Talk:Cork (city)

boluxed weather table

What happened to the temperature cells in the weather table?--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested name change

To Cork, County Cork.--RM (Be my friend) 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support:

• Oppose:
  • Oppose. I cannot support the proposal. I'm also uncomfortable about starting this debate again. On the proposal itself: though not perfect, the current name is more accurate than "Cork, County Cork". (I say this because - strictly speaking - the city is actually administratively separate to the county. So, "Cork, County Cork" is problematic from that standpoint). On another debate: even though I agree that "Cork (city)" is not perfect, it was the compromise/CON label arrived at after considerable discussion - I'm not sure that another debate is going to come up with anything better. Guliolopez (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the article itself says where the city is EXCEPT for the county. Would there be any problem with changing "It is located in the South-West Region and in the province of Munster" to "It is located in County Cork, in the South-West Region, and in the province of Munster"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose It is not part of the county. The county has its own separate territory. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It's definitely part of County Cork, even if it's administered separately from the county council area. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're perhaps referring to the traditional county. If you'l read the respective articles, you'll discover that by law their territories were changed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am, didn't think that needed clarification. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support I would agree it should say "in County Cork" because it is, not merely in the south west region or in Munster. It is the capital of County Cork as it were so yes. It should say that. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

County Cork does not have a "capital". If you mean, "Where is the head office of the county council located?", then yes, it happens to be in the city. However, Cork County Council has no jurisdiction in the city because it is not part of the legal county. The city has its own geographic limits which stand outside the county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So perhaps I should have used the word County_town then where Cork city is the county town for Cork county or described it as the main town of the county. I don't think it can be suggested that Cork city isn't in Cork county because they have separate councils. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 02:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not the existence of the 2 councils per se that give rise to the exclusion of the city from the county. Rather it is the legislation and the maps defining the limits of the county and the city that give rise to the exclusion. Of course the establishment of the 2 councils occurred in the same piece of legislation. It's the law (from London) that set up the counties and the law (from Dublin) that amended their boundaries. They have no existence apart from the law with the exception of social clubs such as the GAA. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories/EPON

Given the absence of an edit summary, it's not clear what the rationale was for a recent edit which removed all but one cat from this article. Given that only the eponymous cat remains, it may be that the change was driven by a attempt to simplify the cats. However, per WP:EPON, this isn't how this is supposed to work:

an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category

Unless there was some other driver, I'll therefore likely revert this change under WP:EPON. Guliolopez (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sports

Just a thought - In the section about sports (other sports), the American Football team isn't mentioned. I don't know enough about it to write anything myself at the moment, but maybe someone else does? 159.134.11.112 (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"King John granted the city its charter in 1185"?

You've either got the wrong king or the wrong year, there.TheNusz (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:History of Cork#"Cork's city charter was granted by King John of England in 1185.". Piped 'Prince John' for 'King John', and ref'd. RashersTierney (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cork Accent over 50 years old speakers

I've noticed that older speakers of the Cork accent tend to be variably or semi-rhotic, often pronouncing the R is one word and not in another, I will try and source this an add it to the article. 195.162.87.201 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Commentary and references

Hi. In a recent series of edits a lot of additional content has been added. Which is great. But a lot of it appears to be uncited. And includes some commentary that appears to reflect the editor's opinion rather than a cited reliable source.

I have particular concerns about edits which added POV descriptions where none previously existed. This is especially problematic without cites. ("high quality dual carriageway" - high quality under what standard?, "highly populated western suburbs" - highly populated compared to what/where?, etc). Why do we even need this commentary? Stick to the facts.

Also there was a lot of content added about telecoms. In my view this content is far too extensive for a high-level article about the city (does a reader interested in the city really care about provision of ADSL2+ over VDSL2 broadband services?). And also there are very limited references provided to back-up these sections.

