Talk:Dublin

Short sentence on Hiberno-Norse to Anglo-Norman control in lead
The current and stable version (12 May 2022) of the lead refers to the change of control of Dublin (from Hiberno-Norse to Anglo-Norman influence) after the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland (including Strongbow's seizure of Dublin in 1170). To support this text, the lead (and the body) refers to Dickson (2014) Dublin: The Making of a Capital City. Who summarises this period in his preface.

Of the 11th and early 12th centuries, Dickson writes (of Hiberno-Norse Dublin) that:
 * "despite its wealth and ecclesiastical profile, Dublin remained a subordinate power [..] under Norse sub-kings [..] in the wider contests for Irish high-kingship, mainly [..to..] the chief dynasties of Leinster and Munster"

Of the late 12th century onwards, Dickson writes (of Anglo-Norman Dublin) that:
 * "the physical impact of the decision to make 'the king's city of Dublin' capital of the Norman lordship of Ireland was evident quite quickly. The walls were immediately strengthened [..and..] Military threats to the town lessened in the early Norman era [..And by late-13th C we can..] speak of Dublin as a city, for by the later thirteenth century its population nearly trebeled its pre-1170 [Norman capture] peak."

Despite the fact that this source (and many others covering this period of the history of Dublin and Ireland and supporting this article) refer to the term "Norman", an editor seems determined to excise the term "Norman" from the lead of this article.. (And, indeed, from other articles .) While I have attempted to engage the editor on their talk page, as this is (now) a discussion about article content, the available references, and how those references are reflected in the content, the I felt it best to open a thread here.

In short, it is my position that the majority of sources (including the sources which support this article and its lead) refer to the expansion of Dublin (to a city and the principal city) as happening after the Norman invasion (and Norse decline) in Ireland. And hence that, I believe, is a perfectly reasonable thing for the article to say. As it currently does.

I'd welcome other thoughts. If other editors feel that using the term "Norman" is somehow not representative of the sources (or for some reason confusing as the editor seems to believe), then I'm happy to help with compromise wording. But, right now, I think the text of the lead is an accurate reflection of the sources, of common terminology, and of the established facts. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If you don't like those sources, I have others! I'll happily chip in for a bottle of Champagne, too. Current version, mentioning the Norman invasion, is, of course, fine. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Climate
Minor point, the recent 33.1C record high for Dublin was at the Phoenix Park station, not Dublin Airport. Does the table need to be re-titled?Sarah777 (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Heraldry of Dublin
I'm continuing here a conversation originally started on User Talk:CeltBrowne; if anyone has anything to contribute don't be afraid to jump in

As his article touches upon, Arthur Charles Fox-Davies was/is considered one of the foremost authorities on Heraldry in the UK (and Ireland). He took the same standards he applied in the court room to Heraldry, believing that Heraldry needed to be held to a highly rigorous standard. Subsequently, his books became a sort of "bible" within the Heraldry world and are still referred to today. Essentially, Fox-Davies is a master-level expert, and I trust his research into heraldry over DublinCity.ie. Respectfully, councillors and bureaucrats get heraldry wrong all the time; for example Mayo County Council still uses a rendering (blazon in correct terminology) of their Coat of Arms taken from the early 2000s Internet. That rendering contains a major error in that it has a tree in the crest (top) instead of a Rose, which is supposed to represent the Virgin Mary and the apparition at Knock. That's just one of many examples of County Councils getting their own Coat of Arms wrong I could cite. The point I'm making is that people with no knowledge of heraldry make mistakes all the time, including government bodies. So again I'm inclined to defer to Fox-Davies.

