Talk:Athlone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background Info Requests[edit]

Is there anybody out there?

Hi Athlone fans. I have a context question: What are the 'visible ruins' mentioned in the Athlone page?

>Probably the town wall , they are visible and preserved. Walk to St. Francis Terrace. Also try the Civic Centre.< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.12.202 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I broke the link to 'John Grey'; none of the John Greys listed seem to be the 'Justisar' mentioned in the page.

Why is the castle called 'Adamson's Castle'; I don't mention it in my editing of the page, because I know nothing of the history or who Adamson may have been. We need Turloch O. in here to give us a better interpretation of the History.

Named for Brigadier George Adamson of the National Army, shot dead in Athlone on 25th April 1922. Check the article April_1922_in_the_United_Kingdom Sean O'Casaidhe 14:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is mirrored at least 18 times on the web, demonstrating how starved for Athlone history we are. So, any chance of a real scholar of history plonking some good information in here. Us amateurs can only do so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.64.236 (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athlone Town Centre Development[edit]

This entire section was removed for being a copyright violation from [1]. howcheng {chat} 01:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Won't be missed:)
The section currently labeled for clean up seems to be very specific to the current real estate market, has many obscure undefined references, and should be eliminated. I don't see that the content is particularlly valuable information unless you are buying or selling a house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.64.236 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have deleted it. --Gazzetta 10:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format glich[edit]

The large blank space looked strange; I moved the photo of the Abbey to the middle of the history block and the text now fills up to the top of the History section. A few literature citations would not go amiss in here. Also, It would be nice to have some confirmed history of the Abbey in there (photo is fine, but not referenced in the text; OK, I admit I added the photo, but I was hoping somone would plop in some Abbey history) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmccabe (talk • contribs) 01:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Weather[edit]

While the climate statistics have been correctly taken from the 'Yahoo Weather' site they cannot possibly be correct! (Sarah777 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Weather[edit]

For a more accurate picture check met eireann (The National Meteorological Service) at www.met.ie Mullingar is the nearest place there are figures for and it is completly different to the info on the page.

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.223.185 (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Since when is Kilbeggan further away than Mullingar? 15 miles closer by my mileometer. The weather station is there on the roadside. Stop posting crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.40.226 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe so, there is one on the west side of Athlone also. This doesn't change the fact that the closest figures published on the website are for Mullingar and Birr.

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.223.185 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

population[edit]

Figures for population are higher if the total rural populations are included bring the rural population to over 30,000 as per census information 2006. Figures look skewed as actual town boundary is tiny proportionate to the size of the area the town has expanded into.

p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.223.185 (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athlone has a population of 48,566 according to the Introduction? More like 17,500-18,000 (including contiguous rural district) surely? Gratedparmesan 12:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I didn't put in that crazy figure of 48,566 - it's closer to 17 or 18,000 (officially) including the 2 nearest rural districts as you said, but people keep changing it so I'm not bothering anymore.

P there is definitely around 48566 people here. especially outside of the urban area(the town in itself). Coosan and Monksland are full of people and they are all in the Athlone area. not to mention Kiltoom Anto 21:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article repeatedly declaring Athlone as a smaller town than Mullingar which clearly if the writer knew anything is false. I've updated this but it's been reset consistently to say this regardless of how I explain it. Athlone's population of 17,544 according to the 2006 census is exclusively the population according to the UDC boundary. To put this boundary into perspective this doesn't include anything west of the old canal (Monksland ~5k), or east of the Bonavalley bridge (AIT,Willow,Retreat Rd,Blyry Ind Est. etc ~10k+).Those of you who have been to Athlone may be suprised this Bonavalley bridge is almost a full 3km of houses/apartments into the town beyond the Kilmartin centre. Mullingar's boundary in contrast covers 18,500 of a population in the low 20s. This article should surely reflect the true size of the town even though Mullingar's 'boundary' population is a larger figure. All you have to do is travel to the two towns to realise the difference. This article mentions nothing of Athlone's potential city status either. I'd consider making a change but people seem to love resetting it.

