Talk:Dingle

Early talk

Why the hell is this page at this location? This is the ENGLISH language Wikipedia, the towns name in English, and in accepted, non gaelgoir usage, is Dingle. --Kiand 12:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we prob should move, this is not the Ministers slot. Djegan 17:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglicised name no longer has any official status. The name 'An Daingean' is therefore the only name of the town

In Eamon O Keefe's brain, maybe. This is an English language encyclopaedia. Turin is not at Torino, Moscow is not at Moskva. This should be at Dingle. --Kiand 18:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's not an Daingean. It's Daingean Uí Chúis. 83.70.211.96 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official and proper name is An Daingean and the articel should be called An Daingean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.163 (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Festival

Why isn't there any mention of the annual berry festival?173.58.53.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was suggested that this article should be renamed Dingle. The vote is shown below: I request this move because the English "Dingle" is preferable to the Irish "An Daingean" - the English term is more common in everyday speech in Ireland, Dingle and elsewhere and it is the general policy of wikipedia to use common terms throughout with few exceptions. Additionally whilst the term "An Daingean" is the official term it may easily be mistaken for the unrelated "Daingean". Djegan 12:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support, this is not the Irish Language Wikipedia. --Kiand 13:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Dingle remains the English name. Palmiro 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, We don't want Wikipedia to become as difficult to navigate as the Kerry roads! RMoloney 12:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Pold 23:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Fabhcún 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote done by User:83.70.69.69 and not the purported signatory, who may have just not been signed in, or not... --Kiand 19:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this for all the obvious moral, intellectual, cultural and pluralist reasons. Would those who support it insist the English version of Wikipedia have the entries for Madrid, Oslo, Stockholm etc etc under an anglicised form? Of course not. The days of pushing around Irish speakers are no more. We are no longer dispossessed peasants attending hedge schools. The fanaticism of certain monoglot English speakers never fails to astound. They just cannot abide difference, and with the frenzy of the abjectly insecure demand conformity to their narrow, myopic worldview. Everything must be anglicised, simplified, for them. They cannot see beauty in difference or wonder about etymologies of those different names or even appreciate that there is meaning in non-anglicised forms. They see threat, where more evolved humans can see richness, fascination and feel appreciation. Their demands are utterly irrational and would never triumph in a society based upon reason, mutual respect and acceptance of diversity. Make no mistake about this debate: it is about opposing the linguistic fascism of a tiny minority of English speakers in Ireland. To a majority of people in the Corca Dhuibhne (Dingle Peninsula) the name of the town is An Daingean or An Daingean Uí Chúis. As such it doesn't matter in the slightest if "the English term is more common in everyday speech in Ireland". You might as well tell the residents of Roma that because more people on earth know it as Rome they have not got the right to call it Roma.

"Would those who support it insist the English version of Wikipedia have the entries for Madrid, Oslo, Stockholm etc etc under an anglicised form?" - eh, yes. We would. And we do. Madrid. Oslo. Stockholm. All city or town pages go to whatever their accepted English-language name is. --Kiand 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By opposing this proposal you are standing by Irish speakers in an Irish speaking area against the supreme arrogance of certain monoglot anglophones, and the undereducated, morally ambivalent rabble who follow such trends out of an instinctive fear of difference. More pertinently for Wikipedia, leaving aside what sort of Ireland you want, what sort of Ireland do you want represented to the world? And why do you fear representing an Irish place in an Irish speaking region with its Irish name when the vast majority of towns on planet earth have no hang-ups about representing their place on Wikipedia without anglicisation? The answers to those questions will confirm that the problem here is not an Irish name on an Irish town but rather an intolerance far more pernicious and noisome to democracy and diversity in Ireland, not to mention an inconsistency in Wikipedia's attitude to other non-English language town and city names.

Rome is actually called Rome here. And it's not going against anybody. --Pold 19:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever about the points raised by the anonymous users they certainly do not have any problem expressing themselves in English anyway - perhaps with some paranoia. Notwithstanding, what is at question here is not the legal or jingoistic name of the few - the question here is the name most common and appropriate in English. Their is a version of wikipedia at ga.wikipedia.org, that is the place for the most common name in Irish – have fun. As for your views any online blog should suffice. Djegan 21:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I hadn't realised this had become an issue even on Wikipedia. I'd recommend calling this town it's official name, 'An Daingean', not because its Irish or English, just because thats what it call. Another example of the same issue is Dún Laoghaire, no anglicised version appears here, as Dún Laoghaire is the official name. There's no need for prejudice, just call it by its name!!! Frainc 22:57 May 27th.