Unless these issues can be addressed independently then I will see about removing the POV assertions (perhaps restoring the previous), and significantly summarising the telecom stuff (to remove the extensive detail and uncited stuff). Other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Have reverted. If someone adds information they are meant to cite a source, we could tag each peice or header them, but the burden is on the editor who adds. Murry1975 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Culture sub-sections

In a series of recent edits, we seem to have gained 2 sub-sections in the Culture section. I really don't think we need these. They are redundant to existing copy and seem to have been added purely as a buffer around some new material. A (broader range) of Cork musical contributors (from RTÉ Vanbrugh to Gallagher to Sultans) are already covered just a few lines above. As is the Cork Film Festival. Unless there are other thoughts or objections, I will probably just merge the new content (such as it is) into the existing material. Guliolopez (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any other thoughts (or objections) to merging the new stuff into the existing content (and excising the redundant/duplicated/uncited content), so I've gone ahead and made the changes. (and also reviewed some of the other subjective/commentary content in the section) [1] Guliolopez (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Culture/demographics

In a recent edit we removed a chunk of stuff from the "culture" section. I can perhaps surmise why some of it was removed (esp the stuff about "French restaurants and kebab places" - as if that somehow suggested "cultural melting-pot"; or the stuff tipped a little towards WP:UNDUE, and unsupported by more recent census demographics). I wonder however if some of it has a place in the demographics section? Including the more properly cited stuff? Would be interested to hear any other thoughts - before I see if any of it is salvageable for the demographics section.... Guliolopez (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"We" removed it as factious. The claim that Cork's heritage is somehow informed by Huguenots is prima facie ridiculous. The removed text got worse from there. You are free of course to continue to wonder here and argue for the reinstatement of wrong text, or WFT? Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

RE: '"We" removed it as factious'. I said "we", not in an attempt at factiousness, but in a deliberate attempt to avoid a confrontational or partisan tone. Clearly my attempt at inclusivity was taken for exactly the opposite. I will try harder.

RE: 'Cork's heritage is somehow informed by Huguenots is prima facie ridiculous'. I don't disagree. As noted, I don't have a concern with the removal of this text from that section. Just that perhaps some the other text might have some limited value. Perhaps elsewhere.

RE: 'free of course to continue to wonder here'. Great. If I propose something for the demographics section here would you like to take a look? Or will I just take a stab in the article itself?

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

To the last question in this silly post; No. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. If I bypass (though not ignore) the tonal aspect of that input, the message seems to be that you'd rather I propose my change here. In short, I am not proposing restoring imbalanced/undue/empty text (about Hugenots or Kebabs). But thought it worth moving summarised text to the demographics section. Like:

"While Cork saw limited Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe in the 19th century, with second-generation immigrés like Gerald Goldberg holding public office, the community subsequently declined and the synagogue closed.[2][3] Later immigrant communities retain their places of worship.[4][5]"

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So, based on the feedback here, and on user-talk, I've gone ahead and moved heavily summarised/selected text (some of it previously in the "culture" section) to the "demographics" section.[6] As discussed, the stuff about Huguenots, kebab shops and French restaurants were weak indicators of demographic trends (compared to actual census numbers), and so that remains on the cutting-room floor. The text covering Eastern European and African communities was/is already covered in the demographics section. And so also didn't need inclusion/retention either. The main thing I have added/moved therefore is a single sentence on the Jewish community "history". Which I think is reasonable in the context. If no further feedback, I guess we can close this thread. Guliolopez (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox montage

Hi. An editor has suggested that the current infobox montage image could be replaced with something that is 'higher quality and easier to understand' (with a suggestion that some of the source images are 'grainy and outdated').

For myself, I think the top image of the city hall is relatively high quality, and was assessed as a 'valued image' on Commons a while back. (I would note that the proposed replacement for that part of the montage was removed from the body of this article not so long ago by an editor who felt it was underexposed/dark. As such, I'm not sure its the best candidate for that part of the montage or prime placement in the infobox). If there is a better image of the city hall somewhere (better than both the underexposed one and the "valued image" one), then the only alternative we might consider is perhaps this 'angled' shot (although that may not sit as nicely as the others).

The middle two images (market and UCC) look OK to me, so I'd be interested to hear thoughts on how they might be improved. (For myself, the proposed replacement of the English Market image isn't really representative of the subject. If someone think's "Cork English Market", I'm not sure they think the upper stories of the Princes' Street facade.)