Secondly, as far as creating a new file goes, my motivation there would be to create something superior to File:Coat-of-arms-of-Dublin.svg, which an .svg recreation of File:Dublin city coa.png, created in 2006. With respect to the creator, File:Dublin city coa.png is drawn in a clip art and cartoon style that is reflective of the decade it was produced in. Replacing it was a part of the motivation of creating File:Coat of Arms of Dublin, Ireland.png. If having an accurate depiction of the Coat of Arms of the Mayor of Dublin is important to you and others, I can create a heraldry accurate rendering and we can get this right, and well done. If I'm reading you and the DublinCity.ie references correctly, there actually shouldn't be any supporters (people) in the Coat of Arms of the Mayor, so that makes File:Coat-of-arms-of-Dublin.svg inaccurate for representing the Mayor as well. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Just in case there's still any confusion: This here is a crude rendering of what the Mayor's Coat of Arms should look like, as opposed to the Coat of Arms of the City itself. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've done more research. According to this source, the mosaic floor founded in Dublin City Hall was installed in 1898. I'm taking it that the mosaic depiction of the coat of Arms was installed at that same point. The blazon/rendering used in 1898 is the basis for the blazon/rendering used in File:Coat-of-arms-of-Dublin.svg. They basically did a clip art version of the mosaic as best they could with the graphic software they had in the mid 2000s.
 * So the blazon/rendering by Fox-Davies, which is the basis for File:Coat of Arms of Dublin, Ireland.png, is actually more recent than File:Coat-of-arms-of-Dublin.svg, and because Fox-Davies was a heraldry expert, I'm inclined to believe more accurate as well. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that File:Coat of Arms of Dublin, Ireland.png is correct and should be restored as the Coat of Arms on Dublin.
 * And as far as Mayor of Dublin goes, I can and will create a new file to accurately depict the separate Coat of Arms of the Mayor. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hiya. In terms of:


 * "continuing here a conversation originally started on User_Talk:CeltBrowne". Thanks for moving here. Much appreciated.
 * "done more research [..] mosaic floor [..] installed in 1898 [..] Fox-Davies [wrote in 1915, therefore] [..] File:Coat of Arms of Dublin, Ireland.png is correct and should be restored as Coat of Arms on Dublin". I don't agree with this conclusion myself. As it appears to be based on WP:OR. As noted on your user talk page, the Dublin City Council website (dublincity.ie) draws a distinction between the arms of the city and the arms of the mayor. Describing the latter as a variant of the former (embellished with the symbols of the mayor's office - mace/cap/sword). Overriding these sources, with our own interpretation of when a floor was installed versus when Fox-Davies illustrated his book, seems a bit OR/SYNTH-ey to me.
 * my own opinion; It seems (to me) that there are two sets of arms. One for city (three castles flanked by law/justice) and one for mayor (three castles crowed with mace/cap/sword). Given the choice between one or the other on this article (on the city), I'd go with the one that is closest to that seen in this "Dublin City Coat of Arms" PDF leaflet. From the city council. Which, to my eye, is this one. With the flanking figures. But without the mayoral cap/mace/sword/etc/
 * Delighted to hear what other users think though. Guliolopez (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We're on tricky ground here, with OR, SYNTH and the problem that our encyclopedia has to reflect sources, which occasionally does not equal full and perfect truth. As does happen, it could be that one of us has found a genuine issue / question (the Mayo Co. Co. example is a good one), but we can't act without finding a source or two. I think the immediate step is easy - we find books, digitized or physical, and check. This sort of thing was taken seriously in earlier times, and there should be good coverage somewhere. SeoR (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I'm looking up academic resources, and Jesus Christ, this is absolute rabbit hole even for someone such as myself who already is a bit of a Heraldry nerd.
 * This academic source on JSTOR from 1941 is entirely dedicated to the Coat of Arms of Dublin. To summarise, it says that in 1899 the Ulster King of Arms, the Chief Herald of Ireland at the time, issued a blazon (description) of the Coat of Arms that did not include the mace, cap or sword.
 * However
 * The same source notes that in 1749 a printing of the blazon from that time period did include the mace, cap and sword as part of the blazon.
 * However
 * That version of the blazon also had a cock and a goose as supporters. The author goes on to speculate that Dublin merchant may have been behind the introduce of scales to the Coat of Arms, not to symbolise "Justice", but "Commence", and it's possible a later misinterpretation led to the supporters morphing into Law and Justice.
 * In the book James Joyce and Heraldry by Michael J. O'Shea (O'Shea is/was apparently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities and Communications at Drexel University as well a member of the Heraldry Society in England and a founding member of the Heraldry Society of Ireland...ie, a Heraldry expert himself) he literally cites Fox-Davies as a reliable, expert source as to what the blazon of Dublin is. Here on page 153, we can see O'Shea citing Fox-Davies and quoting some of his blazon. Fox-Davies blazon, in-line with the meticulous nature I mentioned earlier, is much more in-depth and in-detail than the 1899 blazon. Fox-Davies specifies individual aspects; for example he scientifical says the female figure to the dexter (on the left) should have a sword proper (coloured like a real sword) with a golden hilt.
 * I managed to find two internet archive versions of Fox-Davies' 1915 book, (here and here  and his full blazon is as follows:
 * "DUBLIN, City of.  Azure,  three  castles  argent,  flammant  proper.  Supportcrs: On either  side  a  female  figure  proper,  vested  gules,  lined  or,  that  on  the  dexter  side holding  in  her  exterior  hand  a  sword  erect  proper,  pommel  and  hilt  or,  and  that  on  the  sinister  a  pair  of  scales,  and  each  holding  in  her  interior  hand  a  branch  of laurel. Motto. — '  Obedientia  civium  urbis  felicitas.' [Recorded  in  Ulster's  Office  Visitation  of  Dublin,  1607.]  The  dexter  figure   typifies  'Law,'  and  the  sinister  'Justice.'     The  arms are  almost  invariably  surmounted  by  the  fur  cap  of  office  (worn  by  the  sword-bearer),  and  behind  the  shield  are  usually  placed   in  saltire  the  sword  and  mace  of  the  city."
 * I'm going to do more research, but this might come down to a super niche and hard to answer question of:
 * "Which is more reliable, the 1899 Ulster King of Arms blazon, or the 1915 Fox-Davies blazon?" CeltBrowne (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone thinks they can answer that question, I'll be impressed, because I wondering at this point would even a member of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology be able to do it. Not only would a person have to have strong knowledge of heraldry, they'd have to strong knowledge of Irish heraldry history. In fact you basically have to directly e-mail the Chief Herald of Ireland at that point to maybe get an answer. Which, in fact, I think I'll go ahead and do.
 * In the meantime; maybe we just say that my version is at bare minimum at least as historically accurate/valid as the other one, if not arguably more so, but my version is better designed so we're going to opt to use that. Is that fair enough? CeltBrowne (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hiya. Wow indeed. Certainly a lot there. Nicely done. In terms of: Delighted to hear input from others. Mine is only one opinion after all. Hence this thread. But I don't see why we'd ignore/override the current city council sources. For "mine is better designed (than that used/published by the council itself)" type reasons.... Guliolopez (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "say that [CeltBrowne's] version is at bare minimum at least as historically accurate/valid". Sure. Yes. It probably is (was?) as historically valid.
 * "if not arguably more so". You've lost me. If we're talking historically, then it's unclear. At best. To your own point.
 * "[CeltBrowne's] version is better designed". Now I'm really lost. As in, aesthetically ::::::better designed? Surely that's subjective. Eye of the beholder and all that.
 * "going to opt to use that [CeltBrowne] version [..] fair enough?". Well, no. Not to me at any rate. I'm still stuck on the verifiable (modern rather than historical) sources. Which distinguish the arms of the city from the arms of the lord mayor. And I don't see why, whether for aesthetic reasons or "other sources are a bit conflicted" reasons, we'd ignore the (recent?/official?/doesn't-need-much-interpretation?) sources.

