Talk:Waterford/Archive 1

Archive 1

County Kilkenny edits=

Emm... there's no real reason to have them in bold and italics is there? Also, the train station is within Waterford City's boundry. http://maps.live.com/ shows the correct borders.JimGreeid (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map is a little strange. It doesn't show whereabout in Ireland Waterford City is to anyone who doesn't already know. And what do the green and white shapes in the inset mean? -- Picapica 21:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Crime

The crime section on this article is an absolute disgrace and I will be highlighting it to the national media in Ireland... to single out individual families in an encyclopedia article is an absolute disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.180 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe the statements in the crime section... I mean the first sentence is pretty OK but things like "Nevertheless, there has been significant disquiet in recent years over anti-social behaviour and violent assaults." and "Other murders occurred in 2007 with the most prominent being when a 21 year old male was stabbed to death." These are obvious attacks on Waterford's reputation and I would seriously question the legitimacy of any encyclopedia article that singles out families like this. The language "other muders occurred in 2007" is very suggestive and makes out like there were several murders. This is an absolute disgrace and shambles. I've notified the local press. It's an outrage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciandfoley (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Population

I think that some of the figures quoted for the non-city area are little better than pseudoscience and should not be incuded unless an authoritive source can be quoted hear. It is the usual agenda that wants to make something look more important than it really is - I have consulted the census (briefly) and can find no clear possible source other than guess work of some figures. Djegan 21:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jesus did you swallow a dictionary?

Best population

All the figures on the page have been taken from the CSO website and are correct. Although, arguably, the population figures for Waterford Rural Areas 1 & 2 are of limited applicability. Personally I would prefer the city + suburbs figure to be used as the primary measure of population for Irish cities, because the City Council population figures are as arbitrary as the city boundaries themselves. (maybe this fight has been fought elsewhere)

Waterford is unusual in that, unlike Limerick and Galway, it has a relatively large centre very close by and a number of coastal villages that are, for most intents and purposes, part of Waterford city, although could not be considered part of the conurbation. Tramore, with a population of over 8,000, is essentially an extension of Waterford city, for example. Dunmore has a population of 1,500 and then there are Passage East and Cheekpoint, etc. That's a good 10,000 people who live in towns and villages within 8 miles of Waterford city, in addition to the dense rural population that you would also have around Limerick or Galway.

The point is that the real Waterford is a more distributed entity than it would otherwise appear to an external observer.

Move

Please discuss before you move this page. Djegan 21:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reformation

Jdorney - we meet again. I added a paragraph on this topic, because it leads to the 1603 incident, the first in a sequence in the Irish city-states, which culminates with the battles after the Glorious Revolution. Also, is it correct to use the term British in the following para?shtove 20:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

history vs. today

I think there is a lot of history, but this should be balanced by more about Waterford today - culture, sport, business, tourism, employment, research, etc.

Also, I agree with the comment about the map, it could be better and clearer.

I agree with this. Also, why is the proper Waterford City Council crest not used?

1) Because the "proper" crest (if their is such a thing in heraldry as the discription-in words-is the most official definition) is copyrighted and not such a good image. 2) the crests for Irish cities are intended to be of a specific style and quality (being more cultural) rather than being downloads of stylistic trendy corporate logos that are in vogue. Djegan 22:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an official Waterford City Council crest, which has remained unchanged since the 1950's iirc. There is a an authority for heraldry in Ireland, and I'm sure this crest is registered and sanctioned by them. It seems to be true that you have to get permission from the city council to use the crest, but it might be worth doing so.

I don't know how you could say that the crest is not such a good image when the existing image on the site is so poor and hardly bears any resemblance to any Waterford city crest, past or present. Personally I think that the actual crest is quite visually appealing.

