall, these copies were not made for scholarly reasons, they were made to be of practical and current use. There is no evidence, in my understanding, that Ptolemy knew of Dublin. Seabhcán 07:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The earliest written reference to Dublin appears to be found in the writings of Ptolemy around the year A.D. 140. He refers to a place calledEblana, along the east coast of Ireland. The sounds of "Eblana" are phonologically close enough to either "Dublin" or "Dubh Linn" that 'Eblana' could easily be a Latin form of 'Dubh Linn,' especially as the Romans would not likely know the significance of the dot over the 'b' any more than the English did.

The above is all just too dotty for words. But here are a few from me, anyway:

1) Ptolemy was a 2nd-century Greek and wrote nothing that we know of in Latin.

2) He wrote his geography at least 500 years before anything in Irish was written down in script.

3) Even when Old Irish did come to be written down, lenition of "b" was, in any case, not marked by a dot: it was not marked at all!

"The Romans" (who were never in the picture anyway: the first person after Ptolemy to resurrect "Eblana" in print was a 16th-century Paduan, nearly 1500 years later) were hardly in a position to be influenced one way or the other by the peculiar features an alphabet that was several centuries in the future! -- Picapica 18:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Can somebody have a look at Eblana. Apart from it is probably orphaned now, the content appears to be doubtful.

You're right: it does need attention. It has the same faults as the section on Eblana here, e.g. Ptolemy [...] calls it Eblana Civitas. Oh, no, he doesn't! That was Giovanni Antonio Magini again - his interpretation of Ptolemy. I'll add this to my to-do list too, unless anyone else wants to get there first. -- Picapica 19:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph to an article should be a really snappy summary. I've had a go at decluttering it, but only succeeded in revealing how thin it is. Is there a Jackeen in the house who can write some really punchy copy? --Red King 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The infobox

Doesn't this look kinda low-quality (the shield I mean)? Revolución 06:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ireland city infobox

D4

Does Dublin four really need it's own subsection?

Is someone taking the piss?

"Dublin's middle class liberals are often described as Dublin 4, referring to one of the city's wealthiest postal districts"

Shouldn't that read, middle and upper class, and as a Dubliner, I've never heard of D4 being referred to as the liberals or even as a descriptive word for a liberal type of attitude?

"which the studios of Radio Telifís Éireann, the national broadcaster are located, as are a number of respected schools, colleges and a university. The modern campus of University College Dublin is located on the boundary of Dublin 4 and Dublin 14."

This could be in the seperate sections belonging to both RTE and the universities. Seems just like padding for a fairly self aggrandising sub section on a part of Dublin that does not deserve it's own section unless it's to mention that it holds possibly the road with the most expensive property prices in the city.

"In actuality, the term Dublin 4 or the abbreviated D4 can refer to any middle class Dubliner from the Northside or the Southside or in many cases to simply an attitude that can be found anywhere in Ireland."

What sort of nonsense is this? To wider Dublin, the term D4 is used as a derogatory term, relating to the rich upperclass / upper middleclass people out of touch with the wider city. Also, tell a Northsider he's from Dublin Four and I doubt they're going to take it as some sort of compliment on their liberal views?

"Many politicians and political commentators live in Dublin 4, while Dublin 4 traditionally takes a strongly liberal stance in referenda on issues like abortion and divorce."

The minister of Justice lives in Dublin Six, does that make it worthy of a sub-category? This is complete nonsense.

"The area is also associated with a distinctive accent (not actually particular to the district) which can be pleasing to some and painful to others."

You are taking the piss, aren't you? This can't be a serious wiki-entry?

I find ir astonishing that any Dubliner has not heard of what of D4 as a definition of upper-middle class liberal intelligensia. It is used throughout the media, politics, sociology, etc. Alice Glenn (remember her?) used to slate what she called the Dublin 4 mentality. It is a perfectly serious wikipedia entry. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)}

Regardless of the content or aspect of the "D4" subsection, it is way too long in the context of the general "Dublin" article. It should be summarised and merged to the "southside" discussion in the adjacent section, and themain body should be moved to the standalone "Dublin 4" article. This may happen by natural progression/edit of the main body. However, if not, I will likely action myself. Guliolopez 16:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

DART

Allow me to indulge in a little native scepticism.

The line, 'The Dublin Area Rapid Transit allowed the city to have a transport system suited for any modern European city,' is nonsense.