I sent an e-mail to the office of the Chief Herald of Ireland on Monday morning. In addition to hearing nothing back so far, I got an automated e-mail stating that the office will not carry out any research any behalf of anyone, so I fear they may not respond at all. If that is the case, the viewpoints of members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology may be helpful, so I've made a request on their talk page. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Meantime, I also checked this while in the National Library, and I have to say that the JSTOR source mentioned above seems pretty definitive, and relies in turn on the 1890s Ulster King of Arms work, and so on the 1607 visitation, and these seem to legally and vexillogically comprise a true basis, so unless the city legally changed arms later, the description in that article is correct - and now suitably referenced too. Where that leaves the Fox-Davis... SeoR (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland did eventually did back to me via e-mail. Micheál Ó Comáin, the Herald of Arms, confirmed to me that is the view of the Office that it equally valid to display the City of Dublin's Coat of Arms 1. With the Sword, Mace, and Fur Cap 2. Without the Sword, Mace and Fur Cap and 3. As the Shield alone without Sword, Mace, Fur Cap or Supporters ("Justice & Law"). CeltBrowne (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * And coming back to this long after, I got two inputs - first, a search by a friendly researcher turned up no authoritative base for a "Lord Mayor's Coat of Arms" at all. Each Lord Mayor gets their own personal coat of arms developed for them (which must cost the city a pretty penny), but the item mentioned as the Arms of the Office of Lord Mayor seems to be simply a variant of the city arms.
 * On the other hand, I received this morning a copy of the original draft of the Val Jackson / Old Dublin Society article on city armorials, and this did help clarify things, with two key points:
 * * the written word and not the drawing is law in heraldry. ... Provided that the instructions of the blazon are strictly complied with ... the artist has free scope for his talent and imagination. (SeoR: !) It is necessary to make this point clear lest anyone might labour under the impression that a drawing certified by ... eminent authority ... could not be deviated from.
 * * the draft article considers two drawings, and two descriptions / blazons, that by the Ulster King of Arms and that recorded in Fox Davies.
 * So it appears that it is quite legitimate for the city to choose at any time to use and display, and place on stationery, its preferred interpretation of the coat of arms. And so Wikipedia should show the blazon as properly recorded (and legally the Ulster King of Arms had authority, and Fox Davies did not - but we should probably record all variants for completeness), but also capture the current artistic interpretation of same chosen and used by the city. Most interesting... As for the "Lord Mayor" version, it seems to be a selection of one of the valid variations acknowledged by the current Office of Arms, but the official standing of it as a distinct coat of arms of the office of Lord Mayor needs further work. SeoR (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Population figures in infobox (and in lead)
The figure given for the Metropolitan Area is that of County Dublin as a whole, according to the 2022 census. That is distinct from the city, which is the subject of this article. The population of the Greater Dublin Area is that of County Dublin combined with Counties Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. GDA is a wider transport and planning term, that is not specific to the city. I'd suggest leave both those figures out of this infobox. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There's been a bit of back and forth on this. I would agree with that we should leave out the Greater Dublin Area. That figure includes the outer reaches of counties Louth, Meath and Wicklow. What does the population of Oldcastle, County Meath, or Carnew mentioned by Guliolopez, have to do with the city of Dublin? On the other hand, refers to Manchester and Toronto, where population figures are given for the Greater Manchester Built-up Area and Greater Toronto Area respectively. However, we should consider independently whether this figure is relevant to the city of Dublin. Both those are sourced in their respective articles from their respective censuses, whereas the article for Greater Dublin Area begins by describing it as an informal term. It is defined once in legislation, in relation to the Dublin Transport Authority, but it is not a term used in census statistics. I'll grant that there's one source given, from Dublin Chamber; yet I'd tend to defer to the CSO in defining population terms in Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand the point and appreciate both sides. But simply because a town is at some distance from the city, doesn't mean it can't be considered relevant to Dublin. All metropolitan areas are, in a sense, arbitrary. The Greater Dublin Area including Meath, Wicklow, and Kildare has been referred to by The Irish Times pretty often since the year 2000, see here, and here. This is the paper of record. I'd argue that leaving out the GDA reference reduces the usefulness of the Dublin page. It is one line.BaronNethercross (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * My hesitation about including it is that I think it could mislead someone not as familiar with Ireland or Dublin to think that it was in effect a city of 2 million, taking in surrounding areas. Being defined as whole counties, it includes areas which are not part of, for example, the metropolitan area of the city, as defined elsewhere on the Greater Dublin Area, which includes some but not all of those counties. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. But the Greater Dublin Area does have a generally agreed upon definition as noted by the Irish Times, and others. The line clearly states it is the Greater Dublin Area that has a population of over two million. This is actually pretty standard in entries for many cities across Wiki. For example, Chicago jumps from 2,746,388 for the city proper to 9,618,502 for the metro area. This isn't misleading once it is clearly noted. BaronNethercross (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * While I'm contributing here mainly because of the @ping above, and also appreciate both sides/points, my concern is the same as . That, while the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) and its population is mentioned (in context and with a definition or at least general description) in the body, it doesn't have one in the lead. And so the casual reader might think that Dublin effectively has 2 million inhabitants. When it doesn't. In terms of the point about "leaving out the GDA reduces the usefulness of the Dublin page", I would note that (as above), the GDA is mentioned several times in the body. And I haven't seen anyone arguing that it needs to be "left out" entirely. Just perhaps that mentioning its population in the lead might be misleading (as "GDA" doesn't come with a definition/description to aid the reader). In terms of the comparison to the Chicago article, I note that it does not include the population of the Chicago metropolitan area in the lead. Possibly because implying that "greater Chicago" has a population 3-times its 'actual' size might be a little misleading.... Guliolopez (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Guliolopez & Iveagh Gardens that including the figure in the infobox and lead tends to distort people's perception of the population of the city. The article is about the city, so mentions elsewhere with an explanation seem to be ok. ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarify. FWIW, and noting that I didn't pay as much attention to the title assigned to this discussion thread as perhaps I should have, I have zero issue with mentioning the GDA (and its population) in the infobox. As noted by others, there is plenty of precedent and a fairly established convention for having "metro area" populations in city infoboxes. And the summary nature of the infobox means that any lack of clarity (around the scope/expanse of the "metro area") is pretty much a given. My issue is with mentioning the population of the GDA in the lead. Which is why I made this edit/rv. Since somewhat reversed. As I don't think it's clear enough (and there isn't space enough to explain) that the GDA is actually a very broad area. Covering 4 (or 5?) of the 26 counties in the state. Including towns/places/rural areas that are significantly removed (in every sense) from Dublin city. Guliolopez (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm late to this, was away - but just to say that I agree that the GDA population could be relevant in the infobox, but I'd say should definitely *not* appear in the lede. This article is about the city, which is quite distinct from Greater Dublin, and which does not even encompass all of County Dublin - the majority of Fingal, and much of South Dublin County, for example, are absolutely not part of the city, being wholly, and sometimes spectacularly, rural. Not to speak of Kildare, Wicklow and Meath, which encompass precisely zero sq km of the city of Dublin (Bray is a remote satellite, and even when the sprawl of the city gets there, it will still represent less than 1% of the Kildare/ Wicklow / Meath combination, and aside from that town, the only other areas which may eventually form part of contiguous Dublin are on the edge of Kildare). SeoR (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I remain hesitant about including the GDA figure in the infobox either, although I'll concede if there's otherwise a consensus to include it. Template:Infobox settlement has three default population figures fields: the standard one, urban area and metropolitan area. My read of it would be that the city defined as the area under the jurisdiction of Dublin City Council is the first. Then for urban area, it is that area defined by the census as Dublin City and its suburbs see its 2016 SAPMAP. The metropolitan area of Dublin is defined in geographical terms on the Greater Dublin Area page, with a reference to an EMRA report, as including the city, most but not all the county, and certain parts of Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. These are all considered connected to the city, which is the subject of this article.