Every city has a proper heraldic crest, and now, it seems, a flashy corporate logo. I am obviously talking about using the crest, not the logo. I'm guessing that the only reason the logos have come in to existence is that the legal basis for copyrighting heraldic crests is not solid. Merlante

In heraldic terms the official description in words is always accepted first and foremost as the definition of arms. Pictorial images are simply representations and like any artistic image their is a certain amount of artistic license, I quote, in addition:

The final document is issued on vellum and includes a hand-painted exemplification of the arms. The related text may be in either Irish or English, or in bi-lingual form. The grant of arms is recorded in the Register of Arms and is a matter of public record.[1](Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland, emphasis added by me)

By all means if you can suggest a high quality image, I have searched broadly recently, provide the link here for research and possible introduction. The only reason that flashy corporate logos are becoming trendy is because marketing and publicity departments are working overtime on providing an image, as a concept for promotion. To reiterate the reason why I have used my own images; their is no copyright issues whatsoever as they are again simply an interpretation of the cities official written heraldry description and not the official council logos (remembering the city and council are distinct), and they provide a basic but uniform series of shields (as distinct from arms) for the cities of Ireland and thus are of cultural rather than corporate value. Djegan 19:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to also stress that at any time anyone is welcome to replace the image with one of their own, granted they take wikipedia policies into account and use an improved image and avoid copyrighted flashy corporate logos (remembering this article is about the city and not the council). Djegan 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the city and the council are different, but the crest refers as much to the city as to the council, imho. Once again I am not talking about the new Second-river-crossing-style logo, but the crest as has been popularly depicted in the 20th century. Perhaps there are an unlimited amount of images that would fit the heraldic description, but there really are only a few variations that people immediately identify with. The city crest on the council site is probably the most recognisable, probably followed by a crest similar to what the GAA used for a while: basically just the three ships on blue waters. I think that a good quality image of any of these would make a good replacement. I'll get around to looking for one eventually if nobody gets there first. Merlante

Notable Historical Figures

I added this section a while ago. I have only put people in there that were actually born in Waterford City, as opposed to County, or somewhere else. Currently, the only exception to this is Peter O'Connor. He was born in Ashford, Co. Wicklow, however, he lived in many places over the course of his childhood, none of which he seemed to have spent much time in, and none of which "claim him" as their own. The one place he did settle was Waterford, and he lived there for most of his life. In contrast, I did not include Ignatious Rice because, although he lived most of his life in Waterford, he comes from Kilkenny, where his family was well established, and he is recognised generally as a Kilkenny man.

Added Ernest Walton (Ireland's only Nobel Prize Winner For Physics)

--Jmccormac 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue Edmund Rice should be added here as he chose to die in his home, Waterford, and his bones rest in the city too and given the historic significance of Mount Sion it is surely worth adding. I would also say he could also be the key to Kilkenny Waterford relationship moving forward.

History section

I'm going to cut this section down, as all the information is in the main article and the space it takes up here is disproportionate. Jdorney 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: the history section claims Waterford to have been founded in 914 and "thus being Ireland's oldest city". If you wikisearch the history of dublin or limerick, the former is said to have been founded in 841 and the latter in 812. Something is wrong - it can't be the oldest city if its younger than another by almost 100 years, can it?

13:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the Viking settlement discovered a few years ago had a relatively large population and is the most significant Viking settlement outside of Scandinavia. And it significantly predates Dublin and Limerick.--Jmccormac (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this link: http://dedanaan.com/untilled-fields-of-irish-history/a-celtic-chronology/8/ Waterford was "founded" in 830, but the claim is that it is Ireland's oldest city, meaning that in 914 when it actually became a city, it was Ireland's first... I think. Hope this helps somewhat anyway. JimGreeid (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And this link: http://www.dublinuncovered.net/history.html seems to claim Dublin was established as a city in 988.. I'm sure working this out would be a historian's dream, but I'm tired. :) JimGreeid (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cities in Ireland

Unfortunately it appears content (irrespective of quality) is now determined by straw votes, see Talk:Cities in Ireland. Comments welcome. Djegan 19:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Revamp

Okay, I just finished a major revamp of the Waterford article. I did it because I think that the old article was very poor, particularly the 'Today' section, and also because I think that the lack of headings led people to adding in bits of information in random places, and prevented others from going at it at all.

What I did was re-write the pre-amble completely and ditch the 'Today' section in favour of lots of headings.

It is far from perfect, I know. There must be a lot of small mistakes and so on, but I'm done working on it for tonight, and I think the changes had to be made. Merlante 00:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Website Links

I see there has been a bit of an edit spat about adding links to Waterford websites. Could we please discuss this without trying to overrule each other?