Btw whoever said 48566 is crazy. Those must be the people mentioned considering Moate part of Athlone lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.203.192 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting[edit]

Am I wrong to believe that broadcasting in Moydrum, Athlone started several years before the stated 1931?

I have an account (just that an account) that the concrete piles that do (verified) exist there was for a BBC Service to the American colonies. Civil War and Independence put short shrift to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.12.202 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed offensive post[edit]

removed one post from above which was unduly offensive. An honest inquiry is not disgusting ignorance.

Sean O'Casaidhe 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Ath Luain[edit]

Also removed an incorrect translation of "Ath Luain" or alternatively, "The Ford of the Moon"

"Moon" in gaelic is "gealach". Gaelic is not a romanesque language and thus "Luain" is not derived from 'Luna'.

Sean O'Casaidhe 12:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Irish scholar but IIRC, moon was always translated as "An Luain"? Bastun 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody knows, but Luain could have a lunar connotation. Not much of a scholar that shoots the theory down with zero proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.40.226 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I'm not a historian, but I am from Athlone, born and bred, and I am very interested in the history of my native town, and i have never, ever, ever heard or read of any theory that "Ath Luain" has anything to do with the moon. 85.18.190.152 14:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seaneendubh replies; "Moon" in Gaelic is "An Lunasa", very different from Luain both in spelling and pronounciation. One shouldn't propose a theory with zero proof. Try that in a peer-review and get laughed out of existence. But this is Wikipedia so anything goes? Sean O'Casaidhe 08:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athá means 'Ford' or 'Crossing Point'. and Luain was supposedly the name of the founder of the town (Luain's Inn, now Seans Bar) but local historians now suggest that Luain means moon. It was the first thing they taught us in primary school, the name of Athlone. Let only people from Athlone edit this page as no one elses has a clue! as the locasl say 'state of dis like!' Anto 21:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anto, what local historians? Info PLEASE! If there's a change in ideas I'd love to read up on it! BTW, pls don't use blasphemy on Wikipedia - I don't care, but there's no need to offend others more devout than us. Sean O'Casaidhe 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only place where Luan means ‘moon’ is in the words for Monday where it’s likely a loan from Latin (An Luan, Dé Luain > dia lúain > diēs Lūnae). The Irish word for moon is gealach. Lúnasa (older spelling Lughnasa) is the feast of the pagan deity Lugh, and the name for August; it has nothing to do with the moon at all!
It does seem to be unclear what the origins of the name were (not everything can be known), but I was surprised that another theory didn’t get a mention, the one in the Táin. At the end of the story the two bulls fight, with Donn Cuailgne winning and casting body parts of Finnbhennach about the country, giving names to the places where they landed. The loins were supposed to have landing at Athlone, hence Baile Átha Luain ‘town of the ford of the loins’. Luan in Modern Irish also means ‘loin’ I’ve no idea whether this is a credible story, but it’s certainly has some currency and is mentioned in the (Irish) ordinance survey notes for the placename in the Irish Placenames Database.
See…
  • luan in Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla (Modern Irish) — 1. loin. 2. Monday; nimbus, halo.
  • lúan in the Dictionary of the Irish Language — ‘moon; Monday; doomsday, day of judgement’ (historical form of modern Luan ‘Monday’).
  • lón in the Dictionary of the Irish Language — ‘haunch, rump, buttock; hip’ (historical form of modern luan ‘loin’).
  • Baile Átha Luain/Athlone at logainm.ie (Bunachar Logainmneacha na hÉireann / Irish Placenames Database)
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 07:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mooted idea[edit]

The piece begining "the idea was mooted..." did at one point refer to a passage describing an historic plan to make Athlone the capital of Ireland. The passage was deleted at some point and the remaining piece makes no sense as written. I dont know if the deletion was part of the serial editing war that waged here for a while, but it might be worth resurrecting, or rewriting the remaining piece. Any thoughts?Dmccabe 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p

