Talk:Cork (city)/Archive 3

This page 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.

Waste Managment

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

DAB link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confusion between county and city

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the city in the county? Facts, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lozleader 09:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cork is in Cork County? List of facts only.

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

Facts that indicate city of Cork is NOT in County Cork

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

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

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

Discussion

Facts that indicate city of Cork IS in County Cork

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

Reference to city of Cork being principal city of County Cork[9].
Thats a commerical holiday website, and not a particularily good one. If you want to use it as a reference dont be surprised if it gets removed. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, none of these prove anything by themselves. But the preponderance of references like this, compared to the apparent dearth of any contrary evidence, speaks volumes. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Various maps of County Cork that show the Cork city area to be part of the county [10] [11] [12] [13].
Those maps are just dot indications of the location of the city and show no boundaries of the city. Cork is a small city but non-the-less has boundaries distinct from the county. You have a understanding of mapping that leaves a lot to be desired. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If you're correct, then it should be easy enough to produce a map that shows the Cork City limit boundary to be coincident with County Cork boundary. Cork is small, about one 200th of the size of the County, but that's still big enough to show up as a different color on an accurate map of the County. Why are there none? --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Another map of County Cork, this on the official County Cork site, that includes city area[14].
Same as point 2. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto.
County Cork boundary description that includes area where city lies[15].
Its an extract from a 1931 publication, need I say more. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the city was part of the county in 1931? --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Reference on County Cork council site about providing service to the "South Cork City Hinterland" area[16].
County Councils often supply services to City Councils because many cities are not big enough, the concept of been a agency or contractor comes to mind. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is true in the U.S. as well, where cities that are not governed by the county government are still considered to be in the county. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Over 16,000 references to "Cork, County Cork" in google [17].
Their are "8 billion web pages"[18] that google searches so whats your point (I am sure 16,000 could "prove" just about anything)? Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is you won't find any references to "Cork, County Limerick". Do you know why? Because Cork is not in County Limerick. It's in County Cork. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Reference to "Cork City area" being in County Cork[19]
Another misinformed holiday website. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
So you say. Based on what??? --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A reference in a report to the Cork County Development Board states: "Cork City is a key Urban Area in Cork County..."[20].
Actually one source from a public body, now I am impressed but they do not override the fact of the law. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A fact you cannot cite! --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Cork City is the second city of Ireland. It is the first city though of County Cork in which it rests."[21].
Its a one page website, prob waiting for someone to actually buy and use it, so its hardly a source. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Better than anything you've got. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This statement, "At 2,878 sq. miles, Cork is the largest of Ireland’s counties. In the most southern part of the island, County Cork has a total population of a little over 420,000 of which approximately 127,000 live in Cork City."[22], by including the city population in the county population, clearly implies that the city is in the county.
Another of your holiday websites. I am sure if I looked that I could find many instances of Northern Irelands population been counted in Irelands population (remembering Ireland is the name of the state and island). Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting that all of these holiday sites somehow happen to make errors in favor of my position, which you claim is wrong (I guess we're supposed to take your word for it?), and none are consistent with your position, which you claim without basis is a "fact of law". --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Cork County Council Headquarters are located at the County Hall in the city of Cork[23]. Of course, it's possible for a political headquarters to be located outside of its boundaries, but it's unlikely.
County Halls of Ireland where often located in the city of the same name and outside the county they served. But that does not prove that the city is in the county, merely that county hall is in the city. Its an anomaly. Djegan 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
For the headquarters of any political entity to be outside of the area that it governs is very strange indeed. Again, it's not proof in and of itself, but combined with all these other points, and in the absence of but one counter-point, it's quite compelling. --Serge 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was irrelevant. --Serge 01:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll: Is city of Cork in County Cork?

Maybe we can end this ridiculous discussion where only one side can cite facts with a strawpoll. Please vote

# Inside. Optional-Comment. --~~~~

OR

# Outside. Optional-Comment --~~~~

in the appropriate section below.