The DART is a single line that runs along the Dublin Bay coastline, serving principally affluent (quelle surprise!) suburbs. Otherwise, Dublin City's public transport comprises buses, which are extremely unreliable due to gridlock caused mostly by private cars, and a couple of token tram lines. Most Dubliners have no access to reliable public transport, and by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the transport system is 'suited to any modern European city.'

The offending sentence strikes me as having been inserted by a public relations person, and should be replaced by a more honest assessment or, at least, simply deleted.

I agree totally. Ill change it Boldymumbles 19:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures/Layout

In contrast with a common complaint of "not enough rich content", this article and it's readability suffers from an oversupply of pictures. Removal and/or reorganisation of a number of images from this page would (IMHO) benefit the article greatly. In particular:

Image titled: "The Four Courts" - is not relevant in context and screws up layout.
Image titled: "Áras an Uachtaráin" - is not relevant to context of "Dublin 4"
Image titled: "The interior of a georgian mansion in Dublin" - is completely pointless

Will likely affect changes to layout in these areas if not otherwise cleaned up as part of "normal" updates.Guliolopez 15:59, 29 July 2005 (UT

I can see Irish parliament columns sitting on top of the table of contents - it really does need reorganisation. --Henrygb 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As with my earlier note (above - 29 July), I get the impression that some users (no fault/blame) are adding in their own personal photos. Granted these photos may be good - however they do not always add to the article, may not be appropriate to the general context, may be misplaced within the article, or may cause layout problems. For all these reasons, I'm going to take this example out again. (FYI - This photo already appears in the Irish Houses of Parliament article. However, if it is felt that such an example is needed in a more general "Dublin artitectural" context, it may be appropriate to add to the Dublin wikimedia image page, rather than this Dublin article.) Guliolopez 02:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Their is a Photographs of Dublin already which maybe of some use. A lot of these cities of Ireland articles seam to suffer from a creeping expansion. Fundementally what is needed is subarticles such as "Culture in Dublin", "Education in Dublin", "Government in Dublin", "Infrastructure in Dublin", etc; the current article is 31 kilobytes long, something which is generally frowned on. Djegan 19:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures have too much grey cloud etc. Even though there are a lot of pictures, quality of same is not that great. For example, the Halfpenny Bridge picture is taken from too far away to mean anything much to browser, that's just one example. You decide! Red blaze 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Southside Northside

Would it not be advisable that the section on Southside/Northside be moved into the relevant articles, with overlaps eliminated. Obviously some expositon of the differences side by side is essential, but is it absolutely neccessary to replicate the contents of the two articles within the main Dublin article? As noted, this article is overlong and overlarge, while lacking somewhat in contemporary content. I'm sure a more experienced editor could perform this excision and re-editing much more effectively than myself... Boldymumbles 23:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved Sections

I've moved the "Name" and "History" sections up to the top of the article. It makes more sense to explai nthe origin of the city surely before moving on to anything else? Jdorney 13:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Population figures

The population figures in the first three paragraphs are a gross misrepresentation of reality. The City of Dublin's population as at the last census was 495,781; quoting figures for the Dublin Region and Greater Dublin Area and "sprinkling" in words like metropolitan and urban (in order to editorialise) is misleading to say the least in order to double and triple the real value. Djegan 20:18, 14 January 2006

RE: Continuing edits made by anonymous user 68.237.200.230

Please either:

• stop your continuing and repeated edits to reflect inaccurate and misleading numbers, or
• provide authoratative sources which support your definition of Dublin City as spanning the entire Dublin Region, or
• open a discussion on this talk page as to why you feel the numbers are appropriate.

As has been noted by other users, the population of Dublin city is (per 2002 census) 495,781. Certainly, the population of the Greater Dublin Area and Dublin Region are higher, but these figures are tracked (correctly) in the articles for those areas, and should not be referenced here. Your continuing edits are approaching breach of the Three-revert rule. Guliolopez 20:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cable Car

Where are the sources for the Cable Car mentioned on the Dublin article? Posted by 62.231.39.14