Included by another contributor Sean O'Casaidhe 10:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Aiport[edit]

I took out an article that was injected at the top of the page referring to the idea of a midlands airport near Horseleap and listing a shedload of local VIPs. This article is also present in the entry for Horseleap. Sean O'Casaidhe 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the Horseleap article per WP:CRYSTAL. Bastun 17:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Edits[edit]

Don't have much problem with them. If only our elected officials were so responsive :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.40.226 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands gateway map[edit]

I think this is more suited to the Midlands Gateway page than the Athlone page? I don't think duplication is necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1-555-confide (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Athlone in Cape Town, South Africa[edit]

Does anyone know how the name of Athlone came to be applied to an area in Cape Town, South Africa (during the apartheid years)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Londondee (talk • contribs) 09:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Named for Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone wo was the Gov. General of the Union of South Africa at the time.Dmccabe 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed[edit]

Removed Unreferenced tag, simply because the article is in commendable shape in terms of being easily verifiable elsewhere on Wikipedia through links. Nothing that a few fact tags would not mend, if such be the case that it is in need of more references. C.J. 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Issues section - be careful of O.R.![edit]

I had to remove this contribution because it is original research.

"Also the algae levels in the Shannon and Lough Ree is atrocious and is a huge problem."

Yes, there is a place for this in the article, but you have to follow Wikipedia rules. Have a look at this page if you're not sure what O.R. is: Wikipedia:No original research

The other contributions in this paragraph are also O.R.

"The proposed abstraction of water from Lough Ree could lead to an ecological, environmental and economic disaster. There is little by way of forethought on this issue."

It expresses an opinion, without any references or data to back it up. And to say that there is little forethought is of course subjective. If you can find a quote of somebody saying this, then you can reference that, but otherwise it's O.R. and will have to be removed. Have a look for online articles on the subject and quote or reference them; I'll leave it up for the moment, but if it isn't brought into line soon it'll have to be removed. Sorry :-)Warchef 09:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Current Issues" section has now been removed. If anyone wants to re-instate the issues raised with references and presented in an objective fashion, please feel free to do soWarchef 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that and it is a real issue!!!! the water is atrocious here and awareness needs to be raised!! as well as that, arses in dublin are trying to steal our water from the lake!! allow that to be reposted!!! you have no idea how bad it is, you have never seen it up close, yu have never even been on Lough Ree or in Athlone. Anto 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I live on the shore of Lough Ree in Athlone, so I do know that it is a real issue - however, that's not the point- the point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so when you contribute something, you have to back it up with references to newspaper reports, other websites, reference books, etc. and it has to neutral and verifiable. I fully support the issue being raised an addressed in the article, but then you have to structure it properly, with references and quotes. I suggest you check the westmeath independent and athlone voice websites for articles on the issue which you can reference- or maybe waterways ireland have some literature on the subject. If you're still unsure as to why the contribution doesn't fit Wikipedia policy, then have a read through these pages, they should be helpful for you to write your contribution in a way that means they won't be deleted for being against policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. good luck! peace. Warchef 14:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, Anto, you just need to rephrase what you want to say and include lots of references to newspapers etc (Surely the Westmeath Indo has a lot to say on the subject??) Sean O'Casaidhe 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Jeanne dArc, could you please state why you think the neutrality of this article is in question so improvements can be made..... Fossiliferous 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this "neutrality" being disputed? I don't see the grounds??? Sean O'Casaidhe 10:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "neutrality" tag and replaced with "Wikify" - the article needs some editing, cleaning up. (Sarah777 01:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Example of problems: Too many 'external links'; not enough references. Too much "See also". (Sarah777 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Twin City[edit]

What school goes to Menden?Anto (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coosan[edit]

We need to help this article Coosan. Zu Anto 13:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Census numbers[edit]