The bottom two images (Lee and Shandon) are possibly "only OK". Personally I wouldn't replace the "distant" view of Shandon with this lowa-ngled closeup (Similar to the proposed English Market image, the angle is perhaps a bit extreme. And the subject not represented as most might perceive it. IE: Most don't see Shandon from low-angled street level). The "Lee" image probably however could be replaced - maybe with a view of the city centre....

Other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, for some reason my post didn't post and it took me a while to type, so I will just summarise what I said.

City Hall: The new image is better as it is more recent and taken from the front, so the building can be understood and seen properly. The other appeared very low quality in the montage, and the colours seemed odd.

River Lee: This image is very low quality and is not visually appealing. Being appealing is not the point of the images, but even ignoring that, it is hard to understand what the image is exactly of, and where it is. I think the best alternative would be getting one of Morrison's Island from City Hall, or else of the river from the Custom House facing City Hall.

UCC: Both are fine, this just seemed like a better taken picture.

Shandon: The original seemed very grainy and of low quality. Possibly a new one should be looked for, similar to this image https://www.google.ie/search?q=shandon+tower&rlz=1CDGOYI_enIE714IE714&hl=en-GB&prmd=imnv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirjr7_-sfVAhUnC8AKHa51DU4Q_AUIESgB&biw=375&bih=591#imgrc=Gd_pPkvksekL7M:

English Market: The original was hard to understand from a distance what it was. The new one had the logo in it, although I was will admit what the picture is of (the building itself) is odd. Possibly a new one can be taken of the new Grand Parade entrance?

Sadly, the choice of images available isn't the best on Wikimedia Commons, bar Charles' (I think that is their name) latest upload. Hopefully they read this and can take pictures of what is needed for the montage. DylanGLC2017 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The only advantage I see in your montage is that it has a higher resolution. The image themselves are not really superior though that is rather subjective but having been a photographer for over 25 years in Ireland for advertising and commercial clients, my thought are that the city hall image is backlit and too dark, and the two low angle building photos, an old facade and an off centre bell tower, while "creative" in style are not really very encyclopaedic. We all knonw that people make cites but now there are no images showing people which I think should be an essential for any city montage. I'm pretty sure we can find a local wikipedian to get some better images if a consensus is found on what to include. One could even reassemble a higher quality montage of the existing images and the only limiting factor is the resolution of the UUC and River Lee images but that would still increase the current montage by about 50% to about 1000 pixels wide which seem to be some of DylanGLC2017's argument. Personally if a change is warranted and agreed, the images to be used should be agreed upon as representative of the city's visually important aspects. I have no idea what your "test/image display" problem is; the image was on the page and was then reverted so we could talk about it. ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I saw this talk and thought this may be better. It includes most of the old images, however includes (in my opinion) easier to understand, higher quality and more pleasing pictures of Shandon and the River Lee. I also think that it is easier to see the UCC image as it is not as exposed and washed out from the sun. The only picture I am unsure of is of the The Elysian. I was also thinking of The National Monument (National Monument, Grand Parade.jpg, although the monument itself is not centred in the image), however The Elysian is the only other appropriate 'icon' image (which was vertical) that I could find. It would be nice to hear your opinions. Thanks!

Clockwise, from the top: City Hall; The Elysian; River Lee; Shandon Steeple; Quadrangle in UCC; The English Market

--86.40.234.208 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with you on the top but on the middle ones i would find clearer images which would be easier (market and UCC) to make out(less light/shadow). While a stronger resolotion would suit the bottom two. But in my opinion the best way to resolve this is to have a vote on it. TMN81 (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The Shandon image is great,I think we can do better with others.charlesolivercork

Clockwise, from the top:

Please feel free to change and try out other images. I put up a new collage image , lets take it for a test drive because its time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesolivercork (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I don't really see the version you've unilaterally added as an improvement over what was already there. I do prefer the image of Shandon, though ideally this would show both a limestone and sandstone side; the images of both City Hall and UCC are simply a step down in terms of quality, while the images of the Lee and the English Market are up for debate. I can't disagree with the choice to include St Fin Barre's (which you've omitted from the caption), on its own merits, but the collage feels too cluttered relative to what it was before. There's no need to fit everything in at once when we have an entire article.

