Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

Irish Wikipedians' notice board
Home Irish Wikipedians' related news	Discussion Ireland related discussion (at WikiProject Ireland).	Active Users Active Irish Users	WikiProjects Irish WikiProjects	Stubs Major Irish stubs	Peer review Articles on Peer review	FA Articles on FA review	FA Drive Articles under consideration for FA drive

County Tipperary and County Dublin vs. the "new counties"

OK, rather than opening several discussions on every particular aspect of this question, how about we open one large discussion issue of how to deal with:

• County Dublin vs. Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin
• County Tipperary vs. Tipperary South and Tipperary North

... with a mind to a generalisable approach to the question (with regards to categories, infoboxes, ledes, the works).

Rather than taking up MBs of space here, how about WP:IECOLL as a venue. Or a sub-page of this project page? --RA (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking that 24 and 25 were progressing very nicely. They serve as tytpes for the larger questions. If Education can be answered in a simple, civilised fashion, then the larger answers ought to flow from them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Upto you where you take it RA, however i feel that Asarlai's previous use of the term "traditional county" which we agreed against is now merited to help define between what are the traditional counties and the modern administrative counties. County Dublin does no longer exist officially, however it is still commonly used in various fields - thus i believe defining counties as either "traditional" as County Dublin is, or "administrative" for the modern counties such as Fingal that do have an official administrative purpose might be a good way to go.

The issue really does need clearing up as the "old" counties and "new" counties need a defining line drawn between them. We already use administrative for the "new" counties, even though officially the term "administrative" has been dropped by the state, and in some places on Wiki the use of "traditional" is used for the older ones. Thus i propose the usage of "traditional" and "administrative" as the line.

The term "historic" in place of "traditional" whilst having due weight, i believe would only cause problems with editors who'd feel uneasy with it. The same for using "modern" instead of "administrative". Mabuska ^(talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. They are just adjectives that are useful to draw a distinction between the two.

Also agree re: "historic" vs. "modern". "traditional" vs. "administrative" is best.

I'll post a link to start a generalised discussion this evening. --RA (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with traditional and administrative as labels and am willing to support them, unless someone raises a persuasive objection against them. --O'Dea (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. We may be back soon with new administrative counties, if certain government proposals are acted-upon, but the terminology will still work, and the 32 traditional counties will still be there. SeoR (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Terms traditional and administrative work better than the alternatives. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish to clarify my conditional agreement, above, to the use of the terms traditional and administrative. I see them simply as neutral adjectives of distinction between entities, and not to be used to smuggle in any attitudes, such as "Dublin is a traditional county" to mean it no longer really exists. Nor should the label "administrative" be an attempt to diminish new counties, as in "Fingal is (merely) an administrative entity." A semblance of consensus is building for the terms traditional and administrative, but if they turn out in practice to be an abuse, I will withdraw my support of them. --O'Dea (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What, if anything, has been agreed here? Can somebody come up with a succinct statement please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we need some kind of declaratio to finish this issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we add something like the following to the MOS:

If it is necessary to make a distinction between the counties of Ireland that existed immediately before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (e.g. County Tipperary, County Dublin) and those created afterwards (e.g. South Tipperary, Fingal) use the adjective "traditional" to refer to the counties that existed immediately before that act and "administrative" to refer those created afterwards. Do not place the word "County" before the administrative counties created in the Republic of Ireland since 1994. When using a county as a geographic reference, including in categories, use the traditional counties rather than administrative counties, except where the topic relates closely to local government in the Republic of Ireland. Example:

• Nenagh is a town in County Tipperary, Ireland. It is the county town of North Tipperary.