FYI. I recently changed the pop census numbers to reflect the actual CSO numbers. The previous number (17,544) was inappropriate for two reasons. Firstly it was a "cyclical reference" to a Wikipedia article. (We shouldn't use other articles as references). And secondly, it was wrong. The census numbers for Athlone are as below. No reason this article shouldn't reflect these: 

                              '02     '06
003  Athlone East Rural	6433	6804
001  Athlone West Rural	2262	3114
001  Athlone East Urban	4092	4096
002  Athlone West Urban	3262	2874

This totals just under ~17k in total. Not 17.5k. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.217.114 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. But could you also provide a reference for these figures please? As there's something of an edit war going on re: athlone's population in this article, the more references for real stats the better. If referenced I think there's an argument for including these figures in toto. Cheers Warchef (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Will add immediately. Guliolopez (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it an "edit war". Some IP is trying to insert the claim that Athlone is more populous than Mullingar when the CSO clearly states that it isn't. I regard the persistent insertion of the claim as simple vandalism at this stage. And I have no interest in either town. Sarah777 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree except for the fact that the CSO figures don't actually cover the entire town. Coosan? Monksland? I could go on. It's funny that the article reads Mullingar as being a larger town than Athlone when it clearly isn't nor never has been. All you have to do is drive through the two towns to see this. The official stats are the official stats which is perfectly fine but the article should reflect the reality of the situation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.217.114 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Actually the CSO figures do cover the areas you mention. Monksland is included in the "Athlone West Rural" numbers. And Coosan in the either the East Rural or East Urban numbers. That said, if you can find a way of reflecting your point objectively and verifiably in the article, then consider doing so. (Without - obviously - stating anything as subjective or POV as "No matter what the population figure say, if drive through X you'll clearly see its larger than Y". Because that wouldn't be terribly encyclopedic). Guliolopez (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coosan does not fall under East Rural - only some of the housing estates (Clonbrusk etc). Everything south and just north of the M6 doesn't count as Coosan. Coosan goes as far as the lake. You should take a look at 2006's official boundaries file. Its available as an open download. Danesfort, Woodgrange, Kilmartins, everything north of Coosan church, a big chunk of west & north monksland and not to mention the 3-4k students that live there during the week who fall under a different census region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.217.114 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Style thing[edit]

Do we really need to split the population into "town" and "environs"; it is a pretty meaningless distinction and removes clarity. The CSO table defines the total population of the urban areas. We should stick to that. Sarah777 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a conversation worth having. But I'd recommend having it at the template page and announcing it at the WP:IWNB page. (So that it's not confined to just this article). Personally I think it's OK to split them. The CSO splits them because (for larger towns and cities) the population within the legally defined borough boundaries may bely a larger "area" population. IE: If the Govt is setting planning strategy guidelines for a town, they need to understand the difference between "town proper" and "environs/catchment". (Not unlike the age old "Limerick City has a lower pop than Galway City - But that doesn't take environs into account" debate. Which we get here from time to time. Etc.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the CSO solution, which is based on the contiguous urban area (more or less), is a more accurate reflection of town size. As regards the template, the option to leave the split out is contained within it, if you only put in the urban population it simply reports population = the figure you put in. Sarah777 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the current example to say the population of Athlone (the town) is only 9,000 is manifest nonsense. And I'm not trying to include Moate in the total as our IP friend is doing! Sarah777 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessary think population is the best judge of the actual size of a town. Issues such as precise boundaries & commuter populations are always going to be a problem. Lucan for ex. is 35k people yet only a village. Lucan isn't bigger than Drogheda or Kilkenny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.217.114 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the oldest?[edit]

The link used to state that Seans Pub is in fact not the oldest bar in Ireland is an april fools joke and cannot be used to verify anything. For reference http://www.irelandlogue.com/craic/seans-bar-not-actually-the-oldest-pub-in-ireland.html Mremeralddragon (Talk) 10:42, 18 September 2009 (GMT)

The article is actually the spoof....look at the date of publication! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Athlonelive.com and other external links[edit]

This link has been removed several times by myself and previously by other users. It is repeatedly being added to the article again and again. The link goes to a site that does not serve any purpose in relation to the article other than pointless and shameless promotion of the site. The argument that the users of the site contributed to the article thereby making the link a valid external link is not in any way a valid argument to make. By that logic I could put up personal links on the article as well.