I will also note that the collage works better with a thin border between each pair of images. This is much too aggressive. ~ Maltrópa ^loquace 03:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree , it looks better with a thin white border I'll edit that.I also replaced the UCC image with the one that you prefer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold User talk:charlesolivercork —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Other arguments notwithstanding (and I agree with Maltrópa that the replacement is not an improvement), but the image quality of this new image is terrible. Absolutely appalling. The blockiness of the JPG artifacts is visible at even the low res version. Looking at the original version it is clear to see why. If you cannot address this, then -for that reason alone- it will need to be reverted. Guliolopez (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I too agree the new image is not an improvement. Anyway, what has happened in Cork that makes the older collage outdated requiring such a radical change? We don't really need change just for change sake. ww2censor (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

North Main Street

• Does anyone think/believe an article on the North Main Street should be created as it is one of the oldest streets in Cork just like Shandon Street and has alot of History involved with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishJ123 (talk • contribs)
  • This has been created, and moved to North Main Street (Cork). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

North Main Street (Cork).

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Status at time of closure was- No immediate consensus to merge

---

I think that the article North Main Street (Cork), should be considered for merging into this article as it is not necessarily notable on its own. It really says little more than "this is a street, it is old, it has been redeveloped", it is unclear it passing WP:GEOROAD, especially as all the sources conspicuously have "Cork" in the publisher's name. I would say there should be at least some non-cork based coverage to shown the street is significant to the wider world. Dysklyver 19:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I made an attempt to save the page in question after it was created and left for dead, so I may be a little biased!

I don't think the street is particularly notable in itself, but I don't feel it falls afoul of WP:GEOROAD either (I mean, just for comparison, take a look at some of the regional roads in this template that the article on GEOROAD itself mentions). Also, considering most of the streets in Streets in Gibraltar has a dedicated article, and one has the focal point of being the location of a McDonald's outlet. One could also point to Makupa Circus, Konthe Road, Trush Street, Lintgasse, 8 de Octubre Avenue, etc. I don't get a feeling from GEOROAD that there's a clear distinction between where's notable or not, it really seems like a bit of a grey area.

Also, I don't necessarily think that an independent second-hand source has to mean a non-local one, but that's obviously up for debate. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Somewhat like Wasechun tashunka I'm not overly swayed in either direction. While it was I who tagged it for NN issues last month, this was before Wasechun tashunka's subsequent improvements. These improvements addressed at least some of the context and citation issues - and at least partially established some notability relative to WP:GEOFEAT. (To the extent that I probably should have come back and assessed whether my original concerns were addressed. I did not. Apologies). In any event, at this point, while I am not certain that "all the news and book referencesare local" is a valid argument relative to GNG, it would be possible to merge a chunk of the content to Cork (city) - in a way that would be consistent with WP:MERGEREASON. I would be happy to assist with this - if the community agrees that a merge is appropriate. But, right now, I'm not really advocating either-way myself. Guliolopez (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bounce (Wasechun tashunka—A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver) Hi all. It's been 3 weeks or so since this thread was opened. It doesn't seem like there's consensus for a merge. Any issues if I close the thread (and rm the hatnote)? Guliolopez (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• No objection to close, certainly no bothered either way myself, do take off the NN tag too. Dysklyver 16:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, close away! Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 19:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Viking site

Should information about recent archaeological discoveries in Cork be added to this article?https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/viking-centre-discovered-in-cork-city-predates-waterford-settlement-1.3350654? and https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/1-000-year-old-viking-sword-found-at-cork-beamish-site-1.3234406?TMN81 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. A very short note (no more than a single sentence) may be appropriate in the opening of the History section on this Cork (city) article. ("As evidenced by 21st century excavations[ref][ref], blah blah"). However, a slightly shorter note (perhaps a sentence of two) may be appropriate in the Origins section of the History of Cork article. I can take a stab if you like. At both if needed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Street picture

Hello,

I am the original uploader of the picture of Patrick Street. After looking at it again, I think it is really poor due to the amount of cars, furniture and hoarding (due to road works) in the way. It also only really focusses on the top of one or two buildings and it was a really dull day. Today I decided to retake a picture of the same shot but at a much wider angle, allowing for the actual street and much more buildings to be seen. It is a lot brighter and gives a better understanding of the street then my original picture. Should I replace the one in use on the page with this one?