Serge, with repect this issue does not reflect positively on you. You might better serve your time actually editing and improving articles rather than going on the pov rants and tangents that your on at the moment. In the end of the day it does not matter a lot to me because I have keep a consistant line on this issue and have kept to the facts (actually providing authoritive sources and not misinterpreting them) rather than your eleven point straw-man plan above. Djegan 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentially straw polls do not overide the policy, WP:VERIFY. So voting is a complete and utter waste of time. Djegan 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Inside: City of Cork lies within the boundaries of County Cork

Inside. Per the cited facts above. --Serge 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside: City of Cork lies outside the boundaries of County Cork

Above jnestorius wrote "The Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 which established Cork as a county borough is not online, but Galway was elevated to county borough status in a similar manner by the LOCAL GOVERNMENT (REORGANISATION) ACT, 1985, from which I quote (with added emphasis) Section 5:Establishment of Borough of Galway as County Borough:"
5.—(1) On such day (in this Part referred to as the "appointed day") as the Minister shall appoint by order, the Borough shall cease to be part of the County and shall, as on and from such day, be an administrative county of itself, and be called the County Borough of Galway.
Therefore, there appears to be a clear precedent from Galway that the County Borough of Cork is not part of County Cork. Just because locals and foreigners either resist this new fact, or are ignorant of this new fact, does not mean this encyclopedia should get it wrong too. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow. What does the existence of a legal admistrative entity known as "County Borough of Cork", and the fact that it is not part of the legal administrative entity known as "the County", have to do with whether the geographical boundares of the city of Cork are within the geographical boundaries of County Cork, or not? --Serge 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Here we go with the "geographical boundaries" stuff again, what ever are "geographical boundaries" in this context, are they actual boundaries on the surface of the earth? If the terminology is to complicated for you to understand then why even bother asking in the first place. Let me repeat again, cities and counties are created for the service of man ("geographical boundaries" might make sense for a lake, sea, mountain etc but you clearly do not have adequate command of the applicable terminology). Djegan 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You are limiting "geographical", apparently, to refer only to that which falls under the topic of physical geography. But geography also encompasses Human geography, which includes Political geography, which includes the study of:
The functions, demarcations and policings of boundaries

Therefore, "geographical boundaries" includes "political boundaries" and borders of not only countries, but also cities and counties. --Serge 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You clearly do not know what your talking about, it has already clearly been show (notwithstanding you ignoring it), that the city and county are two different political entities with a boundary between them. I think you are just trolling. Simple. Djegan 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Serge its not that clear, he would rather risk his respect than face the facts. He would rather have a confrontational vote on anything that he cannot get his way on, rather than drop it discreetly. Its a rather sad state of affairs. Djegan 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, Djegan. I would gladly agree that the city is not in the county. I honestly don't care which it is, I just want to know which it is. I've never been to Ireland, and have no plans on going there. So why would I care? I just want to know what the facts are, and it has been very frustrating to deal with folks who claim over and over that something is true, without being able to provide any evidence supporting that claim, while, at the same time, I seem to have no trouble at all finding all kinds of evidence that is contrary to the claim. --Serge 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont accept that your request here for facts is bona fide, if it was you might actually develope a case against them, apart from obviously ignoring them outright. I suspect that you maybe simply trolling. Djegan 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As for your straw poll I think it maybe a rather feeble attempt at some type of popularity test. You never did quite drop that Cork, County Cork idea, and I think its an unhealthy obsession. I am sure you will have a new poll every week until you get your way. Its going to become the new joke in town. Djegan 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do not find my request here for facts to be bona fide, then you are in violation of WP:AGF. The purpose of the poll is to see what others may have concluded from all this. It was prompted by your "am I the only one" comment above. The Cork, County Cork idea is not mine. I'm happy with Cork (city), and that was actually my original first choice. There was a short period during which I changed my mind to prefer Cork, County Cork, but that came and went. However, I've never seen any reason to find that choice to be unacceptable. Anyway, that's not what this is about. It's about whether the city is in the county, or not. I'm beginning to think that it's a complicated matter. That there is both a political county and geographical county, and their boundaries are not coincidental. --Serge 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think I am been unfair to you then report it on the relevant noticeboard, else please dont use accusations to stifle debate (by the way read the full policy). And now "political county" and "geographical county"? Is this an attempt to confuse the issue or are you genuinely confused or just looking for a way out, a U-turn. You are clearly not well versed in the actually terminology used in Ireland. In any case your going to actually have to provide some citations if you want to change the status-quo. I suggest we take a rest because the end result of this discussion is that the page will have to be archived or blanked as its a lot of non-sense. Djegan 01:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive this page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hugenots