The person doing this also tried hunting down my identity online and attempted to put this on my user page. Such actions are despicable and show that the entire endeavour is a personal issue for them and shows that they are not making edits in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Mremeralddragon (Talk) 10:01, 22 December 2009 (GMT)

It is not self-pomotional, as the site is owned and maintained by the people of Athlone, as clearly detailed on the site itself. It shares the same ethos as Wikipedia itself, soliciting user-contributions and is non-profit. It also has no advertising.

Casual browsers have come to the site via Wikipedia and found old colleagues, tourist information and renewed friendships. As such it is a service and a welcome one. Why is there a problem with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbeehan (talk • contribs) 17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus of Wikipedia editors is that links to discussion forums are not typically suitable for an encyclopaedia article. See point 11 here. CIreland (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which I understand and agree with. You will however notice that the forum is but one part of the site, and there is other reference information pertinant to Athlone (the subject of the wiki article) which merits it's inclusion.

The link being added was directly to the forum. However, since the site has barely any content besides the forum (and a history section that is a mirror of Wikipedia) it would seem to be a false distinction. CIreland (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the About page on athlonelive.com? You will see it was started because freedom of expression was suppressed on another website. It would be a shame to see Wikipedia make a similar error in judgement.

Let me give you just one example of the value of athlonelive.com. On November 1st, 2006 this video was published - http://www.athlonelive.com/forum/uploaded/BeechPark/402_30.wmv It was not available on the internet prior to this date, and has since been copied and spread around the web. It is significant not just to Athlone, but to the whole of Ireland. Would you deny Wikipedia visitors the freedom to discover such gems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbeehan (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the Athlonelive discussion forum is far from typical. There is a fair bit of 'typical' discussion content, but there is also an extensive discussion of history, military ties in the town, sports, and politics. I'd suggest leaving the link in place and soliciting input and consensus here. If it is the consensus that the link devalues the Athlone page, then it goes, if it adds value then it stays. This should not come down to which user has more time and energy to participate in the edit war. I will not do so. I put the link in once, and will be bound by whatever consensus builds here. All the bestDmccabe (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, you approach from slightly the wrong angle. If the consensus is that it meets WP:EL it should stay. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the link; as noted above it is simply a low content, non-official forum. I don't see any other content there, other than the history section that begins "from wikipedia". If there is something else I'm missing, please let me know. Most unfortunate that someone has chosen to harass other editors over this link. Kuru talk 21:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define non-official please. You may not see content, but I pointed out one hugely significant example in my paragraph above. But is it really your perogotive that no one else can be allowed the luxury of such an evaluation? As for harassment, that's a pity, but I'm not sure the person being harassed has informed you of his attempts to create a rival website locally and is rather disgruntled. Johnjbeehan (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kuru. My user talk page was tagged with a 'do not delete' tag and I was labeled a spammer simply for adding this one link to the page. It's the sort of behavior that would tend to sour occasional editors like myself. Oh well, I can get past it. Mr. Stephen, if the link violates standards then let's discuss it on it's merits and we can (as you have done) keep it all professional.Dmccabe (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I move to-reinstate the link, as has been the case for the past number of years, and if there is any issue that needs to be addressed or clarified we can do so here, now that we have this discussion open and active. This is in keeping with the values of Wikipedia and we should respect those. Since the link has generated no negtive impact for anyone, let's put it back and solve our differences without resorting to censorship. Johnjbeehan (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjbeehan I do not know who you believe me to be but I have not tried to create a "rival" site before and I do NOT intend to do so in the future. Even if the original person that removed the link had that motive the fact still remains that the link goes against wikipedia guidelines.