File:Patrick Street, Cork, January 2018.jpg DylanGLC2017 (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. Guliolopez (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

English Market Picture in Montage

Suggested replacement

Looking over the discussions on the image of the English Market, I got the feeling people thought it wasn’t really appropriate but will do for what is available. To fix this, I have taken this picture of the Grand Parade entrance to the English Market, arguably more ‘iconic’/notable than the Prince’s Street entrance (at least in the pictures available on Commons). Sadly, those parking spaces outside seem to be full all day, so it is nearly impossible to get a picture of the façade without them there, but they shouldn’t be an issue.

The picture: File:English Market, Grand Parade, Cork, 2018.jpg

DylanGLC2017 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's better to have a photo of the interior rather than the entrance, in which case I would consider the Prince's Street market much more notable - certainly it's where I see everyone taking their pictures, although usually a bit further inside than in the montage. The other option from the Prince's Street side would be a photo from upstairs looking down toward the fountain. In any case, the time to find those parking spaces empty would probably be a summer Sunday morning, maybe at about 7-8 a.m.? Bit of a wait but if you want good light and empty spaces that'd be the time. ~ Maltrópa ^loquace 16:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Although, it occurs to me, the fact that it's closed on a Sunday would defeat the point... ~ Maltrópa ^loquace 18:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Per Maltrópa, I expect the interior one is more representative (and the Princes Street Market hall/fountain significantly more photographed - if geotagging evidence is anything to go by) than the Grand Parade gates. In any event, as noted, all other images in the montage are of exteriors/streets. Having one from an interior would likely be desirable. (Otherwise its all building facades). Guliolopez (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Cork City Hall

Suggested replacement

I know that I just changed the image, however looking at it now, it seems like quite a grainy picture. Or at least from a far distance (as in the thread it is very small). I was wondering if people thought this would be more appropriate? And yes, I am aware that this is a very minor issue which most people probably don’t care about haha

DylanGLC2017 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the current replacement is grainy, and I don't really see it as an improvement over the image it replaced. Per my comments at Charlesolivercork's talk page on Sunday evening, I'm reluctant to make 'the' representative photo of Cork City Hall one where the entire facade is in shadow. If we have a daytime photo, it ought to capitalise on the defining feature of daytime - sunlight. The photo currently topping the infobox montage does this quite well (aside from being maybe a tad too yellow). The fact that we have a daytime photo already, then, is why I'd also argue that it was nice to have the nighttime photo.

My other reservation for your suggestion in particular is that the way the Elysian is lined up behind City Hall's tower might give the impression that the two buildings are connected in some way, or that the Elysian is an unusually small-windowed rear section to the city hall's tower.~ Maltrópa ^loquace 16:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Second sugggested replacement

Hi! I agree with your point of The Elysian messing with the City Hall tower in that image, which is why I brought it here first. I think you are also right saying the best way to capture the building adequatly lit is using sunlight. Although I do think the sunlight in the picture I posted was sufficient. I think the best angle to get of the building is from the front like Charles’, but with the brightness of the too of the montage image (but, as you said, less yellow). I will try to get a picture like that in the summer. In the meantime, I propose changing the image to other image I have linked due to the angle, lighting and absence of cars, which was originally used. It seems to be the best without having to reuse the one from the montage. —DylanGLC2017 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Education in Cork

This article is basically just a section from the main article on Cork that's been turned into it's own article for no clear reason. There's no reason why it needs it's own article instead of just being a section like lists of schools are on most other city pages. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Agreed.

RE: "Own article for no clear reason". As per the original/earlier version of the article, someone did have a reason. But it was ill-advised (and promotional, essay-like and generally out of project scope). Which is why the article is now effectively a list. Which has no additional value above the Category:Education in Cork (city) and related categories (which already group/list the relevant schools/etc).

RE: "No reason it needs its own article". Totally agree. Personally however I don't think there's anything to merge. If we need to keep the article title at all, I would simply make it a redirect to Cork_(city)#Education.