Personally, I don't think that an 'Internet' sub-section' fits in with 'Media' section. What is there at the moment is a listing of established media sources that serve the city. The Waterford discussion forums are not media sources in this sense, and are there for entertainment rather than to provide conventional journalism. Perhaps a link in an 'Entertainment' section to an article called 'Waterford on the Internet' might be the way to go here. The Waterford city article probably shouldn't get that much bigger as it is, and plenty of important sections, such as 'Sport' and an enlarged 'Politics' section have yet to be added. I would urge people to comment here. Merlante 12:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a links directory. The way that upthedeise.com and ciddytours.com were being added was quite blatent linkspamming and website promotion. A while ago, there was linkspam leading to sites that were .com variations of the official Waterford websites. These links were owned by upthedeise.com. If there is to be an 'Internet' section then it should be about internet access (what kind of internet access is available such as ADSL/Wireless/ISDN/Dialup etc).--Jmccormac 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty despicable (the .com variations linking to UTD). Didn't realise that. I don't see anything wrong with a link from an 'Entertainment' Section to a 'Waterford on the Internet' article though. Provided it's a sincere article and not just a vehicle for advertisement. There seems to be some serious misunderstanding (or a refusal to understand) what the wikipedia is. Merlante 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with including website links is that there are hundreds of Waterford websites that could arguably be included. And Wikipedia is not a web directory - this fact seems to be lost on some people who keep resubmitting the links. The availability of internet connectivity is a far more worthy candidate for a Waterford on the internet section. The Waterford Tourism link on the County Waterford page was linking directly to the tourism section on UTD as can be seen from the http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.waterford-tourism.com link. The official Waterford tourism site is http://www.waterfordtourism.com rather than the hyphenated version. The hyphenated version is no longer on the web. --Jmccormac 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a media section with waterford related media, wlr, news and star and waterford today, like the Galway wikipedia entry. I have added upthedeise.com to this section as it is a media source, there are articles on waterford writers. I think this is a valid case for a link to upthedeise.com as it is a media source for hundreds of Waterford people. Scratch that I see Jmccormack removed it and put in the Munster Express (invalidly) I will clean up the square bracket.

It is an internet forum not a media source. The link to upthedeise.com was added repeatedly despite having been removed. The latest additions added other Waterford internet fora in an attempt to get it in under the radar. Wikipedia is not a links directory for the promotion of websites. Even the reference to the upthedeise.com published Waterford dictionary of slang has been turned into a link to a page with the book for sale. This too may be against Wikipedia policy.--Jmccormac 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the policy doc and UTD is actually a media source with regular articles, photos, songs etc., it just so happens there is a board element on upthdeise.org which I have not attempted to link to to. In fact some of the media on this site has come from UTD e.g. slang, waterford logo etc. I think that warrants a link, it is not to promote the website but to provide waterford information seekers with a site containing lots of facts about waterford. Anyone who denies that UTD is an info source for waterfordians is not speaking the truth. If you want to quote some facts from the site it may make the decision to keep the link easier for you. CF.

Lots of facts such as linking waterford-tourism.com to an advertising supported page on UTD when the official Waterford Tourism site is www.waterfordtourism.com? If there are articles on Waterford writers on the UTD site, then why not create pages for these writers on Wikipedia and link them to the list of Waterford people? The addition of the link to the page where the book is for sale was commercial promotion. The Waterford pages are meant to be pages about Waterford and do not exist to promote websites. If UTD is linked from these pages, other websites and fora will want to be linked as well - ciddytours.com being a case in point.--Jmccormac 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be ridiculous to throw in discussion boards/Waterford community websites in with the established media. As Jmccormac says, if one goes in they all have to go in. They are not media source in the sense that is intended by the article, imho, and if they were, I think we should decide to list the established media only because it would be ridiculous to list a whole bunch of websites alongside RTE and the local papers, etc. As for the reference to the Dictionary of Deise Slang, I don't see a problem with using it as a reference to support the slang material, as long as it is referenced consistently with the other looks listed at the end of the page in 'Additional Reading'. Merlante 00:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To classify UTD as a discussion forum is incorrect. Look at the homepage of utd.com and it is an active media source with articles, photos, etc. As merlante knows the crest on this page was donated from UTD as an interim measure to make this page more attractive. The board is a popular aspect to UTD but not what the site is about. I agree that the board aspect should appear in another article on wikipedia. Admittedly, it was incorrect of me to use waterford-tourism.com but I had intended making it into an information portal. To leave out UTD is not in the interest of people who what to find out more about waterford on the web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.148.246 (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