 * The GDA includes some areas which are not connected in any meaningful way to the city. Take for example the areas of County Meath which are in the Drogheda suburbs; they are urbanised, but part of the sprawl of somewhere else, part of GDA because of the broad geographical area in encompasses. There are also parts that are quite rural and not particularly connected with the city. Whether in the infobox or the lead, a figure of 2mn being there could lead someone unfamiliar with Ireland reading it at a glance to overestimate the effective population of Dublin. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I would argue that there is an everyday understanding of greater urban areas. They often include towns not physically connected to cities. Jurisdictions define these in varying ways. All our hypothetical glancing reader would have to do is to read a little further. I am not sure this person is the best benchmark for what information to include. I think leaving the figure out of the lede is totally fine. But there is solid precedence for including it in the infobox. BaronNethercross (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Irish pronunciation
Should “pronounced [ˈbˠalʲə aːhə ˈclʲiə] or [ˌbʲlʲaː ˈclʲiə]” be replaced by “pronounced [ˌbʲlʲaː ˈclʲiə]” in the lead? I am only aware of the second pronunciation hence why I came here (to the talk page), I feel like the first pronunciation may be hyperforeign, evolving from L2 spelling pronunciation(?), but I am not a native speaker so I don’t know if the first pronunciation is used by natives in certain regions. 2A01:B340:86:73BB:D895:C551:8740:9C3F (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not a source(!), but as someone who's spoken Irish throughout my life, I would use the first pronunciation. Certainly no need to remove it. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't the Slavic version considered?
In any Slavic language "Dublin" would mean "place of oaks" and it's not an unusal toponym in Slavic realms. It is further corroborated by the central old quarter of "Crumlin", compare Kremlin in Moscow - which actually means stronghold/fortification. Oaks were important trees to both the old Gauls and to Slavs as well. How come Slavic? When? Well, considering "Baile Átha Cliath" was the original Gaelic name and "Dublin" came about with the Vikings, one cannot but point out that in some sources Slavic Vikings accompanied the Norse on their war on the British Isles including Ireland. Denmark was partly inhabited by Slavs and bi-cultural and bi-lingual. (More in Anne Elisabeth Jensen's book "Dania Slavica") and the Danish Slavs were subjects of the Danish kings. In Saxo Grammaticus we can read of how Slavs fought for the Danish king as early as the Battle of Bravallir (est. around 750 AD). This should be considered and researched. Antique2020 (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. Are you aware of any references which give Dublin as having a Slavic origin/derivation? Does Jensen's Dania Slavica refer to Dublin or Ireland anywhere? In what context? (Absent sources, the simple answer to your "Why isn't the Slavic version considered [in the article]?" is "because there no reliable/verifiable sources discuss or consider it [outside the article]". Wikipedia articles reflect reliable and verifiable sources. With due weight given to such sources. If no sources consider the word "Dublin" as having a Slavic origin, then an editor's theory can only be read as original research...) Guliolopez (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence, my question asks why it isn't considered. Dania Slavica is a source of Danish-Slavic co-existence and thus common raids and wars. The Danish Vikings were not all Norse. Praised be Wikipedia but if you look up any eg. battle and switch between languages, you will soon discover how articles differ, pending who writes them. Antique2020 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't considered because novel hypotheses aren't considered here. As Guliolopez indicated, this isn't a forum for users to share and discuss their own speculation, or to discuss why these hypotheses haven't come up before. Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry, but talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated pages, including addition of information already published in reliable sources. They aren't for general discussion about their subjects, including consideration of new hypotheses. Largoplazo (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Replace old images
A lot of the images in this article are quite old (see temple bar and grafton street in the culture section for example). As I live in Dublin, it'd be pretty easy for me to take new pictures of the areas and streets shown. Should I go ahead with this? Normally I'd be bold but this would be a significant change to the article so I'd like to hear some opinions first. LynxesDesmond 🐈 12:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to, but this is one of several articles I have on my watchlist that suffers from WP:OWNERSHIP, so you'll likely face some resistance, even though you're well-meaning. Seasider53 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Cross symbol
I've noticed that a strange cross symbol is at the top of the article in the latest revision, and I don't know why it's there.

If someone could explain why it's there, that would be great. († is the symbol) AU Fan V2 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Seasider53 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)