Many people call it Dingle (probably more so than An Daingean), in any case WP:MOS-IR and WP:NC(CN) are the relevant wikipedia policies, official status does not rule on wikipedia every time. As for Dún Laoghaire that neither here nor their as their is no official (or indeed unofficial) English name (to the best of my understanding) in any instance - simply the Irish name used in English. Djegan 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Kevin Myers call Dún Laoghaire Kingstown. That must surely hold some weight with certain Wikipedia editors here. Then there's Kingston Motors, Kingston Hotel and loads more unofficial uses of the town's name in English today in 2006. It does seem very POV, in my opinion, that certain Wikipedia editors will accept Dún Laoghaire (and no doubt Cobh, Portlaoise etc) as the name of that article but reject An Daingean as the name of this article and put an unofficial name on it instead. If Wikipedia were around in 1920 would the same people have resisted the Dún Laoghaire article being so-called? Either the Irish state has legitimacy to do these things, or it does not. As a democrat, I believe that it does. If An Daingean can be called Dingle here to reflect local opposition (and ignore local support) then why cannot Northern Ireland be called Six Counties to reflect local opposition (and ignore local support)? El Gringo 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in time "An Daingean" will become the accepted and common term, but not today; see WP:IMOS. Wikipedia is not the Government Information Service of the Irish Government, a vote was taken on the matter some time ago. Nor is wikipedia the propaganda tool of failed republicanism. Djegan 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the propaganda tool of wikipedia contributors who, looking into their own hearts, decide they can speak for "the people" on this issue? El Gringo 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You known where Wikipedia:Requested moves is. Djegan 21:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to today's Indo [1], the plebiscite demanded by locals [2] is on, so I guess real democracy will give us the answer within a few days. (That latter page is interesting, El Gringo - allegedly the Irish state was acting illegitmately when it changed the town's name.) Interesting as well, if I'm reading this right - how you claim on the BI:talk page that as "an overwhelming majority" (in your view) reject the BI term, the Wikipedia article should reflect that; but on this page you're saying the views of the overwhelming majority should be ignored? Bastun 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an article's name is based on what the majority of its residents choose to call it, then surely County Londonderry should be changed to "County Derry]], the name used by the maojority of its inhabitants? Derry Boi 23:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Djegan's comment of 18th June, above. Bastun 23:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, has this any relevence to this article? Djegan 00:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clogher

Could someone add a little about Clogher Head Beach in Dingle, please? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Cities

Could someone please re-do/update the sister cities section? It needs to be more clear. Thanks. Omegacc 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move (again)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move Dingle to An Daingean, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who agrees that as "Dingle" is no longer the name of the town, we should move this page to An Daingean (as seen on roadsigns) or Daingean Uí Chuis? Not that I want to start another explosive argument about the whole thing. Shaw, Stephen 13:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The commonly used name, by locals and everyone else in Ireland (bar, perhaps, Eamon O Cuiv), is Dingle. The plebiscite shows locals want a bilingual name, but even were the name to be officially changed, the common name would still be correct on WP. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But regardless of the commonly used name, "Dingle" doesn't exist anymore and the title should reflect that. And by the way, I call it An Daingean, and I'm not a local...

People in Germany call their country Deutschland. But the commonly used English language name for the country is Germany. "Officially" there's no country called Germany - but that doesn't stop Wikipedia having an article about it. Noel S McFerran 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempts at move must be through Wikipedia:Requested moves, and not cut-and-paste odd-jobs. Djegan 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that its all or nothing: we should either move all of the Gaeltacht places to their "proper" names or leave them with their "common" name. If that's accecpted then the discussion should continue on WikiProject Ireland. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to be a discussion under those terms then it would still be appropriate that the principals at Wikipedia:Requested moves are carried out, viz that it is advertised widely enough so that not just people who watch WikiProject Ireland will know their is a vote. Djegan 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Maybe put a toe in the water at WikiProject, not testing the issue as such but testing if people want a discussion (a meeting-for-a-meeting kind of thing), then post a custom template on each page that would be affected. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Oppose This is the English language wikipedia and the English name of the town is "Dingle", and we must use the English as it is most common - even the laws of Ireland cannot change the fact that the English is "Dingle" - the law simply states that the official name is the Irish name. I contend that the law did not outlaw or by other such means eliminate the English. Djegan 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would support - but only as part of an amendment to the manual of style. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what would need to be changed in the MOS? -- Patleahy 19:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By interpretation of WP:IMOS, which has recieved consenus amongst editors, this article should be located at "Dingle". Djegan 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The applicable section of the WP:IMOS is:

Where the English and Irish names are different, and the Irish name is the official name, but has not yet gained favour in English usage, use the English name.