Whatever edits you make for the next while go ahead. The actions of the nameless editor have soured my view of some of the people of the town I have grown to love since moving here several years ago. Because of that I will not be editing the article for some time to come. (Mremeralddragon (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't know you either. What I do know is that the link has been there for years, and has been deleted by a rival in the past. I did not name you as having anything to do with it. However you violated Wikipedia guidelines by deleting it since you made no effort to find a consensus before deleting it. You took it upon yourself to become judge, jury and executioner just because of your opinion. This behaviour is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Every event thereafter stemmed from your arbitary decision, to which to you had no right in the first place. You need to seperate your opinions and the rights of others. Censoring is the worst possible answer, but that is exactly what you did. You should have asked. The website has multiple ways in which to contact the administrators. There is much content on Wikipedia that I abhor, but I do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbeehan (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, you seem to be straying into personal attacks; please cease that and focus on the topic. I'm sorry if you're confusing censorship with our policy on external links. You have no "rights" here to infringe on. You also seem to be indicating that you've edited here previously; which account was that? Kuru talk 23:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I appeared to be "straying", I was not aware I was part of a herd or flock, but yes, you're right, on topic is the right place to be. I have edited the Athlone page from the very outset of that page. Now that I answered your question would you please answer the one I posed to you previously, namely "non-official". You used the term as if it were somehow un-appealing.Johnjbeehan (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term has no inherent un-appeal to it. It does, however, often serve as an exception to the guidelines. Please let me know if there are any other questions I can help you with. Kuru talk 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys I think this is a silly arguement. The link to athlonelive.com is an important historical link if only for the fact that lots of historical data on the town and the people there are shared by the community. It needs to stay as does anything else that would help people researching the town. Its a moot point anyway because if you look at Galway or Ballinasloe or Dublin for that matter links such as these are common and removing them in a unjustified manner is childish. - Jeffery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferysreid (talk • contribs) 09:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reliable source of historical data on the site that is beyond what can be added to the article here, please point it out. If you're saying that the link is "important to the town", please provide a third party reliable source stating such. Please cease the personal attacks, they do not help. Thanks. Kuru talk 14:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Several links of historical and community information directly related to this article keep getting removed by over zealous folks. Strange part is that the chamber of commerce site is the only one they seem comfortable with leaving up. This despite the fact that there is plenty of historical president for just about any other town in Ireland who have similar links in their articles. I cant imagine that historical precedence doesn't come in to play here as the Wikipedia community as a whole has per my examples used links such as these exactly the way they were being used, for examples see Ballinasloe, Galway, Dublin or Limerick.

I call shenanigans on this and the people doing it.

Received this in talk....

I have reverted your addition of several websites. You should read What Wikipedia is not and external links. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, a tourist guide, a business directory etc, and not free webspace. The presence of similar links elsewhere does not alter that. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied...

Per your change of my changes on Athlone. Per the article What Wikipedia is not, please read the section Wikipedia is Not a Bureaucracy. The links to Athlonelive.com and the rest are all historically important to the topic and do not fit into the article as a whole. This isn't spam and its not dropping links willy nilly in the article. Lots of great info about parts of the town can be found at each of those links but do not fall into the article itself. If in fact you truly believed that your argument held water then you would also remove the chamber of commerce link at the bottom. However that link seems to remain?Jefferysreid (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, again, please help me understand why your link is 'historically' important. Please address my question above. Thanks. Kuru talk 21:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting[edit]

How tall are the masts of Athlone transmitter? Are these still the masts from 1933? Is the antenna a T-antenna? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.46.163.68 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of the midlands[edit]