Here's something: http://constructireland.ie/news.php?artID=3437 --A bit iffy 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Also see image on irish-architecture.com/news. At the moment seems like conjecture to suggest that such a project would ever get the go ahead. Based on artists rendition of pylons, I can't (in my opinion) imagine the project gaining either public, goverment or planning support. If no update in news or other sources within the next few months, would want to consider removing reference from this article. Guliolopez 17:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It was featured in the Irish Times a few weeks ago, but at this stage it's only a plan, so I don't believe it merits inclusion in the article, certainly not under "public transport". Plenty of other proposals have been made for transport projects in Dublin, e.g. water taxis on the Liffey, if we were to include them all there would be more info on what isn't in Dublin than what is. I've removed the reference on that basis, comments welcome. --Ryano 17:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree with removal - As noted in comment above, need to be careful about including "planned by unconfirmed" initiatives (either public transport or otherwise) until they have passed some definitive planning or development milestone. Guliolopez 18:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree remove, should not be speculation. Djegan 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Geography of Dublin

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

I noticed that someone added a blurb on the climat of the city, and that got me thinking, not that it allways a good thing, how come no secion on the geography of the city. I am not sure their would be much to say, but thinking about the Liffey, Dodder, Bull Island, the park, the Bay, as well as maybe enviromental conserns.?? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Any geographers with knowledge/interest to start Geography section? Possibly including detail on:

• Climate,
• City area (Size/Coverage),
• Flat w/low built buildings (unlimited by physical barriers except sea?)
• Rivers. Floodplain. Restrained by quay walls/embanking
• Mountains/Hills
• Sea & Dublin bay. Deposition and NorthBull. Howth peninsula?
• Geology. Soil/etc? (and influence on recent tunneling?)
• etc?

Guliolopez 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambig

Since there are so many pages (Dublin and disamiguation of the article, Greater Dublin, and County Dublin, should we make the default article name (Dublin) the disambiguation and change Dublin to Dublin (city)? —CliffHarris (-T|C-) 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, being that the name for pretty much all other dublins throughout the world, as well as most of the terms, derive from this city, and that i would say by far, that htis dublin is the most notable on a world scale then any of the others listed. As for the disambiguation, their is not even that many listed. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also recommend against. For the reasons noted by Boothy443 above, it is most likely that the article about Dublin city is what most users will be looking for when searching/clicking/linking to Dublin. The dablink to Dublin (disambiguation) at the top of the article should suffice or anyone who has landed on the page by mistake. Guliolopez 11:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm against this as well. By far the most common meaning of "Dublin" is the city. --A bit iffy 11:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also Oppose for reasons already mentioned. ww2censor 05:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All those reasons are fine with me. :) —CliffHarris (-T|C-) 02:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also against it, the city is the most common usage of the term "Dublin", those who mean anything else are going to use the specifics. --Kiand 04:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The only city in Leinster?

Regarding Dublin being the only city in Leinster I think this is wrong on potential two grounds. 1. Kilkenny is a historic city, abeit not a county borough but definitely a city none-the-less. 2. Waterford is a city in its own right with a legal and geographic characteristic independent of the county. To the best of my knowledge the city is also zoned north of the river Suir, which would have formerly comprised of county Kilkenny - a county in Leinster. The provinces are historic, theirfore modern boundaries (of counties) are of little relevance. Djegan 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Kilkenny is a city in Leinster, but Waterford is a city in Munster. Seabhcán 20:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Economy/Industry/Retail

Should there not be sections on the economy, industry, and maybe retail of Dublin in this article? Jvlm.123 08:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What could be valueable is an Economy of Dublin (or Infrastructure of Dublin) article and remove most of the section apart from a brief introduction. But it would be a challenge. Djegan 19:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Limerick has a good layout with sections on industry and retail. The style could be repeated here. Seabhcán 20:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Maps - transport, demographics

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

I'm trying to visualize the layout of the city and especially its transport networks. It would be very helpful if there were a map showing how all the various rail lines and major roads are spacially related.