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

website

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

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

Removing "Nightlife" section

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

Article name

The name of the article Cork (city) should be changed just to Cork indicating the city itself, because the county article is County Cork therefore the city article should just be Cork. It make a mile of sense! The Dublin article is just Dublin and not Dublin (city), so the (city) part is not necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerritorialWaters (talk • contribs) 10:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Look in Archive 2 above if you want to see some of the old discussion. The fact is that for most of the world, "cork" is something used to keep wine in a bottle, or to make floor tiles, not a place in Ireland. Sorry. In fact, Cork is a disambig page with links to both articles, among others. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Twinning

Cork are going to be twinned with Sunderland according to local media, heard anything your end? gazh 12:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Twinning with Shanghai

From article:

Twinning with Shanghai came with some discontent, the Green Party has called on Cork's local, national and European elected representatives to support the withdrawal of the city's twinning with Shanghai due to reports of human rights violations in China [6]. Since the twinning parties from both Cork and Shanghai have visited their counterparts on trade related missions.

The last sentence doesn't even make sense. And is the whole "controversy" Wikipedia worthy? --Naus 01:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Twinning" in general is relatively minor fluff in the scope of cities, but for some reason it is pushed in major sections of almost every Euro city article I've come across. Is there some organization or something that has some strange interest in featuring "Twin cities" sections on wikipedia, I ask half-seriously? Piperdown 16:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Water Sports

Just did a tidy up on the sports section. I added a seperate section for water sports as i believe there was not enough focus on water sports and the info that was there was lacking. (i have also gone back and cleaned up any errors that i could see) Burklert

I'm just adding a sentence about Naomhoga Chorcai, as I would imagine it would be of interest to the general public. I'll put in a link to their website too. Mickoc 05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I cut back on some of the excessive verbage in this section. Really, do we need to tell readers that sport rowing is done on rivers, while sport sailing near cities is not? Let's remember this is an encyclopedia and not a "idiot's guide " to water sports. And as with most sport sections on wikipeida city articles, there's just way too much trivial information about minor clubs and activities that simply aren't notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Piperdown 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regards the crime section