We don't write articles on Wikipedia for a return. We do it to illuminate people and create greater understanding. The search engines and Dmoz are there for finding out about Waterford on the web. The problem with typosquats was not limited to the Waterford Tourism site. Perhaps you could, as a gesture of good will, donate the earnings you made from these typosquats to Wikipedia. --Jmccormac 00:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not looking for a return on it, the only return I am looking for is a greater appreciation of Waterford locally, nationally and abroad and utd presents waterford facts, photos, songs etc. to the world. If you take off your "UTD is just a message board" hat you might appreciate that. The website is non profit BTW, all ad monies go back into adwords to get more waterford people on the site to further illuminate people about Waterford. Some of the profits from the book will be donated to a local charity seeing as you are questioning my character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.148.246 (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The purpose of this wikipedia article is not to promote an appreciation of Waterford to anyone or get more people to read information on Waterford on upthedeise. So that is not a valid argument for including upthedeise.com, imho. --Selene Argenta 00:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The site provides good information on Waterford and is a media source for thousands of Waterford people. I personally think it warrants a link but I respect the consensus and will continue to donate my time to this article in future. God Bless. 159.134.148.246 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)CF

I don't think it matters whether UTD is more than just a message board or not, we can't get into the business of listing all sites that could by some definition qualify as a media source. And it would have to be all or none. This is as much a question of scope as of anything else, we could exhaustively name all of the businesses of the IDA industrial estate if we wanted to just to give information, but that would make for a pretty poor article. The article has a finite length, and shouldn't be too long, so we have to focus only on the most pertinent facts. So to summarise, in my opinion it would be incorrect to list UTD on its own, since that's plain advertising, and also incorrect to exhaustively list all Waterford websites, since wikipedia articles are not portals, and aesthetically it would look very poor. I suspect there are guidelines somewhere that say this, which I will endeavour to find. Merlante 01:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we've reached a consensus on this. The fact that people care so deeply about Waterford is a good thing and hopefully it will enhance the content of the Waterford pages here.--Jmccormac 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

P.s. I am well aware that I am slightly biased ;) 159.134.148.246 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)CF

Great! Now we have someone breaking the links to the local media websites just because UTD wasn't accepted! A user with the same IP as Farlee 1 who was blocked temporarily for repeatedly linkspamming has unlinked the WLR, The Munster Express, The News and Star and Waterford Today links. As these are agreed links (no editors objected to their inclusion and they are genuine links rather than linkspam) to local media sites, the actions of the anonymous user is vandalism. The history of this user's contribution is on :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.6.248.86
I've relinked them pending discussion here. They'll probably be unlinked again by another UTD fanatic. --Jmccormac 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reginald's Tower

I don't think that Reginald was the founder of the city as claimed in the section in Reginald's tower at the top of the article. Has anyone got a source on this? Some of the stuff from Downey's 'History Of Waterford' (The book was published in 1914 and does not have an ISBN) might be worth referencing either in this article or the article on the history of the city. Apparently Reginald's Tower predates the Tower of London and is one of the oldest buildings of its type still standing in these islands.--Jmccormac 19:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

From 'Discover Waterford' by Eamonn McEneaney (source referenced in article): "In 914 the great Viking adventurer and pirate Regnall, grandson of Ivor the Boneless, established a base here and built a Longphort, which would in time become the modern city." It is often said that Sitric established the city, but as far as I can work out, Sitric is associated with the first settlement at Waterford in 853, which, like all others around Ireland, was vacated. Therefore, sources contradict each other as to whether Waterford was established in 853 or 914, but to my mind, Waterford having been little more than a camp and having been vacated for at least 10 years, the later date is the one that makes sense. On the Cities in Ireland article, the re-occupied date is used for the foundation dates of Waterford, Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Admittedly I put it there (posted with a reference) and nobody has argued with it.