RE: "List of schools as on other city pages". I don't agree here. All of the members of the list are already linked in the article. Within the prose. In a way that aligns with WP:USEPROSE. If we feel that the reader needs to be given or linked to an additional "list of educational institutions in Cork", then we can simply replace the relevant link in the "see also" section hatnote with a link to Category:Education in Cork (city). Replacing or replicating the prose with an additional list won't add additional value, and will instead "break up" the text.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Guliolopez: I agree with you, there really isn't much of anything in Education in Cork that isn't already covered in this article with actual prose. As such, I've gone ahead and BOLDly redirected it to Cork (city)#Education. I don't think there will be any objection to the loss of a gutted stub-list when the main article does a much better job of covering the topic at hand. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are no (posthumous) objections or comments in the coming days/weeks we can likely close this thread. Guliolopez (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Misleading assertion about size of Cork

The opening sentence of this article is misleading:

"Cork ... is the second largest city in Ireland"

It is not. Cork is the second largest city in the Republic of Ireland, however, in Ireland as a whole Belfast is the second largest city.

The article either needs to be changed to emphasise Cork's status as the second largest city in the republic, or it needs to be stated that it is the third largest city in Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_settlements_on_the_island_of_Ireland_by_population

John2o2o2o (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The current wording is consistent with WP:IRE-IRL. In that, while the term "Ireland" can refer to the state and the island, as Ireland is the official and common name of the state, that is the label generally used. With a piped link when needed. There are some exceptions. Like, for example, when the island and state are discussed the same context. Or, when both jurisdictions are discussed in the same context. Neither of which really applies here. Guliolopez (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I used the piping when I added Cork was the third largest. I actually had not read this talk page, I had just been on the Derry page where it used to same convention of 2nd largest in the country fourth on the island. I guessed at the 2nd largest in the republic, but it didn't mention the island, which I added.Halbared (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Transport in Cork

I was very surprised that there isn't a dedicated "Transport in Cork" page like Transport in Dublin. What gives? Ridiculopathy (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I guess that, as Cork has no canals (like the Royal or Grand), light rail (like the Luas), electric commuter (like the DART), planned metro (like MetroLink), dedicated bus provider (like Dublin Bus), dedicated bike scheme (like Dublinbikes) or what-have-you, there's less to be said. What is to be said is covered in Cork Suburban Rail, Cork proposed light rail, Port of Cork and similar. Hanging these all together via an overarching "Transport in Cork" article would potentially result in more than a little overlap/duplication. And contain little more than already covered in Cork (city)#Transport. (A summary with some "see main" type links.) Personally, I think a stand-alone article on "BusConnects" (covering the projects/proposals in Cork, Dublin, Galway and Limerick) is likely more "in demand" than one which focuses purely on "buses/bikes/etc in Cork" (alone). For what it's worth... Guliolopez (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I agree, an article on "BusConnects" is probably better. Thanks, Ridiculopathy (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Probably fodder for user-talk, but I'd be delighted to collaborate on one? (We could create a draft and get it to a reasonable state before promoting/linking from the Cork (city)#Transport section...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Guliolopez, that would be good. I've never collaborated on creating a page before, and don't know the process. Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no mad science to it. I'll create an initial draft and ping you on your talk page from there. Guliolopez (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cork-city-evening.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

I do not see a need for the title to be Cork (city) as it is differentiated from the county by that article being named County Cork. Other cities like Limerick and Waterford do not do this. ☘️ King ᚺᛒ ☘️ Talk, Guestbook 12:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The "(city)" suffix is not disambiguating the city from the county. It is disambiguating (among other things) the city from the material.

See Cork, Talk:Cork and Talk:Cork_(city)/Archive_2#Requested_move for context and the previous discussions on whether either Cork (the city) or Cork (the material) constituted a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Cork".

In short, it was ultimately determined that neither meaning had clear primacy. And so, as is the case where no primary topic exists, the title is a disambiguation page. And a DAB mechanism (in this case a parens suffix) used for the article on the city.

(Instead of comparing to Waterford, which isn't really comparable, consider Georgia (and Georgia (country)) or Victoria (and Victoria (state)) or New York (and New York (state)) etc. Guliolopez (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Guliolopez Oh yeah, I kind of forgot about the material Cork lol ☘️ King ᚺᛒ ☘️ Talk, Guestbook 16:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sports clubs

In a recent series of edits, a number of anon/IP contributors have sought to include the name/details of one particular sports club in the "other sports" section. While, initially, my concern with this inclusion was that it was entirely unsupported, that specific issue has now been addressed (with thanks for the ref - although could've done without that personal attack).

