Talk:Douglas, Cork

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Untitled

I've put in a population figure of 23,193. This is arrived at using the population of Douglas in County Cork and the population of the Tramore A, Tramore B and Tramore C electoral divisions in the city from the 2006 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irlchrism (talk • contribs) 18:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

Is Christ the King in Douglas or Turner's Cross?Irlchrism 16:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas, County Cork. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228012914/http://www.cork.anglican.org:80/Parishes/Douglas.html to http://www.cork.anglican.org/Parishes/Douglas.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hi. Lack of cites or evidence of independent notability notwithstanding, in their current form, the Grange, Cork and Donnybrook, County Cork articles seem to have more than a little overlap with the (main?) Douglas article. And indeed each other. The four merge/redirect criteria (summarised in WP:MERGEREASON) all seem to be largely met. At least to my understanding. In that there is a lot of overlap in the subject matter, duplication in the text, and redundancy in contextual terms.

Where two articles substantively cover the same stuff, a merge is often appropriate. However, before agreeing consensus on whether or what to do, we'd ideally have a quick discussion about it.

For myself I think a merge is appropriate as much of the content in, for example, the Grange article would seem to relate to amenities which are more central to Douglas (St Columba's School, the Credit Union, etc). If Grange extends this far into Douglas proper, why is it covered in a stand-alone article? In the reverse, the Douglas article includes details of amenities (SuperValu, Aldi, etc) which are also then covered in the Grange article. It all seems quite redundant. (The Donnybrook article has similar issues. In that it seems to exist simply to list a few amenities on Donnybrook Hill - some of which (like Ballybrack Woods) are covered in at least one of the other articles.) In general, unless the Grange and Donnybrook articles can be expanded (so that they are more than white or yellow pages listings of an general area), I'd advocate a merge/redirect.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, both the Grange and Donnybrook articles are completely uncited and read as directories for shops in the localities. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 21:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Douglas Credit union GRANGE OFFICE)AND The school is not in grange it is nearby)I DONT THINK YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO EDIT IMPORTANT INFORMATION ESPECIALLY YOU ARE NOT FROM THE AREA OR COUNTRY ,YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED ))— Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs)

Hi. JackW436.

RE "You are not allowed". Last week you claimed (with no hint of explanation) that your contributions were subject to "racist discrimination".[1][2] This week you claim (with no hint of irony) that others' contributions are invalid because they are "not from here".[3] Brushing past the hypocrisy, I would point you to the guidelines on civility and ownership of articles.

RE "Douglas Credit union [and] school [are] not in grange". This would seem to be an argument against covering these amenities in the Grange article. And confirmation of merge-able overlap in the content. If you feel the articles should be retained separately, then please advise why you think this is the case. If you feel the articles should be merged, then please (as you seem to have already) provide additional input accordingly.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to note that according to the website, Douglas Credit Union does have separate offices in Douglas, Grange and Passage West/Monkstown - however, this still doesn't change the fact that Grange would appear to be a fringe of Douglas, and the article doesn't reflect notability) Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wasechun tashunka. That's interesting. Depending on the outcome of the discussion here, that may be something worth noting. (FYI - My proposal is in effect to create a "residential areas" sub-section in the Douglas article. And, if there's apparent CON to do so, merge whatever relevant, encyclopedic, non-"yellow pages" content is appropriate to that. And redirect). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS DOUGLAS CREDIT UNION OFFICE IN GRANGE/YOU DONT UNDERSTAND

Split Decision I'm not sure if I can give a split decision on this, but I would merge Donnybrook, but not merge Grange. In the absence of formal civic boundaries, we look to other bodies for guidance. From this, I note that Frankfield/Grange is a separate Catholic Parish, while in the Church of Ireland, the Douglas Union of Parishes is the union of Douglas Parish with Grange/Frankfield parish. From this perspective, Grange is a separate area and should be retained, notwithstanding the fact that the article needs some improvement. I can't see an argument for not merging Donnybrook; it is a residential area in the south of Douglas, with none of the facilities that would normally define a separate settlement - church, school, not even a pub.54.240.197.232 (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

Based on the inputs and apparent consensus (from at least 3 editors over the last week or so) that the Donnybrook title should be redirected, I've gone ahead and moved and copy-edited the small bit of material (nonduplicate) content to the Douglas article. And redirected the Donnybrook title. That aspect of this thread is effectively done/closed.