This goes beyond what was discussed above (and would reverse many of Laurel Lodged's changes), so I am putting it here for discussion. --RA (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the above - clear and succinct. I am concerned that in the absence of something, changes are "just happening" - for example, one Dublin page I watch is now not in any Dublin category, after Places of Worship in County Dublin was removed, and not replaced with anything else - this is really not good enough. I still think the 26/32 counties should be the basis for most categories. SeoR (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not true to say that "Places of Worship in County Dublin" has not been replaced with anything else. It has been replaced with Category:Religion in Fingal County and with Category:Religion in Dublin City and with Category:Religion in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County. It will soon be joined by Category:Religion in South Dublin County]] thereby completing the quartet. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a significant improvement as greater specificity is to be preferred to lesser specificity and that each county should have its own category of Religion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the RoI, unlike SeoR above, I think that the areas of local government, as defined by the Oireachtas, should be the basis for most categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like RA's version of the MOS. I prefer this version:

If it is necessary to make a distinction between the counties of Ireland that existed immediately before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (e.g. County Tipperary, County Dublin) and those created afterwards (e.g. South Tipperary, Fingal) use the adjective "traditional" to refer to the counties that existed immediately before that act and "administrative" to refer those created afterwards. Place the word "County" after the name of the particular administrative county that was created in the Republic of Ireland since 1994 (e.g. Fingla County). When using a county as a geographic reference, including in categories, use the administrative county as the primary reference. Mention may also be made afterwards of the common usage of the traditional name. Example:

• Nenagh is the county town of North Tipperary County in Ireland. Its population is blah. It has fine broad meadows. Historicaly, it was part of the traditional county of Tipperary.

Laurel Lodged

(talk) 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Two points:

• "Tipperary North County", "Fingal County" etc. are not the names of administrative counties per the 2001 act. The names of counties are simply "Tipperary North", "Fingal", etc (see schedule 5). The names of the relevant county councils are the [COUNTY NAME] + "County Council" (see section 11). Appending the word "County" to administrative county names is groundless and unnatural. It is not normal practice. This is in contrast to traditional practice where the name of the county is "County Tipperary", "County Dublin", etc..
• Normal practice (in the real world) is to give geographic locations in Ireland (north and south) by the traditional county. For example: "The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." (Faleer:2009) Thus, on the fine new motorway running from Cork to Dublin is located a sign (erected by either the NRA or local government) saying, "Welcome to County Tipperary".

--RA (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the facts in point 1 but come to a different conclusion. Firstly, schedule 5 spells the counties (correctly) as "North Tipperary" and "South Tipperary" (not as "Tipperary North" above). Secondly, my proposed MOV uses that exact spelling in the wikilink. I only add "County" afterwards to differentite it from the traditional counties where the name "County" would precede the county name (e.g. "County Wexford") if this agreement was to be followed. So to repeat, the names of the counties creaded after 1994 are "North Tipperary", "South Tipperary", "Fingal" etc. They are counties and so this needs to be made explicit. The options are "County North Tipperary" or "North Tipperary County". My suggestion is for the latter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Software_companies_of_Ireland

Hi folks, I seem to recall some years back that the Software companies of Ireland page had a long list of companies, perhaps numbering in the 100's. It now seems to be reduced to a mere 8! How can companies easily add their company names? Also, how did wikipedia lose that information, even if it was just a mere outdated list? 213.191.244.57 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If a page (such as that about a company) shows up on a Category page, it's because someone has edited the 'company' page and added the category there. Similarly, if its no longer listed on the category page, it's because the category has been removed from the actual article. Companies can't easily add themselves, because company representatives shouldn't be editing their own company articles - it's a conflict of interest. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: Irish Wikipedian's Meet-up

Hey all -

Just a quick reminder that a meet-up of Irish Wikipedians will take place this Saturday at the Kingston Hotel in Dún Laoghaire.

More info is here. Hope to see you all there!

--— RA (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would like that but can't this year.Red Hurley (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Won't be there and don't intend to make the effort lol - too far out of my way and will end up feeling trivial and out of place. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Would also like to attend but I'll be busy unfortunately. Maybe next year. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 00:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ATQ Stewart

I'm planning to add an article on this Ulster historian, but don't know much about him / please add what you can. About 28 possible links on wiki.Red Hurley (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Special Areas of Conservation in the Republic of Ireland

• copyright issues with List of Special Areas of Conservation in the Republic of Ireland so I created Temp Page until copyright issues are resolved. Any views. Mrchris (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Could an administrator offer advice to help resolved this issue. Mrchris (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Drogheda

