Talk:Ladysbridge
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Move / title change[edit]
While I'm not sure how to address it, and while I appreciate that (for census purposes) Knockglass is treated as a distinct area, it seems a bit "odd" to me that we have an article on Knockglass (a townland) while we have none for Ladysbridge (the village of which Knockglass forms part). While Knockglass is a "census area", it is (really) just one of three townlands that make up the village of Ladysbridge. The other two being Dromadda Beg and Rathcallan. (For example, Ladysbridge Catholic church in is in Knockglass townland. While the Ladysbridge National School (a few paces across the road) is in Rathcallan. Normally we wouldn't sub-divide a village in a way where each constituent townland has its own article....)
Given that the only reason we have this "construction" here is because the CSO has treated the townland as its own entity, I'll take a look at the CSO website. Once its services are back "up" again. And confirm the scope/area of the census bounds. Before seeing whether/how to best to address this unusual state of affairs.
(While this Talk page post is really just a reminder to myself to do that, other thoughts are of course also welcome :) .... ) Guliolopez (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- The CSO website is (as of 21 Apr 2020) back "up" again. Having been down for a few days. As per the SAPMAP area for 2011 (and indeed for 2016), the census area called "Knockglass" is not co-terminus with the townland of Knockglass. But is exactly co-terminus with the village of Ladysbridge. In honesty, I have absolutely no idea why the CSO have not named the census area after the village it represents. And instead named it after a nearby townland with which it tangentially overlaps. In many years of using the CSO sources to support Wikipedia content, I don't think I've ever come across a situation where the CSO didn't use a settlement's commonname for the equivalent census area. Whatever the reason, I don't think we should be doing the same thing here. While someone (and some bots in other languages) used the census record as the trigger to create the article here, the commonname for the subject under discussion is not the one used in the census record. If there are no other thoughts, I propose to move this article to the commonname. Ladysbridge. From the "census only" name. Of Knockglass. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll be doing this in the coming days. (After moving it, I'll likely update the lead to read something like: "Ladysbridge (Irish: Droichead na Scuab), known for census purposes as Knockglass (Irish: An Cnoc Glas) is a village in located in County Cork, Ireland. [blah blah].") Guliolopez (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, and as per the proposed intro above, I propose to move this article from "Knockglass" to "Ladysbridge" in the coming days. And "flip" the text in the intro slightly to reflect this change. I propose this because, while the CSO refers to the census area (which is effectively coterminus with the village) as "Knockglass", the commonname of the village (in ALL OTHER contexts) is "Ladysbridge". WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that the article should be at the commonname. Not that used (as far as I can tell) solely by one state agency. Guliolopez (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Bumping thread. Guliolopez (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Last call? If there are no other thoughts, I'll go ahead with the move and reorg in the coming days.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Resolved It's been a month. I hadn't heard any other thoughts. So I went ahead with the move. To reflect WP:COMMONNAME. Guliolopez (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