However, as noted in this edit summary, and in response to this apparent question, I would note that, as the other three "named" sports clubs in that sentence are all covered by specific articles (Neptune Basketball Club, UCC Demons and Cork Admirals) the inferred inclusion criteria for that text is along the lines of WP:CSC. IE: Clubs that demonstrably and verifiably meet WP:NCLUB (and have an article). And "active in national competitions". As it stands, and while basketball and American football as sports are not "special" in themselves, the other entries in that text meet that criteria. As it stands, the "junior ice hockey program" doesn't appear to meet that criteria. And, frankly, my question in response is why (your? kids?) inline hockey club is "special" compared to every other sports team/club in Cork? Why is that club the only exception to the apparent inclusion criteria? Over every other Cork-based hockey team, golf club, athletics outfit, tennis club, karate dojo, etc?

In short, Neptune Basketball Club is listed and named, not because it is "special", because it is notable. Why is this (your?) inline hockey club? Above all other otherwise non-notable sports clubs? Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue stems from calling basketball and American football as "national competition" clubs while omitting any other club or sport when it is added there by you. Seems like the paragraph needs to be rewritten in better style and clarity. You have had issue with number of people adding sports or clubs.

Also calling a club notable is subjective and should not hold higher status over others. If it's so notable it should have its own section and not be in other sports section. I have no connection to any of the clubs but all should be able to be listed, recognized and treated fairly with inclusion if possible...what makes Neptune more notable. For example this not notable inline club is oldest in the country, has its own rink and there are number of players representing the Irish national team from this club. You would know this if you read any of the referenced articles.31.187.2.74 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. RE:

• "calling a club notable is subjective [..] what makes Neptune more notable". WP:CLUB sets out the criteria for whether a club is notable or not. WP:GNG also applies. (Which expects that qualifying coverage be largely independent of the subject. Under which certain types of WP:INTERVIEWS, like those recently added, are of a type "broadly unhelpful in establishing notability". FYI.)
• "If it's so notable it should have its own section and not be in other sports section". I'm not sure I'm following what you are saying here. But if you are saying that every notable Cork-based sports club, like Neptune or whatever (of which there are dozens and dozens and dozens ), should each have their own section/sub-section in this Cork (city) article, then I would refer you to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. (Wikipedia isn't a directory of sports clubs. Nor should this article be turned into a directory/list of every single sports club in the city/area. Notable or not.)
• "players representing the Irish national team from this club. You would know this if you read any of the referenced articles". I read all of the referenced/linked news articles. As above, my concern isn't that the entry doesn't meet the (explicit) "active in national competitions" criteria. Rather that it isn't the same as those in the (implicit) "notable clubs with articles" common selection criteria. And, as it stands, is the only entry in that sentence that is unlike the others.

As an aside, if you haven't already done so, please consider reading WP:COI and WP:DISCLOSE. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have read all the thing you have shared already and you have done this number of times now just repeating yourself. There is no COI as I have already said I'm not associated with any of the clubs but I guess you only read what you want to read and reply with links.

for clubs inclusion you know well what was meant by that. Of course you cant include all soccer and gaa clubs. But if the club is at highest competition level in niche sport, it should be considered to be included. Especially if it's only club in the county for that sport just like the American football club or Australian football club mentioned.

If you have such a big problem for you just move it to end of the section as it's own sentence after the Aussie rules bit. 31.187.2.57 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• "already said I'm not associated with any of the clubs". If I missed it, then I apologise, but can you confirm when and where you said that?
• "just move it to end of the section as it's own sentence after the Aussie rules bit". OK. I'm not sure I fully follow, but I will take a look and see if there's a compromise approach that will address both our perspectives.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi both, lurker here. I dont think it matters anymore if OP is involved or not, given the "one sentence" solution seems moving towards something that is workable. Guliolopez is right in being overly cautions; OP you have no idea of the level of spam thrown on the site each day. Although thats not your problem, its does indicate why the claim you wanted to add was so closely examined. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)