Hey i'v lived in cork all my life and to be honest the crime section here is a joke. Its horrible unbalanced and makes the city look like a hell hole. Crime is an issue in all cities but the piece here is a joke. I would like to see the article being completely reworked, but i do not want to make changes by myself as being from cork my own view could be seen as bias, but right now the crime section as it stands must be changed. Burklert 11:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that. It's pretty minor information that wouldn't be of major interest to an outsider seeking information about the city. I suggest the removal of the section, or otherwise an expansion to include the other 99% of crime that doesn't include drug 'gangs.'Mickoc 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your best defense is the citation of facts. Use it. Piperdown 16:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest the removal of this section. This section gives a terrible impression of the city. In comparison to other cities in Ireland, Cork is a very safe city. The ten deaths to which it refers happened four years ago, and looking back are, unfortunately, nothing out of the ordinary in the Ireland of today. And the rest of the section just mentions that Cork's crime rate is average or below when one compares it to the rest of Ireland. Dennisc24 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cork is not the only Irish city for which its Wikipedia article has a crime section. Dublin, Limerick, Galway and Waterford all have crime sections. Galway's section quite rightly makes it look better than Cork, as the statistics back up that it is the safest city in the country - if one didn't know that simply from common sense and being familiar with our cities. Limerick has far more extensive section despite similar crime rates per population to Cork. zoney ♣ talk 10:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well we all know why Limerick has a far more extensive section relating to crime. Regardless of statistics, Limerick receives far more attention in the media regarding crime. Apart from one sentence reagrding burglary, the statistics relating to crime in Cork are from 2005 at the latest, which is three years ago, and go back as far as 2001!!! This one recent fact hardly justifies a Crime section. Any objections to deleting this section??Dennisc24 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In three months nobody has objected to deleting the crime section, so I'm going ahead with it. Just in case anyone decides to put it back in place, think about this first: I've checked the pages of all 27 EU capitals and only Bucharest and Dublin have crime sections. If only two out of 27 cities checked have a crime section, why should Cork? Anyway, Dublin probably only has a crime section because somebody seems to love going around adding them to Irish city pages. Dennisc24 (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

War of the roses

i just looked at the war of the roses page and is said that it had finished by 1487. but cork city article mentions that perkins looked for support in cork during the war of the roses in 1491.... what gives?89.100.52.184 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To put it flatly, the association with Warbeck's arrival and the war of the roses is incorrect. Somebody likely confused Warbeck with Simnel. (Simnel's "pretence" did coincide with the war proper, and while Warbeck also looked to Yorkist sympathisers [or at least "anti-Lancastrians"] in Ireland, he [they] did so after the fact.) Will update to correct. Guliolopez 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Split -> Split (city)

Another city with a name in a similar predicament to Cork is the city of Split in Croatia. I've created a move request to move it to Split (city) per the precedent set by this page. See Talk:Split#Requested move if you want to participate in the discussion or poll. --Serge 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Twin cities flags

The twin cities don't have the flag icons of the countries in which they are in beside their names. Most other city pages have them, so I suggest putting them on the Cork page also. Looking at the history page, somebody did put the flags there, but they also put the regional flags of the cities. While these shouldn't be there, I do think that the national flags should be there. Anyone have any ideas? Dennisc24 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Have a look at WP:FLAGCRUFT. Personally I am unsure about adding in flags for sister cities. Three reasons:

I don't think they add that much (Shanghai is in China, no need to reinforce with a flag)
Flags confuse the issue (Partnership is with the city of Shanghai, not with the country. Adding the flag of the PRC suggests some broader relationship that doesn't exist)
(Most importantly) Flags lead to edit wars. Just about every single time. Long-standing agreement to avoid flags on the Dublin article for that reason. (Years of BS edit warring about everything from "flag for Barcelona should be Basque flag, not Spanish flag", "flag for Liverpool should be Union Jack, not George's Cross". Etc.

Warring reasons vary from political (Cypriot or TRNC for Nicosia?) to regional pride (Cymru or UK flag for Swansea?) to historical (Kosovar or Serb flag for Priština?). But they happen all day every day. And, maybe I'm just jaded, but the same will happen here.

In short, my view is: the benefits (nice colours, concistency) are seriously outweighed by the disadvantages (warring, assumed relationships, etc).

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the editor who recently put the flags up. On the Ireland twin town list page i put the flags on for the official country, then the region, as it's handy to know that most places in France that Ireland is twinned with are in Bretagne/Brittany which is another Celtic "country". Whilst i don't want to create wars here (theirs enough pointless wars in realspace let alone cyberspace), i do wish their were a few guides to Wikipedia. I do feel that as a relatively new editor, i shouldn't have to trawl through years of talk pages to find an "issue", and all the older editors moan saying "oh not this s##t again". well i apologise, but until we get some consistency, some organisation, or at the very least, a guide to what these pages (be it railway stations or towns) should or should not contain. Create a page to refer people to. Say things like, don't list all the shops in a town, unless they are significant such as the first tesco's. try to include local government, famous people, education, transport etc. If i knew what they wanted included, it'd make my job easier. Instead i'm being bogged down by bureaucratic nonsense, very typical of Westminster i must sayHalowithhorns89 (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to material

