Talk:Thurles

Untitled[edit]

The town is signposted as Durlas Eile on some older signposts - should this placename be included, and where does it come from?

zoney ♣ talk 22:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo links[edit]

Thanks for great photo links. --Conh 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"See other" deletion[edit]

Why is "Baronies of Ireland" redundant, but not "Lists of towns in Ireland"? Neither is referenced in the body of the article. Yet both shed light on a higher order, of which the subject of the article is a member. The link to Barony is to the term in general, not to Ireland in particular. I think that the "See also" link should be restored. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thurles (civil parish)[edit]

This article should contain the maps and other info contained in Thurles (civil parish). There's no need for a serparate article IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who proposed this merge has also proposed several other merges relating to Thurles and neighbouring geographical areas in County Tipperary. I strongly disagree with all of them for several reasons which I will now discuss. MartinCollin (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-The proposed merges relate to articles about distinct geographical areas which are hugely different in size but just happen to have similar names - for example, one proposal is to merge the article about Thurles town (which has an area of 3 or 4 square miles) with the article about Thurles poor law union (which had an area of 195 square miles and actually spread across two counties, South Tipperary and North Tipperary).

-Notions such as villages, townlands, civil parishes, electoral divisions, ecclesiastical parishes, poor law unions and so on are quite distinct. Distinct entities should not be merged into each other, not least because other articles will often need to refer to one entity but not to the others.

-The fact that two distinct entities have similar names does not make the entities identical.

-Merging articles which refer to different entities that happen to have the same name will cause confusion and inhibit coherent writing. For example, consider two different districts, D1 and D2, each of which happens to have the name N. Suppose that somebody merges the two articles about D1 and D2. Now suppose that somebody else wishes to discuss, say, the population history of D1. She cannot refer to the merged article. Instead, in order to make it clear that she is talking about D1 and not about D2, she will have to engage in painful circumlocutions.

-Badly written articles bear several stigmata, one of which is the unfortunate format "N is both a ... and a ...". For example, the article on Thurles town used to have a sentence which ran something like, "Thurles is both a town and a civil parish". This kind of semiotic confusion should be avoided. To be precise one would have to write "The word 'Thurles' is a name which refers to two distinct entities, one a town and the other a civil parish". However, even when one does that, one fails to provide references points for external articles which need to refer to one concept or the other.

-One could write an article which had distinct sub-sections (one for the town, one for the civil parish, another for the poor law union, and so on), so that external articles could refer to Thurles#town or Thurles#civil-parish but, even here, there are problems. It is cleaner by far to give explicit recognition to the fact that entities such Thurles town, Thurles civil parish, Thurles poor law union are distinct.

This merge proposal seems poorly presented. I wasn't aware that we had an article Thurles (poor law union). It certainly isn't clear from the section title above that this too is to be merged, as apparently are several others at Thurles (disambiguation). Looking forward to seeing the Thurles Poor Law Union article develop as a separate article, and likewise with other PLU articles. However, a case could be made for amalgamating the 'parish' articles into one, but not here. RashersTierney (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad RashersTierney agrees that the article on Thurles poor law union should not be amalgamated into the one on Thurles town. Let me make the case for not amgalgamating the articles on the civil parish and the R.C. parish. I agree that, at present, both of these articles are quite short but each has the potential to grow as more contributions arrive. Consider that the two parishes have different, although overlapping, areas. Consider, also, that they have vastly different histories. The civil parish has its roots in the tuath structure of pre-Christian Ireland, continuing on through mediaeval times to the modern era - see page 56 of Michael A. Monk and John Sheehan, Early Medieval Munster: Archaeology, History and Society, ISBN 1859181074 (1998). The post-Reformation RC parish has a very different history, one in which, I suspect the Mathew family (to which Father Mathew belonged) played a large part - apparently, a church built on the site of the current RC cathedral in the mid-1700s was paid for by a George Mathew[1], who was probably the George Mathew who was due the rent for the lordship of Thurles in 1744 and who appears to have died in 1760[2]. In any case, each of these two entities has a distinct history which needs to be in Wikipedia and which, I hope, will be contributed, by other editors. (By the way, examination of the map of the civil parishes in the Thurles area reveals a mosaic of enclaves and exclaves which must have a fascinating history, one that, I hope, will be contributed by others more knowledgable than I am.) MartinCollin (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will relent on the poor law union: it's probably sufficiently different to merit its own article. However, the two parishes are not so different and can be easily amalgameted without much injury to either entity. All of the good stuff above could form a very useful section in the merged entity. I would love to hear more of same. But readers would expect parishes of the same name to be together. Re-direct pages would be created for the "losing" candidate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of comparison it makes sense for them to be treated at a single location. If the various parish topics grow to such an extent that they merit individual articles, they can of coarse be split. RashersTierney (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:

(a) I am no longer sure what merge (or set of them) is being proposed, because LaurelLodged initially proposed several merges and discussion so far has dealt only with (i) the proposal to merge the entry for Thurles PLU into the entry for the town and (ii) the proposal to merge the entry for the civil parish into the entry for the town - although this has now seemingly morphed into a proposal to merge the civil parish with the RC parish.

My proposal is that the parish topics be addressed at a single article, Thurles parish. Also, the PLU article should probably be renamed to Thurles Poor Law Union. RashersTierney (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(b) Let me focus on the proposal to merge the parishes. The discussion above refers to "two parishes". In fact, there are actually three parishes: the RC parish, the civil parish and the Church of Ireland parish. At various points in history, various pairs of these have been co-extensive but this has not always been true. Indeed, consider the current situation: the RC parish is still an active entity; the civil parish still exists in law but has few current administrative functions; and the Church of Ireland parish no longer exists - it has been subsumed into the Church of Ireland parish of Templemore. Indeed, the situation is even more complicated, because there are actually six parishes relevant to the discussion - in addition to the three listed above, one must consider also the parishes of Athnid (Adnith), Shyane (Templeshyane) and Rahelty. Dealign with all these six coherently in one article will be very difficulty without obscuring the fact that they have different areas and histories. To be frank, I find the assumption that it is appropriate to bury the civil parishes (and with them the C-of-I parishes) into an article on the RC parish problematic on at least two major counts. First, it does violence to the separate C-of-I tradition in Ireland, appearing to regard it as no more than a temporary abberation which is now coming to an end. Second, as somebody who grew up in the area which stretches from Templemore to Moycarkey, with many relatives still living there, I am often surprised by the fact that most people I knew and know in the area were/are oblivious to the various strands of local history and their geographic realizations on the ground. I feel that the tendency to bury C-of-I history under RC history is a major reason for this amnesia. The proposal to merge these concepts in wikipedia is, to me, a well-intentioned by disastrous continuation of a damaging tradition. MartinCollin (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question of the CoI parish topic being 'buried'. Each of the three entities would be dealt with under its own header, with an explanation, as you have outlined here, of the histories that made them divergent. RashersTierney (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I too am totally opposed to the burying of the C of I position. It's just that until the Disesablishment of the church in 1869, the CoI & civil positions were largely identical. After that date, the rate of mergers of CoI parishes was at such a dizzying pace that a map maker would have a very hard job to keep up. Any attempt to replicate this would surely involve WP:Original Research. I think that appropriate sections could be written in the merged parish article to account for the main changes and current state of play. Still not an easy task. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thurles name meaning?[edit]

Thurles name meaning? Shouldn't Thurles have it's name meaning at the start like other Irish towns and villages! In Irish, Durlas Éile means "Strong Fort of Éile", or more correctly Durlas Éile Uí Fhogartaigh ("Strong Fort of the O'Fogarty's of Éile").[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.212.25 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thurles. 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) 13:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]