Talk:Limerick

Feud

Does the Limerick Feud warrant a separate section? It is mentioned in the Culture section in passing - completely without explanation. TheWarOfArt (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we improve this article by linking to such a bad article as Limerick feud (despite your efforts, sorry) The Banner talk 23:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about a separate section (since that seems like WP:UNDUE), but it seems to me that the Keane-Collopy/McCarthy-Dundon feud is notable (based on news coverage, e.g.), and merits further discussion in this article than just a passing mention. As for the Limerick feud article, I think it's a fine start, myself. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a good article, a very notable subject, objections are based on Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT aren't they?78.19.230.11 (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether it merits a separate section or not, It should at least be linked. The condition of the Limerick Feud page, (which I am fixing) shouldn't rule that out.TheWarOfArt (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In my case the only part of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT applicable is towards the feud itself. The Gardai and the Courts should get the means to stop it. The article Limerick feud could do with a a load of improvements but their is no need to hide this ugly feud. The Banner talk 16:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Cycling

Disappointed to have my Cycling addition removed (twice) as “blatant promo and advertising”. Other community bicycle programs appear in Wikipedia, some even have their own pages (see Vélib', dublinbikes and Barclays Cycle Hire, there is even a Category:Community bicycle programs. Life is too short to try a third time, anyone feel like editing the following in a way that permits this noteworthy addition to the cityscape be mentioned?

My latest edit read:

In December 2014 a public bicycle rental scheme was launched in central Limerick. Initially 23 locations will be provided with 215 bicycles. the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the National Transport Authority and the city of Limerick have awarded the contract to Rothar Nua. Coca Cola Ireland will invest in the scheme and in return it will be branded “Coca Cola Zero Bikes”. references I included

http://www.businessandleadership.com/sustainability/item/48701-coca-cola-zero-bikes-offici

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/business-news/public-bike-scheme-wheeled-out-in-limerick-city-1-6462061

http://www.limerickpost.ie/2014/11/11/coca-cola-zero-bikes-coming-to-limerick/

Belmonter (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for your attempt to highlight the bike share scheme, disappointed that there was no discussion before deleting the original article and a subsequent attempt to include the public bicycle rental scheme on the Limerick page (as has an attempt on the Galway page) I would propose adding an article based on the section on the "Cork (city)" page as, despite an editor categorising the scheme as advertising, I believe that the scheme is noteworthy and advertising is not the schemes reason for being. The scheme has had a lot of public money spent on it and is not set up to provide a revenue flow to the (admittedly unpopular to some) sponsor. Many other public bicycle rental schemes are included in Wikipedia, with several having their own pages, including some with the sponsors name included in the title, the London scheme is sponsored by a bank (surely there can be no less popular classification of business). There is even a category “Community bicycle programs” on Wikipedia. What is the feeling out there in Wiki land? Is this worth including on the Limerick page? The text, with references, I would propose is as follows: “In 2014, a public bicycle rental scheme was launched. The scheme is operated by An Rothar Nua on behalf of the National Transport Authority, with funding supplemented by an advertising sponsor.” Regards Johnny