Reginald's tower, iirc., was built on the site of an older tower known as Dundory fort, which was one of the first buildings built by the vikings, it was replaced by a Reginald's Tower in 1002 (irrc.), which in turn was substantially rebuilt in the early Norman period in 1185 (ground & first floors). It has been in continuous use for over 800 years, and is the oldest urban civic building, and probably the oldest urban building full stop, in Ireland. Merlante 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

With the discovery of what is effectively a city at Woodstown, there could be a possibility that it was the original Waterford. It would be interesting to see what caused the abandonment of that area and if the abandonment was gradual (suggesting a shift to the current site) or sudden. The area used for docking could have silted up or the immediately accessible potable water sources dried up from overuse). It looks like the question needs a bit more archeological research.--Jmccormac 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if it is the case that the city 'moved' from the previous viking site to the current site, then you have an interesting question: is a city a slowly replacing collection of people, or a set location, or a bit of both? If New York moved 30 miles away would it still be New York? If everyone in New York was replaced in the morning with people from somewhere else, would it still be New York? (This sort of thing more or less happened already in Königsberg/Kaliningrad.) So in other words, if the people just did up and move to the current Waterford, does this constitute a continuation of the city? Kind of a philosophical question there.

However, it is my understanding that the two settlements co-existed at some point, but I can't remember where exactly I read that. Maybe the Save Viking Waterford site has the info (lots of articles on there)? If this is the case, then the old town/city probably could not be considered Waterford, unless at the very least, clear evidence was given for the gradual transferal over time of the population from the earlier settlement to the current city.

Like you say though, a lot can/could/will be revealed by further excavations/research. Merlante 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I see that this article has been assessed as 'Start' class (see assessment box at the top of the page). I think this assessment is a bit unfair. I think 'B' class would be a fairer reflection. In any case, what say a few of us get together and try to improve the article systematically. Perhaps we could create some sort of project page and list targets on it. Here are some things that I think the article could benefit from off the bat:

1. A section on Sport is badly needed, probably linking to a main article.
2. An enlarged Politics section, there is very little there really.
3. A few more good pictures/maps to illustrate sections.
4. A small section on Archaeology, listing briefly the main buildings, linking to a full article.
5. A revamped History section. There are a few things that are missing and something about it just doesn't seem right.
6. My use of bullet points in some sections is probably not great and should be removed and sections tidied up.
7. A small section on tourist attractions linking to a larger article could be added.
8. A small section on the local economy could be added, perhaps linking to a larger article.

Thoughts? Merlante 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1. A section on Sport is badly needed, probably linking to a main article.

# That would be a good idea.

1. An enlarged Politics section, there is very little there really.

# Politics is big now because of the recent election but will be less important later.

1. A few more good pictures/maps to illustrate sections.

# There should be some on the city council website.

1. A small section on Archaeology, listing briefly the main buildings, linking to a full article.

# Maybe but the city walls would be the only big part.

1. A revamped History section. There are a few things that are missing and something about it just doesn't seem right.

# You can't include everything.

1. My use of bullet points in some sections is probably not great and should be removed and sections tidied up.
2. A small section on tourist attractions linking to a larger article could be added.

# Again a list should be on the city council website that may help.

1. A small section on the local economy could be added, perhaps linking to a larger article.

Tonyf12 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Of Waterford Colloquialisms section by non-Waterfordians

It might be glaringly obvious to us that the Colloquialisms section has its reference - the Dictionary of Waterford Slang book in the additional reading list. However that has not stopped two people from deleting the section. I have restored the section and put an explanation, in simple terms, for these non-Waterfordians.--Jmccormac 07:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We would have to agree here that your book is a reliable source, and that the supposed slang is notable enough for inclusion on the page. I would disagree with both assertions. The onus is on you to argue for its inclusion, otherwise it will be removed. --John 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This newspaper story tickled me. --John 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The book was launched by "an illusionist" - makes sense to me. What I think the insistence on including this nonsense will likely do is ruin any hope of the article advancing from "B" class to GA. Which the City of Waterford surely deserves? Us "non-Waterfordians" should not be mistaken for "anti-Waterfordians" (Sarah777 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