Anybody able to help cite and reference the Start Class Siege of Drogheda article? It has been sat in this approximate state since mid 2009 with very little done to improve the content and references for much of even the most rudimentary content. I have attempted to raise this article with cite fags, but these have since been reverted. Please see the talk page for further details. Koncorde (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm a bit stuck for time at the moment, I've started referencing and to a small degree re-formatted the article. I don't think it's too bad, compared to some others I've seen - there was no incorrect information in the part I edited - it just needed refs and re-formatting. It mainly needs a copy-edit now and a thorough check of the last section. Hohenloh ⁺ 23:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Meet-up last Saturday

Thanks to all who made it to the meet-up last Saturday. It was a great experience.

For anyone who couldn't make it but is interested in knowing how it got on, I've made a summary that can be seen on the Ireland meet-up talk page.

--RA (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Republic of Ireland

I was wondering why there isn't a Republic of Ireland Wikiproject unless i've somehow managed to gloss over it all these years?

Why do i think one is relevant? Each country has its own Wikiproject, even Northern Ireland. So why should the Republic not have one specific for it? Using this one as its proxy feels to me like a way of saying that issues relating to the Republic relate to the island as a whole.

This project should technically just revolve around the geography of the island, topics from pre-Partition Ireland and modern cross-border politics and issues.

Any thoughts and opinions on this? No doubt a few editors will complain simply because it would probably have to use the term "Republic of". Mabuska ^(talk) 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough bodies to justify it. It's because Irish Wikipedians of all hues are so scarce that Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board redirect here. I also don't think there is enough of a difference between Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from the point of view of many encyclopedia articles to justify it in practical terms. And even on items as ostensibly solely ROI-relatd as the local authority areas (or former local authority area) editors from both sides of the border have a strong interest :-)

The converse, however, does not hold true, IMHO. For many practical reasons a distinct WikiProject Northern Ireland is valuable.

I think the practical benefit of a WikiProject trumps logic like "every country has a Wikiproject so why don't we" and I don't think we should divide out energies.

Just my 2¢ to your two-pence. --RA (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

By all means start one (WikiProject:ROI). GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We could just merge all the different wikiprojects into a single British Isles one ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not advisable. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy or guideline that requires each country to have its own project. The Ireland WikiProject covers the whole island for all periods which means that all pre-1922 related articles are included in the project. Should such articles be associated with some new sub-project of the UK and what should happen to people whose lives transitioned the partition? Way too difficult to deal with when the single island based project solves all such likely issues. Besides which the WPNI has rather low activity and few members, so relying on that project looks like an overambitious aspiration. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a need for the Belfast Wikiproject? Its just an idea to condense Republic of Ireland matters into one project where they can be solely concentrated on. We could just change this project to revolve around the RoI and use the Wikiproject Ireland Collaboration for the island - its got the right sounding name lol ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If somebody wants to start up a WikiProject for the Republic of Ireland? go right ahead. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Followed by the 5th French Republic and the Parliamentary democracy and Constitutional monarchy of Denmark wikiprojects . Not need to include the description of the state in the projects name 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know... France isn't a state that covers five-sixths of the island of France... and Denmark isn't a state that covers five-sixths of the island of Denmark. The comparison doesn't work. ~Asarlaí 14:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was being pedantic ,the phrase ROI annoys me . Never mind ,carry on Gnevin (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Spraoi

Hi, I just want to draw attention to this article. It was a red link on the Waterford article. Spraoi festival gets a crowd of over 80,000 each year. There is not one picture of it on Commons and practically no info on it on wiki so surely someone who looks in here knows stuff about Spraoi. ~ R.T.G 14:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 99 freely licenced images on Flickr here and another 7 here. There should be enough choice in those. Flickr user Infomatique has loads of other Irish images licenced under a free Creative Commons licence. ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