The consensus for what to do with the Grange title and content is less clear-cut. With at least two editors suggesting that a similar merge/redirect is appropriate. And two editors suggest there's enough distinction between Grange and Douglas to warrant a stand-alone article for Grange.

For myself, while I can perhaps see an argument for having a stand-alone article for Frankfield/Grange (as a distinct electoral ward or parish or similar), on the basis of the *current content* I cannot support that argument. (The current article content doesn't deal with Grange as a separate entity. Instead, it replicates a bulk of content from the Douglas article [incl redundant info on buses, shops, etc] and content unrelated to Grange [incl irrelevant info on school, GAA club, etc]. So on the basis of *content*, it doesn't currently stand-up.)

If someone can take a stab at improving and citing the Grange article (such that independent notability and relevance is established), then happy to revisit. Perhaps in another week or so. As CON/content/etc evolves.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's been a further two weeks since my note above. As of today, the Grange article still substantively overlaps with the Douglas article. In that the Grange article simply says that it is a residential area of Douglas (already stated in the Douglas article), lists some businesses in Grange (also already listed in the Douglas article - and bordering on NOTYELLOWPAGES anyway), lists two schools (both of which are covered in the Douglas article - and one of which is not in Grange anyway), and mentions sports clubs, bus stops, and woodland amenities (none of which are in Grange and all of which are already covered in the Douglas article anyway). As per my note above, WP:MERGEREASON seems to be more than met. If the content on Frankfield or Grange (the electoral wards, townlands, whatever) is expanded further in future, then it can readily be "split" again. Happy to hear other thoughts, but right now it seems like a fairly cut/dried merge candidate(?) Guliolopez (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I waited another few days. Haven't heard back. So have merged the relevant content and redirected the Grange title. Per the notes above, the only "new" content is the text about the satellite Credit Union office. Everything else was already covered (school, Aldi, SuperValu) or outside scope (yellow-pages listings). As above, if the scope of the content on Grange/Frankfield expands in future, such that a split is appropriate, I'll happily assist. Otherwise closing this thread. Guliolopez (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So, as an editor has decided to remove the merged content, I have reopened this thread. JackW436, can you advise please why you feel this content is inappropriate for inclusion here? Guliolopez (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then. Have afforded plenty of time for the involved editor to advise why the related content is not appropriate for inclusion here (with no response), and plenty of time for the involved editor to advise why their position should supercede the consensus discussion of 3 other contributors. And so am closing this. Again. And redirecting the titles. Again. Guliolopez (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping

Does anyone believe that article on Douglas court shopping centre and Douglas village shopping centre should be Created? Thanks ,Please respond{User:IrishJ123} — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishJ123 (talk • contribs)

Hi. As you know, an article on the latter was deleted very recently. (I say "as you know", because you used one of your various sock accounts to create that article - and you received notification of its deletion). To repeat the message you received at the time, this was deleted because it failed to demonstrate notability relative to the appropriate project criteria. Specifically, it met deletion criteria WP:A7 because WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG were not demonstrated. In short, Wikipedia is not a directory, so articles which only serve to act as a list shops do not fit within project scope. You might also like to read the WikiProject Shopping Centers guidelines on NOT listing tenants in those type of articles. In short: Unless you can explain what notability criteria such articles would meet (and how that notability would be supported), there isn't really scope (or reason) to have articles of that type. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title (Douglas, County Cork VS Douglas, Cork)

Should the title (eventually) be changed to reflect the similar suburbs in Cork city, due to the moving of Douglas and surrounding areas from the county to the city? For example, Blackrock, Cork, Ballinlough, Cork and Ballintemple, Cork. Although it is still considered in the county, the city and county are technically two distinct areas, rather than the city being in the county, and by extension its inner suburbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.240.74 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]