Is there absolutely no relationship between the city (or county) of Cork and cork (material)? I notice that there are no links from either article to the other. I have heard from several (by no means authoritative) sources that the material is named after the city. If there is no relation between the two, then that fact should be mentioned in order to dispel this urban legend. — Epastore (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Em. Who ever told you that couldn't be more wrong. Cork (the material) takes its name from the tree Cork Oak, which is in turn derived from the latin "Quercus" - which refers to all oak species. Cork (the city and county in Ireland) takes its name from the Irish gaelic word "Corcaigh" (Corcach) - which means "marsh" or "marshy place". (Cork - not unlike Venice - is built on river channels and reclaimed marsh-land). So, in short, there is no relationship. Nor is there an "urban legend" to dispel (Just one misinformed friend of yours.) Therefore I don't believe that we should say "The city of Cork doesn't take it's name from Cork (the material). Or vice versa." There is no basis for such an assertion, and may set a weird/dangerous precedent for assertions in every second article that say "A and B are unrelated" . Guliolopez (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Norse Origins

There seems to be a trend towards historical re-writing the origins of many of Ireland's prominent cities. Monastic foundations are given precedence over the actual foundations of the urban centres. This seems, to me, to be rather unpleasantly nationalistic in tone, ie monasteries were native Irish foundations and the trading ports which were actually ancestral to the modern cities were created by nasty Scandinavian immigrants, so let's ignore that whole episode.

A few dozen monks do not a city make.

I couldn't believe that a wiki page on Cork managed to avoid mentioning that the city the county takes its name from was a Norse foundation - indeed only mentioned the Vikings as destroyers of the city!

Urselius (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Name

Would it not be more sensible for the article to be named simply Cork as opposed to Cork (city) as there is a separate article concerning County Cork already? TerritorialWaters (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See the archives for discussion. Ceoil ^sláinte 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Ceoil, this article actually used to be located at Cork. However after several lengthy (and sometimes heated) RM discussions, it was moved here. The primary reason for the move was to address a DAB issue. As well as the potential conflict with the County, many users felt that - under WP:WORLDVIEW - visitors who would be unaware of Cork (in the Irish context) might be looking for Cork (in the "bottle stopper"/substance) context. And so Cork was made a DAB page. Guliolopez (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

European Walking Route E8

I have removed this reference completely because, as you can see from the link[[24]] that route -while starting in Cork County- doesn't come within 20 miles of the city. --213.191.240.170 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral move

I have reverted the unilateral move by user Tavix. There was considerable discussion some time ago about what to call this article. Given the conflict with the use of Cork (the substance/bottle stopper), and Cork (the county), etc, "Cork (city)" was eventually arrived at. For someone to now unilaterally move this article to "Cork, Munster" is TOTALLY inappropriate. For two very simple reasons: Firstly, given the history, any future moves should be discussed. (Per WP:RM for "controversial moves".) Secondly, "Cork, Munster" is an appalling name. Given that it has very problematic DAB with the County, and because "Munster" has no official status as an administrative division. In short: Open an RM. Don't just move stuff without even an edit summary explanation! Guliolopez (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions - notability/length/commentary/etc

A number of recent changes seem to represent commentary/POV/"recentism" of a type that doesn't seem appropriate in the broader context of an article at this level. Particularly when this article is too long already. (Spoken versions being more than 35 minutes in length). Unless there are any objections or alternative suggestions, I'm going to summarise and cull a few things. Focusing on:

Transport - Buses - Bus numbers, departure streets, and whether/not buses are double-deckered isn't relevant, and borders on WP:NOTGUIDE
Sport - Soccer - While creditable and memorable for the kids involved, 3rd place in an under-14 schools competition isn't historically or encyclopedically notable. Not for an article at this level. And certainly not without cite.
Sport - Cricket - The uncited statement about Cricket's vast popularity seems doubly incongruous when followed by the oxymoronic assertion that there is just the one club. And the inclusion of several "notables" to back up the statement is equally weak - given that none of these notables have articles. In the grand scheme of sport in Cork, Cricket would seem to be best suited to one sentence in the "other sports" section. Where it is already covered.