Example: Newbridge, County Kildare, not Droichead Nua. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because all other Irish towns and cities use English, not official Irish, names. (see Galway) Raime 05:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NAME; it does matter what people call it in English. This is the English WP, and it should use Dingle and Dublin, at least until the English spoken in Ireland changes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The law changed the name of the town, Eliminating the English name from legal recognition. Wikipedia should reflect the fact that the current name of the town is An Daingean. Shaw, Stephen 17:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:Shaw, Stephen is the user who nominated this page for a move (just in case a vote is counted twice). Djegan 17:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. English Wikipedia is not an arm of the Irish government and is not required to follow its diktats. — AjaxSmack 09:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several editors have commented that a move here would logically mean that we would have to use the Irish names of Galway, Dublin etc. I don't believe that that is under contention. The point here, I believe, is only for Gaeltacht places where the English name is no longer officially recognised (although An Daingean is a unique among these, being officially Dingle-An Daingean). I don't believe anyone is suggesting to move Dublin to Baile Átha Cliath or Galway to Gaillimh! --sony-youth^pléigh 09:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, its still officially An Daingean, per O Cuiv's diktat. While the plebiscite overwhelmingly supported a namechange to Dingle/Daingean Ui Chuis, central government has thus far failed to act on it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - correct. I was going mainly on a poor reading of this. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nicknames

I have removed the nicknames because:

Nothing was verified correctly or shown to be anything other than neologisms. Neither unverified material nor neologisms are permitted, in any case lets keep nick names of a group of people out because it smacks of prejudice (particularly when its borderline usage and not a widely recognised term). Djegan 14:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bars

I was told, when I visited a couple of years ago, that Dingle holds the world record for bars per capita. If this is still true, I think it would warrant mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.247.183 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Own article for Fungi the Dingle Dolphin

Previously there was an article on Fungi. It inspired the following discussion.

A tag has been placed on Fungi the Dingle Dolphin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would apreciate it if you could have allowed at the very least a few days of discussion as to whether the original article should remain or be deleted. No discussion has taken place thus far. From the first time it was suggested that the original article should be deleted until the final deletion just 16 minutes were given, it was some time after 2am in my time-zone and alas I was asleep.

Further, I'd welcome contributions to the discussion as to whether the original article should remain. The question is how note-worthy are the articles about Fungi in The Irish Independent [3], The Irish Times [4]? How important is it that Fungi has been mentioned on both the BBC [5] web-site and the New York Times [6]? Is it relevant that RTE [7] has broadcast a documentary about Fungi.

Also a google search for fungi dingle dolphin gives over 11,000 hits. For example I found a mention on The Times (of London) website [8]

Thanks Pnelnik (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the thousands of Google hits and the news articles that you cite, there did not appear to be much more than the limited news coverage and the promotional vehicle that the dolphin has become for the community where it resides. Simply because something is newsworthy does not necessitate a Wikipedia article (as noted in WP:NOTNEWS). It certainly is not a travel guide to point out promotional items or features of a community (WP:NOTTRAVEL). And Google hits in and of themselves are not a marker of notability in terms of what should be or should not be included in Wikipedia (WP:GOOGLEHITS).

I would strongly suggest than any discussion of the dolphin in and of itself in relation to the community would better go in the Dingle article itself. The subject (IMO) is certainly not notable enough to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. --mhking (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dingle. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217095720/http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/census/ to http://www.nisranew.nisra.gov.uk/census

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dingle. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dingle. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050309005718/http://www.cso.ie/census/ to http://www.cso.ie/census
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160507023856/http://www.histpop.org/ to http://www.histpop.org/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dingle-peninsula.ie/culture1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.tcm.ie/thekingdom/2005/07/21/story17938.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2007/0916/kerrycork.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/News/MainBody%2C17223%2Cen.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dingle. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107020901/http://hertz.com/ to http://www.hertz.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]