For the record, it is not my book. It is as you point out, a reliable source. Waterford is the oldest city in Ireland and it naturally has developed colloquialisms. These expressions are coherent enough to be recognised by all Waterfordians. It reflects a more coherent culture than for example, the slang of Dublin, which varies from the true inner city Dubspeak to the godawful, tongue mangling assault on the English language that is Dortspeak. The use of "Well?" as a greeting here in Waterford is almost universal. That does make it somewhat unusual. Perhaps you could put it to those who created the colloquialism section that it deserves a separate page.--Jmccormac 09:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This time I only removed the "non-unique" ones; some of those expressions are common throughout large parts of Ireland. As for Dortspeak; have you heard the accent many of your young secondary school Waterford ladies are using these days?! (Sarah777 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

As I said, I do not consider this book to be a valid source. Sorry you misunderstood me. --John 21:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The citation for the slang being "The Déise Dictionary of Waterford Slang". That's good enough (in that it physically exists) compared to some of the other stuff in Wikipedia that is used to justify opinions. And there is even a second volume of it. The alternative, as I suggested earlier is to give it a separate page.--Jmccormac (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Colloquialisms - reference

I took the opportunity while removing some vandalism to delete this section but it was restored quickly. This section is breaking all the rules about verifiability (leaving aside my view that it is ruining any chance Waterford has of developing to GA status). I have tagged the section, do not remove the tag without discussion. (Sarah777 (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

I totally agree, speaking as a Waterford local, I havent heard some of those statements in years. The only notable statement in that list is "Up The Deise", which is used almost constantly in business names, banners etc, but it only deserves a mention somewhere, not its own section... on that note actually, do we really need a section on what cinemas Waterford has? Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that is more like something you see in small-town articles. Waterford merits a GA feature as one of only 6 cities in the RoI; the itty-bitty stuff is ruining it. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

You'd think Ireland's oldest city would have a lot more to talk about then this, if no one objects I'm going to integrate "Up The Deise" into the rest of the article, and remove the Cinemas and Colloquialisms, they are seriously holding this article back. If the change is reverted I'll happily revert it again on the bases that its a good faith edit, and needs to be discussed before reverted. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 15:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia contributor you should know when to use than - Mickey

Put the colloquialisms on a separate, linked page. Leave the cinema section.--Jmccormac (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes the cinemas notable? Every town in the country has them, and every city has several. They do nothing for the article. That mightn't be a bad ideas for the colloquialisms though, although there is probably an article on Irish colloquialisms they could be integrated into instead. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I haven't been able to find a page on Colloquialisms, so I'm going to start one, when I re/move the information from this page, and Waterford can have the honour of starting the page, fitting for the oldest city. I'll be starting the page at List of Irish Colloquialisms and I'll add a link to it from the see also section.

I still see no reason for retaining the cinema section.