None of informatiques pictures are of the Waterford festival (informatique pasted a large sheet of information on to each of their St Patricks Day pictures with the Irish word for "play", "spraoi" on it somewhere) while the other users Banking Crisis and What's a party? are hardly illustrative of 80,000 people (lol) overtaking a city come to lfe with street theatre and music... though the effort is appreciated and i have found a lot more pics of the Spraoi on flikr only that I've looked through them all, a couple hundred maybe, and if they werent all skewed there was no crowd or if there was a crowd there was no performers so the request still stands if anyone has that nice posey picture of a stage or something of Spraoi please add it/them. Best pics I found... [1] [2] [3] ([4]<- this might be a good picture but it's a scene from a back alley...) [5] ~ R.T.G 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well! I tried. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Coillte Teoranta

I'm dealing with a request that this article should be moved to Coillte, and I wondered what the view is. Teoranta carries the information about the type of company, but apparently the company refers to itself as Coillte. If we went with the commonly-used name, what would that be? Charles Matthews (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this not being discussed at the relevant Talk Page? RashersTierney (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've chipped in on the talk page. --RA (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Aghaviller

I created article Aghaviller (talk) which is a National Monuments in County Kilkenny. Mrchris (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox problem

{{Infobox place Ireland}} doesn't seem to support country= parameter? Mrchris (talk) 1:11 pm, Today (UTC−4)

We actually have a discussion on this and we have agreed to its inclusion however we've stalled recently over wording of the Republic of Ireland. Heres the link. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Most editors favoured "state" rather than "country". ~Asarlaí 13:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean most editors supported a compromise that was to use "state". Mabuska ^(talk) 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Provisional IRA actions

It was suggested almost six months ago that this timeline should be split into decades. It's a detailed and well-sourced article, but it has grown so big that it takes forever to load – the current size is 329k. Some input on the talk page would be welcome.
~Asarlaí 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Template:British Isles}} deletion debate (another naming dispute)

A discussion is under way at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion about whether {{Template:British Isles}} should be deleted or not, or if its title should be renamed, and what names might be desirable. --O'Dea (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish nobility 2

Could I invite views on Irish nobility. The article has changed in focus since the contributions of DinDriathou. Before then, the article pertained to Gaelic nobles, peers of the Lordship of Ireland and the Kingdom of Ireland and peers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It then changed to refer to Gaelic nobles, "medieval nobility of foreign origin" and stated that "nobility originating from the so-called Kingdom of Ireland onwards, and with few exceptions not generally accepted as 'Irish'".

I raised POV/V issues with these statements. A series of moves/reverts have put the article now at Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland. While that is not altogether a problem topic, it is quite an odd choice for an article and it is not clear what the article is "about". In my view, one article dealing with Gaelic titles (including Gaelicised Normans) and one dealing with "English" titles (see Peerage of Ireland) might be more appropriate.

That may be the intention behind the move, but other views would be appreciated.--RA (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

More confused allegations of I'm not sure what. The problem was perhaps always principally with the title of the article. I'm not trying to own it but I do have far more background in the subject than any current regular editor, and have been trying to make the article as friendly as possible. Separating them will improperly exclude the Hiberno-Norman families from modern "Gaeldom", but at the same time adding every single family in the Peerage of Ireland is nonsense. Most in the latter category have always been completely English. DinDraithou (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would Support the move to Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland but it should be accompanied by major additions to the lead that define what is included and is not included. It should also "See also" to the Peerage of Ireland article. That article should also make it clear that it generally excludes articles from Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility. Indeed the title of the article might need to change to reflect this exclusion. Both articles could then direct to a higher category e.g Category:Irish nobility. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion on the talk article's talk page. --RA (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving articles to their Irish names

Kmgm23 has been moving several place articles from their common English name to the Irish name without any discussion; apparently all are County Meath related such as Mullingar. Would someone look at his contribution history and revert those that are inappropriate. We are the English wiki not the ga wiki where those names are proper. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Some of those are quite obviously not common e.g. the moving Mullingar to An Muileann gCearr and changing the lead.

On a similar note, I've noticed:

(a) the position of the Irish-language name and the English-language name being swapped in the introduction to article and the English-langauge name being removed altogether from info boxes (example).

(b) the common, but not official, spelling of English-language place names being replaced in info boxes with uncommon, but official, spellings (Example).

