Talk:Dungarvan Town Council

Merge
In good faith, boldly merged and redirected the content of this (relatively long, long-standing and C-class article?) to Dungarvan. With consideration to WP:MERGEINIT (including that "Articles that have been separate for a long time should usually be discussed first" and "Bold merges may be reverted"), I have reverted this merge. On the basis that I don't see that a merge is necessary. Or that the main WP:MERGEREASONs are met. (The article is not especially short. It is certainly a lot longer than "only one or two sentences". Nor does it duplicate or semi-duplicate the content in the main Dungarvan article. Nor should it, given WP:SS guidelines. And, while there is obviously a link between the two articles, the town council is (and can be) dealt with separately. And has notability in its own right.) Happy to see the articles tagged, and this discussion to be expanded (and consensus to derive), but - personally - I'm not currently seeing the rationale for the merge... Guliolopez (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The reasons given above for reverting are reasonable in the context above, as I appreciate that Wikipedia is a collaborative project that must move with consensus. I'll explain some of my background work, and then consider the specifics of this article. I am planning in the first instance to include information about second-tier local government structures in all county pages, and thereafter to include the same for the relevant towns for those that had councils between 1899 and 2014. I think this can be done in most on the page for those towns or urban areas, without the need for a separate article. The exceptions are what I might term composite urban areas, hence the recently created Rathmines and Rathgar, which I think is better than simply having as a section within the Rathmines page.
 * However, be that as it may, may reasonably argue that Dungarvan Town Council retains sufficient notability that it can retain an article. For example, its history extends considerably far before 1899 or even 1855, such that there is here above a WP:DYK reference. I would still argue for the merger, as this information itself is part of the history of the town, relevant to anyone seeking that general background. To ground within WP:MERGEREASONs, (which I should probably have done earlier), I would argue that it assists the context of the discussion within Dungarvan Town Council to include it within the Dungarvan page. I would also note that the merged page would not be WP:TOOLONG, nor I think generally unwieldy, even to say the interested tourist or student from outside Ireland. The main body of the Dungarvan article does currently not refer to the former local authority (other than in the See Also section), which it should probably have in any case. Once some small amount of text on the town commissioners/UDC/town council is added, there could begin be WP:CFORK issues, and for that reason, I would rather see them on the same page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hiya. Thanks for the note and adding the tags (so others can find/contribute to the discussion). In terms of:
 * WP:CFORK, while I agree that there is likely an argument for covering some of the history of the various incarnations of the council (medieval portreeve, 19th century commissioners, 20th century district council, 21st town council) in the main Dungarvan article, I would note that WP:SS provides for this. And, so long as we summarise rather than duplicating the content, it should be fine.
 * WP:TOOLONG, in all honesty this is what prompted my WP:BRD move in the first place. I actually think that a wholescale copy/paste/merge of the entire town council article does actually make the target article too long. Or, at least, gives undue focus to one aspect of the subject. (After the merge, of the ~1900 words in the combined article, ~680 words (over 35%) dealt with the town council.)
 * Consistency, while I understand the rationale for the mini-project you describe above, I'm not sure the solution will be the same in each case. For example, as both Ballinasloe and Ballinasloe Town Council are/were both on my watchlist, I had noted your merge/redirect action there. And had no issue with it. Because the town council article was relatively short, required context from the town article, and the limited content/references easily reflected in the target article. While not on my watchlist, I also see (and agree with) what you've done with Greystones Town Council. However, I think the article/context/content of the Dungarvan article(s) is different, certainly a lot longer and more involved, and less ripe for a no-brainer merge/redirect.
 * If there is consensus for a merge/redirect then that will be fine (of course) with me. But I'm not sure that a wholescale copy/paste into the "local government" section is the best approach. Guliolopez (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Funny enough, I was going to drop a note to the personal Talk page yesterday, about the Greystones merge. I understand the general idea, and did not have issues with early merges of tiny articles, but would certainly not like to see it happen with all such articles.  I think this one has a good case for remaining - but I do think the main article content should also be boosted mildly, with some of the key points from the Council article, notably the historical development.  SeoR (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I do welcome a direct comment on the personal pages if I’m engaged in any mini-project of this sort! It can be a good direct way of getting to the root of things, and at least it means the changes were noticed at the earlier stage, rather than me continuing through with something others had an issue with, but only seeing months later. So on balance, while I think the Dungarvan page would benefit from the merge, I’m happy to see the consensus go in either direction after the standard week. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)