Unless there are any objections or alternative suggestions, I'm going to aggressively summarise these items. And possibly a few other areas. Guliolopez (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the changes as described. As well as cleaning up and trimming some other areas. Guliolopez (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Langer and Beor - unique?

I'm from the north east of England and we use langer for penis aswell, lang translates to long basically, also Beor resembles byooer which is used as vulgar slang for a woman. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of beor also. In the book Brighton Rock, Graham Greene frequently uses the term buer to refer to women. This is apparently a slang word that was in use in Brighton in the 1930s. Beor certainly seems similar to a word used in England.Irlchrism (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Name (again)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the city of Cork is *not* in the County Cork. They share a name and history, and are in the same geographical area but they are distinct and separate of each other. See county borough. Djegan (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My bad but i still think this should be moved to show the location. How about Cork, Ireland or Cork, Munster? Btw, i have put this on WP:RM. Simply south (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Cork, Munster" was shot down before (see the Unilateral move section above). "Cork, Ireland", in my opinion, implies that there is another place named "Cork" somewhere else in the world, which is not the case. "Cork (city)", on the other hand, shows that there are other things named "cork", but none of them are cities/populated places. I would leave the article as is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:01, May 5, 2009 (UTC)

Leaving it as it is works for me. --John (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As per Djegan, while it might seem like an OK DAB title, if one takes things to their strictest interpretation then "Cork, County Cork" isn't 100% correct. The other proposals "Cork, Munster" and "Cork, Ireland" are even more problematic - but for other reasons. Namely because they are not fully unambiguous and could just as easily be applied to the county. (And in fact, for that reason, Cork, Ireland is already a DAB page which includes all possible definitions). While "Cork (city)" may not be ideal it was the compromise DAB filename agreed after much debate. Guliolopez (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The way round the problem in other countries is to use the title format City of Cork.Skinsmoke (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that Cork is the most common name of the city; City of Cork is not. City of Cork would be a contrived title that mangles the name of the topic of the article. Disambiguating with parenthesis is standard Wikipedia practice, and the current title makes it clear that:

1) The name of the topic of this article is Cork, and

2) There are others uses of the name Cork, but this is the only use, or the primary use, of it in the context of naming a city.

That's a considerable amount of useful and accurate information encoded in merely two words. Information that would not be there, or would be obscured, by any other title. No, Cork (city) is arguably the perfect title for this Wikipedia article. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

English Market

I moved Princes Street Market (Cork) (where?) to English Market (aaah!). It's a surprising article that has been very slowly developing since last year, but one that I would have thought would have had much more. I'm not really so sure what to add (not a Corkonian), maybe someone here could build it up a little more. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

relationship with cork accent to liverpool scouser accent?

aswell as the fact having an accent section is pointless.there is absoluetly no, or very little similarities between cork and scouser accents, i purpose removing the accent section or at least the alleged scouser accent similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.87.23 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and think the similarities are striking. The talk is prettier and more lyrical here more west, but still.Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether a reader disagrees or not doesn't really matter. The reference is verified. If you want it removing I suggest you find a reference that disputes the claim, or produce evidence that the reference doesn't actually say what is claimed. Otherwise it is purely your personal opinion, which we are not really interested in. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

k. Relax, boy. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it did come out a bit stroppy didn't it? Wasn't meant to sound quite so Scouse! ;-) Skinsmoke (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgiven my friend! You were a bit formal there, but eh, no worries; we are both still alive. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Cork collage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Cork collage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)