The point of (a) is presumably to emphasise the official name for Gaeltacht places. The point of (b) is presumable to show only official names in info boxes. The edit can be seen here with the summary "official name". Personally, I'm OK/in support of (a) to a certain extent. (I'm uneasy about removing common English-language names from the info boxes). I'm uncertain about (b).

However, since the last concensus I was aware of around (a) was to give the English-language as the primary name if that was more common (and since it is arguably at odds with the MOS), I'd like to bring it up here and get views. Should we amend the MOS? Is (a) (or similar) the new consensus?

How to others feel about (b)? --RA (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted, or part reverted, all of those edits by Kmgm23. They didn't adhere to the MOS on use of the Irish language or Wikipedia:Common name. The other ones above are more debatable on what approach we should have. --RA (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless the editor can prove that they meet the criteria of the IMOS his edits should be reverted. I also agree with Ww2censor - this is the English-language Wiki, Irish names for all articles belong to the Gaelic-language Wiki. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(a) and (b) above are not so clean cut. They are a grey area and don't concern the location of articles - but of the content of articles.

The first question is with regard to Gaeltacht places. There is officially no such place as Aughleam, for example, in any language. Officially the only name, in English or Irish, is Eachléim. The English-language name certainly exists, and is common, but for Gaeltacht places should the Irish-langauge (and only official name) receive precedence in the lead (i.e. come first). Regardless of the answer to this, nobody has moved Aughleam to Eachléim.

The second question is about info boxes: what name(s) should appear in info boxes? Only official names? Or only common names? Or both? In some cases the official name can be at variance to the common name (as in Aughleam) or can be spelt slightly differently (as in Carrigtwohill). --RA (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the commonest name should be used for the article titles (per IMOS), but for Gaeltacht places the Irish name should come first in the lead. The anglicised names (many Gaeltacht places have more than one) should be given afterward, using Template:Gaeltacht place name. I'd prefer if infoboxes used only the official names, but I've no strong feelings on it. However, the Irish name should at least be bolded in infoboxes for Gaeltacht places. ~Asarlaí 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

History task force

A discussion on Solaire's talk page has proposed to create a History task force of this WikiProject. There have been a few posts/discussions at Talk:History of Ireland that used that page as a central point for discussion on history related matters. However, the appropriateness of using an article talk page for wider discussion was (quite reasonably) questioned. The proposal is to create a task force rather than a wholly new WikiProject so as to not divide energies or to split this WikiProject.

What are views of others on this? --RA (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Simon Byrne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Headlands by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories

Propose that these sub-categories be deleted. There is a sub-category for nearly every seaward county. Most have only 1 page entry. They take sub-classification to ridiculous levels. There's barely enough to justify even 1 national category. But I'd retain the national one Category:Headlands of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The same is true for the Category:Headlands of Northern Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Peninsulas by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories

Propose that these sub-categories be deleted. There is a sub-category for nearly every seaward county. Most have only 1 page entry. They take sub-classification to ridiculous levels. There's barely enough to justify even 1 national category. But I'd retain the national one Category:Peninsulas of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bays by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories

Propose that these sub-categories be deleted. There is a sub-category for many seaward county. Most have only 1 page entry. They take sub-classification to ridiculous levels. There's barely enough to justify even 1 national category. But I'd retain the national one Category:Bay of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Next Irish Meet-up

Hi folks, as we discussed at the last meet-up in Dun Laoghaire hosted by Clem, which was very interesting and a great opportunity to meet fellow-Wikipedians, I'd like to invite all interested to meet up in Dublin on Friday 3 December. The proposed venue is in South Richmond St., Dublin, (about 20 mins. walk from the city centre and next to the Luas green line), to start about 7:00 pm. Again, as we discussed, I've arranged that all attending the meet-up will obtain free entrance to a fund-raising concert for Haiti in a nearby venue which will start later that evening, and if wanted a cut-price meal at any of the local restaurants and a free drink or two. I'll supply further details if we can find enough people to come along, and will extend this invitation to Wikipedians from other countries who may be interested in coming along. Hohenloh ⁺ 02:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)