There is no official capital of the midlands. For any town to claim such is disingenuous and it is a disservice to an encyclopedic article. Any individual issues as who's town is better should be left out of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.148.8 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there are regional capitals for all the regions in ROI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeaohyeaohyea (talk • contribs) 06:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One opinion is not a source. That particular organisation may designate regional capitals for their own use but again there is no official capital. To say so is just lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.73.17 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to agree; I can find no legal basis for establishing that the Regions have official "capitals". The usage of a Brussels-based office is neither here nor there. In 2007 the then Taoiseach referred to Athlone as having "come to be regarded as the commercial and retail capital of the Irish Midlands", but that wording strongly implies that it had no such official status. Brocach (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable i suppose, just going on what it's stated to be, Must consult the town council. it's the largest town in the midlands anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.251.226 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it is the largest town because it is based on fact. The capital of the Midlands, however, is not. I think the statement as largest town serves the article more. Why consult the town council? That again would be THEIR opinion. I am sure Portlaoise, Mullingar and Longford town councils would also claim such. Yes it is the largest by about 100 people give or take. This is an encyclopaedia not an athlone residents vanity project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.148.4 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, Athlone is clearly the most important town in the midlands. Forgetting about population for a second; educationally and commercially, the town is unrivalled by Mullingar, Tullamore, Portlaoise and Longford. This is opinion based on fact and to claim otherwise is just semanticism. Population means little in those terms, especially considering Mullingar and Portlaoise's not inconsiderable growth as a result of Dublin's expanding commuter belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.95.4 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Social Issues" section[edit]

I'm not sure that the "social issues" section really needs to be here. It fails under Weight and Relevance in my opinion. Most other town articles don't have this section. --HighKing (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sentence is misleading: 'The study revealed many residents had used heroin by their 18th birthday'. Many residents of where? The whole town - or some districts? The sentence is not clear, and certainly not accurate with regard to the town as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.18.126 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral?[edit]

The pic in the infobox shows "Athlone Cathedral" which look a pretty substantial building, but it isn't mentioned in the article, or anywhere else on WP. Any explanation? Tigerboy1966  05:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. It's not a cathedral. I've changed the caption. 1-555-confide (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Athlone[edit]

I see the statement "Irish: Baile Átha Luain, meaning "town of Luan's ford" ", but does not "Luan" mean "moon" in Irish? Was there someone named "Luan" for which the castle/town was named? It seems that there either must be more of a story behind the name, or there is an incomplete translation (or possibly both). Kibi78704 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copy edit[edit]

"St" versus "SS" for saint[edit]

I have inserted a picture of the "St Peter and Paul Catholic Church" in the article approximately 2 or 3 years ago. I realised only recently that a user had changed "St" to SS" in the description and I reverted to "St" recently. 2 users are insisting for "SS" to be used instead of "St" as an abbreviation for "Saint".

I personally dislike the use of "SS" but this is not the point here. If the users insisting to replace the "St" by "SS" under my photo, so they should insist for the same throughout the article. Why are they insisting for the abbreviation "SS" to be used under my photo only?? Vandalism? personal attack?

Please give your motive here prior to edit the article. Thank you --Christophe Krief (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the church website, you will find that the term "Ss" is only used in the logo, while it is carefully replaced by either "Saints Peter and Paul" or St Peter and St Paul" in all other descriptions. --Christophe Krief (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack involved. The proper abbreviation for a plurality of saints is "Ss". All instances in the article now use "Ss". You should request your picture's name to be changed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) "Ss" is of better taste than your previous "SS", however, you should match the church publications where the abbreviation "Ss" is never used. Creating an amalgam between SS and Saints should be avoided when possible. --Christophe Krief (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Athlone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Athlone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Athlone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City motto[edit]

It's translated as "A city stands by its laws". But the Latin is plural, so it should really be "Cities stand by their laws". I hesitate to change it, though, since the current translation may be the official one. Does anyone know? Markcymru (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technological University[edit]

AIT-LIT Consortium will need a better title at some point. Bogger (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Athlone(Ireland)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Athlone(Ireland) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 28 § Athlone(Ireland) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Athlone&oldid=1205457600"