I was also surprised that there is no section on the demographics of the city. A population density map would be quite useful to illustrate the urban growth that is mentioned in the article. -- Beland 03:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Baile Átha Cliath

Isn't this gaelic, not irish. AFAIK Gaelic (sp?) is the official name. DannyM 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, its not. "Gaelic" these days is a term almost solely used by people in the UK and the US, in English its the Irish language. --Kiand 16:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I work for an Irish software development company selling software to both Irish and British Clients. We actually had to localise the language so that British customers see the term 'Gaelic' and Irish customers see the term 'Irish' to depict this lanugage. It's a contentious issue but I believe that using the same argument the brits use to suggest that American English doesn't belong in the London Article, the Irish term for this language (which IS 'Irish') belongs in this article. Factoid Killer 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That surprises me a little. Gaelic is even more ambiguous in Britain, where it usually refers to Scottish Gaelic. Not to mention Manx Gaelic. --Kwekubo 17:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Climate

30C maximum recorded temp? surly shum mishtake. --KaptKos 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes 30C is the highest official temperature recorded, I think. But remember, this is in the shade and in the air (as that is international standard), so the temperature in direct sunlight at ground level may be even higher (40C+). It's like this on all (offical) climate figures. Jvlm.123 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Met Eireann[3] has lots of stuff (which I should have look at first;) on this although not very up to date. They should move the monitoring station from the airport, its always bleedin freezing up there--KaptKos 10:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

I edited some of the stuff in the article as it was complete nonsense. you are supposed to be neutral not big-headed.

Any large scale blanking, without agreement, is considered vandalism. Discuss first, or risk a block. Djegan 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Government - City

I notice the section on the City Government appears to be rant on Architecture rather than politics. Caveat lector 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Section should likely be improved (summarise and link actual city government practice from Dublin City Council). Commentary on Civic offices development should be summarised, and content moved to Wood Quay. If no-one else does this, I will action myself if I get a chance. Guliolopez 11:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. (Though moved content to Dublin_City_Council#Council_buildings as detail related to all 3 relevant civic buildings and not just Wood Quay.) Guliolopez 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Location map

I've just added a map of Ireland with Dublin marked on it - it's a nifty template hacked by Croatian Wikipedians - I'll post about how to do this on Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. Meantime, dunno, but maybe this map should be integrated with the infobox? It feels slightly out of place where it is. Cormaggio ^@ 10:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. However, are we adding it just because it's "nifty"? Does it add anything more than the location map that already exists in the article infobox? If not it may be redundant... Guliolopez 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the map that's there has a miniscule map of Ireland with County Dublin marked in green, and then with an enlarged county map showing Dublin's location within the county. To be honest, I don't think it's especially clear to someone who doesn't know much about Dublin - or Ireland for that matter. I'd prefer to have both maps - or, at least, a clear map of where Dublin is in Ireland, and an indication of its spread. Cormaggio ^@ 13:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the existing location map does a much better job on your second point ("indication of [city] spread"), than the new one. There will always be a happy balance to be struck between a "wider view" to indicate position within greater geopraphical context, and a "closer view" to indicate specific position within a region, or to indicate (as you note) the spread of a city. This is why (per discussion on Template talk:Infobox Irish Place and WP:IWNB) the "two tiered" view was adopted. I'm not saying the new template does not have value (as you note, it does more easily meet the "position within greater geopraphical context" requirement), but I'm not sure it's ready to replace the existing approach. (Or at least - not in my opinion). Guliolopez 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, point taken. It's just that the geographical location of Dublin in Ireland isn't well indicated on that map at all. In fact, it's better for most other large Irish towns (eg. Naas, Fermoy), for the simple reason that the map of Ireland is bigger and that there is no doubt that this large green county map region corresponds to the smaller green one on the country map. I just think that the geographical location needs to be easier to see, as is done for English cities (eg. Birmingham). Cormaggio ^@ 11:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

CFD

--Mais oui! 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cities in Ireland

Unfortunately it appears content (irrespective of quality) is now determined by straw votes, see Talk:Cities in Ireland. Comments welcome. Djegan 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Its by consensus. The vote in question was purely to indicate consensus as you seemed to be saying that there was no consensus. BTW, have you read WP:SPAM? Frelke 07:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue is too important. If you think I have done something wrong report it to the relevent authorities. Thanks. Djegan 09:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be missing something. What is so important about this issue? Is anyone going to die if it is not solved? Is anyone going to lose their job? Or get divorced? Get it in perspective. Its a content dispute on Wikipedia. Nothing more. Nothing less. Frelke 11:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think its so trivial why did YOU turn it into a straw poll? Djegan

And endorse this pov and original research[4]. Djegan 12:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You suggested that there was no consensus. I tried to allow anybody to suggest which side of the argument they might come down on. This would indicate where the consensus lay. I acted as a facilitator. I also announced which side of the argument I sat. Funnily, thats seems to be in a different direction to your pov. How would you suggest that we establish where the consensus lies?