I should also note I'm giving this another 24 or so hours to give people a change to make there opinions known.Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ferdia, sounds like a good plan. Regarding the cinemas, my local areas, Stillorgan and Dundrum, - (hardly on a par with Waterford in national terms) - the articles make only a passing reference to the existence of the local cinemas. Which I'd say is about right. (Mind, Dundrum lists local bus routes - I'd not be inclined to copy that)! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Lol, no I'd say people could write for hours on Waterford's sporadic bus timetable, so it won't be me who starts that up, Waterford Cinema For All might be worth keeping, so I may leave that paragraph, and mention the cinemas at the end of this paragraph. But its definitely not going to exist in the form it holds now. Its this articles lack of decent prose that's hold it back the most, let alone the content. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The prose, for something that is an encyclopedia entry rather than a great work of literature, is adequate. Please don't butcher/edit something thinking that you are the next J.K Rowling. There is quite a difference between an informational article and literature. Most people are incapable of writing a good informational article so look at some before you go editing. The Cinema section should remain. The colloquialisms section can be included on a separate page. There are people who will disagree with you and you may have the Waterford boards.ie section and upthedeise.com appearing here to revert your edits. This is not some college project so please don't go ruining it with unnecessary edits.--Jmccormac (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, what makes the cinemas notable, every town in the country has one, and every city has several, there is no reason for it to be here, with the exception of Waterford Cinema For All. This is a very necessary edit, its the lack of well written, notable information thats stopping this article attaining GA Class. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 15:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise that the above is just a reply in a discussion. But if the above is an example of the prose you intend to insert in the article, then please reconsider editing anything in it. Perhaps it is a good thing that people can find out how many cinemas Waterford has. Sometimes people do visit Wikipedia for information. The aim of this article is to provide good, reliable information about my city.--Jmccormac (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider using proper indentation when responding. Yes, this is a discussion, I'll write in whatever style I see fit. I'll also point out that I live on Manor Street, making it my city to. If you want me to leave in that Waterford has two cinemas, I think I can manage that, but how many seats they have, what they're called, and how many screens they have; completely non-notable. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the above discussion I have moved the Colloquialisms to a separate page, listed in the See Also section, and have condensed the cinema section. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 11:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As I expected, the Waterford Colloquialisms are already up for deletion. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 13:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that solves that problem then. The linguistic section needs to be enhanced and I will add some more background on the Waterford accent and colloquialisms. I've also reverted the Cinema section as there is some cinematic history that can be added. (The battle scenes and a lot of the early scenes for the movie Barry Lyndon were filmed in Waterford.)--Jmccormac (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add information add it to this format, and to List_of_Irish_Colloquialisms#Waterford Colloquialisms. My change still stands. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Including colloquialisms in a wider section on Waterford language and accents (with citations) is better. Since your page is up for deletion, I do not see any point in adding to it. Therefore the section on Waterford Accents and Colloquialisms will be included in the main page.--Jmccormac (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has shown that this information is not viable, if you wish to improve it, add it to a sandbox on your own page, improve it, and then add it. In its present form it is not acceptable. If my page is up for deletion, it shows that the information is not needed, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Media

In relation to my recent edits on the media section I would like to remind jmccormac that he does not own this page. I don't see any problem with listing prices and editors of the local papers, in fact surely this is information that many people would want to know about any local paper. This is not advertising, and I am not connected to any media source in any way. If anyone thinks that I am wrong in my views, make me aware of it instead of changing interesting details just to feed your own ego. Donut216 (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The price and editors of local newspapers are not exactly notable items of information. This is not a tourist guide to Waterford. It is an encyclopedia entry about Waterford. For someone "not connected to any media source in any way", you've done an awful lot of work on the WLR FM entry and on the RTE correpondents entries. --Jmccormac (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That information was far to detailed for an encyclopedia. This article has enough one liners in it as it stands, I'm going to do a complete re-write of many of the sections soon. I won't be removing any information, just combining all of the one liners into decent prose. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between then and than, please do not edit the article directly. Please put it in your sand box and get someone to check your grammar and spelling first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciandfoley (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a WTF moment there! The whole media conversation got blanked. @Donut216: As regards feeding my ego - it is probably big enough as it is. However I do know a bit about editing and writing. As a result I tend to be a bit cynical when it comes to one liners that appear to be PR/advertising fluff. Please read the introductory pages to Wikipedia. They will give you a better understanding of what is notable and what is non-notable. --Jmccormac (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Donut216 jumped the gun a little, I've let him know about the policy that prohibit that on his and my talk page. If your feeling cynical about one liners can I take it that you don't have any problems with my plan of action in my last comment Jmccormac? I really don't feel like another edit war this time, lol. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 20:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we've all got to work together to make it a good page Ferdia. :) It is all factual writing and it has to be brief. But the page could do with a bit of editing and some points need to be expanded.--Jmccormac (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true. But I don't think anyone can argue that 14 headings, 17 subheadings, 4 sub-subheadings and 1 sub-sub-subheading is a little much. What I'll do is add the entire page to my sandbox, do a little nip/tuck work and then let everyone have a look. Sound fair? ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't do all that much, so I just implemented. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 21:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rochester NY flag.svg

The image Image:Rochester NY flag.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Rochester NY city seal.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)