There are also a range of levels of importance between "trivial" and "too important" and "life threatening". I never suggested this issue was trivial. You were the one who suggested it was "too important". Peace in the Middle East is "too important". Whether Kilkenny is listed as a city on Wikipedia is not "too important". Its a Wikipedian content dispute. Not quite trivial. But what I don't understand is why you feel it is "too important". Do you feel that way when anyone challenges your pov? Or is this one specifically more important than anything else?

I happen to agree with you that we are dangerously close to original research. But I disagree with you on which version of the page should be current. I think on balance that the other version is better. But its a close call. But I think you are acting extremely aggresively on this issue and are treading very close to the line on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And that in it itself was a factor in my choice of version.Frelke 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to cities in Ireland (and indeed all articles) and thats the reason why no one will challenge the current version. Revert it if you wish, but the policy applies. If you think that I acted "extremely aggresively" make your case, but where do those two policies say that the other person has the right to endorse a particular version?

The only reason why I not reverting the current version is 1. its a reminder of whats wrong with the current version, and 2. i am content not to engage in a revert war at this time, but 3. reserve the right to implement Wikipedia:Verifiability#The policy as required. Content maybe negotiable (by consensus) but verifiability is not. Face it. Djegan 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Climate of Dublin

climate of dublin is not necessary for this encyclopedia.--Polocook 20:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that way, then you should discuss it on this page first, and fully explain the reason you believe this to be so. You did not give a valid reason to remove that section from the article. Please discuss major changes like that here. Thanks KOS | talk 01:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree . climate is not for an encyclopedia. and half of the other stuff should not be there either. does anyone agree. And i don't want a dub giving me an answer because you think ye are great.

I think northside and soutside should be deleted . this section is not for an encyclopedia. who cares about it. just because your the capital of the country does not mean you write about everything in ur wee place.--Qwertyuiopasdfgh vfen 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Some information on the climate seems to be standard for city articles on Wikipedia at least. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included. The article is too long though, some sections will have to be cut down or removed. The northside/southside thing should be mentioned, as it's an important topic in understanding the city, but it probably doesn't need its own section. --Ryano 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree, i really think the climate table with the records should be there , look at every other place where the climate is mentioned , it doesn't have a big long ,long, long, long, long ,long section on it. a table would be enough. and i also agree that the southside thing and all should be mentioned in a few lines not 50 lines......................come on now.... take wiki seriously.......... .--86.42.59.181 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Was all the reverting that occured here earlier neccessary? Its not unreasonable to claim that a statement is your own, at a later time, particularily for new editors who tend to be casual at loging in and do a lot anonymously. Djegan 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys - While I agree that the climate section is perfectly legitimate and adds value to the article, it seems to have "morphed" somewhat in the recent series of reverts. There is now a bunch of duplicated paragraphs and content. If no objections I'm going to try and tidy up. Someone may want to review to verify that I havn't removed anything I shouldn't have. Guliolopez 15:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

West Dublin merge

User:Lisamh (who seems particularly interested in merges) has suggested a merge of West Dublin into the Dublin (city) article. Personally I disagree. The Dublin article is about the city proper, and West Dublin is beyond those bounds. In its current form I think that the West Dublin article should (instead) just be deleted. It's got no references, refers to an entity undefined in any device anywhere, deals in POV and is subjective in the extreme. (It also doesn't really have much value, as the suburbs it suggests it includes are already well covered in their own articles, and the wider context of the article - "General Dublin geography terms" - is already covered by Greater Dublin Area, Dublin Region, Fingal, Dublin postal districts and the other constituents of Category:Geography of Dublin). Thoughts? So we can remove this merge tag? Guliolopez 12:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion and I will support that based on your reasoning. It really is no of much use at all. ww2censor 13:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - Done. Have nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Dublin. Guliolopez 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The afd ended and the result was to merge anything useful to this article. Based on the discussion here, I've just redirected without merging (since it would appear that anything merged would probably be removed anyway), but if someone who knows better would like to look through the history of West Dublin again and determine if anything could be salvaged, it would be appreciated. Thanks. - Bobet 09:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

U2

U2 (the band) came frome dublin, so does anyone think they should get a quick mention with a link?

Stwalkerster 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) no-the-muffin-man- 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)