Talk:Maynooth

Initial text

Eh... Intel and Hewlett-Packard are in Leixlip and would hardly be considered as Maynooth by the census. HP could maybe be Celbridge. There's nothing wrong with Maynooth having a lower population than Leixlip or Celbridge anyway - it's still the 33rd most populated town in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitrysimpson (talk • contribs) Dmitrysimpson (UTC)

Added this fact to the relevant paragraph Ewanduffy 20:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Bridge

Changed the bond bridge paragraph. It's beening rebuilt because it's a death trap. The local residents have been campaign for something like 20 years to get it replaced. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 149.157.140.66 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone, ever, ever die on that bridge through a road accident? No. Was anyone going to with the traffic lights? No. Can KCC afford to demolish it? No. Did certain councillors even admit that it was "uneeded but too late to back out now". Yes. --Kiand 13:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken as someone who never walked across that bridge at 1:30 am. The accidents I'm thinking of happened long before (early 90s) the tree one. That bridge should have been replaced years ago. Just because it is old does not mean it is worth saving. The dev. levies coming into KCC for the houses currently planned will bring in over €35 million so the council can afford it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 82.22.238.16 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect, I've lived in this town for far, far too long to have not crossed that bridge tens of thousands of times, and pretty much any time of the day. It never killed anyone, there were a few accidents mainly involving drunk drivers going through the walls - all more than ten years ago, however.

Future development levies are being earmarked for literally everything the council is doing - its akin to The Sun's claims that the cash for The Spike could have built a hospital, a school, a metro system, etc, etc, etc - it can only do one thing. --Kiand 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, lies removed, whitewash unwhitewashed. --Kiand 13:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting paragraph on Bond Bridge to Kiand version. Bond Bridge is not a traffic blackspot by any standards, as can be seen by the lack of traffic on the relief road built to take the traffic away from it. Compared to Celbridge, which Mayor John McGinley has ignored, the rebuilding of Bond Bridge is wasted ratepayers money to buy votes for the aforementioned individual.Ewanduffy 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, You obviously don't drive on the relief road frequently. I am sorry if you feel aggrevied because, in your opinion, Celbridge has been "ignored". But the founding concept of Wikipedia is for an accurate and unbiased encyclopedia. All of my information can be backed up by local media sources (please see external link at the end of the article) whereas i find some of your input highly POV.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 149.157.1.122 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in here - what "highly POV" content is there? The bridge is historic, its been destroyed - thats not POV, "The Thing" in the Square was destroyed too, its the correct term for it. Theres never been an RTA fatality on it - thats fact again. The relief road removed most heavy traffic from it - again true, if you paid attention in the few days between it opening and the bridge closing. Its costing an absolutely huge amount of money - thats a fact again. Theres nothing there thats POV, however claiming that its a "traffic blackspot" - which your version does - IS highly POV. --Kiand 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Bridge (continued)

Lets get a few facts down before the anonymous user reverts again:

Bond Bridge was not a "deathtrap" or "accident blackspot" as has been claimed, the bridge was under traffic control and no fatalities due to road traffic accidents had occured
No major traffic problems were caused by the traffic control on the bridge, any minor delays pale into insignificance compared to the problems of the rest of the town
The flood relief works could be done without destroying the old bridge, and indeed could have been done with the >€6M thats going into replacing it
The development levies may be coming in but have in general been earmarked for other purposes, KCC has had to make provisions from its general budget to replace the bridge
Specific councillors admitted after the decision went through that it might not have been the best idea but that it was "too late now" - thats an exact quote.
The bridge is not being "redeveloped" or "reconstructed", it is being replaced. Originally we were told that the original bridge material would be salvaged and stored for future reconstruction elsewhere, but it now seems that this plan has been scrapped.

People can continue trying to push through a specific POV, but those are the direct facts. --Kiand 17:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you felt it neccessary to revert this article again however I would kindly appreciate it if you would at least leave my external link on the page so that people can read local press articles and get a balnced view of the situation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.157.1.122 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the external link as balanced, nor do I see that site as the local press, however I will leave it there as I only inadvertantly removed it by doing a full rollback. Additionally, even as an anonymous contributor you should sign your comments with the ~~~~ format --Kiand 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Bond Bridge revert three way revert thing (Mexican Revert Stand-off?) was getting ridiculous. Hope the alternative written covers all arguements. Do not revert Copy and paste from previous editions if you want.Afn 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personnally have nearly been knocked down there twice. The kids next door have also had near misses. This is after the two way lights arrangement when drivers got fed up waiting, took a chance and then had to go up onto the footpath to avoid oncoming traffic. I have witnessed this at least six times over the last six or seven years. Is just too dangerous to be allowed to continue. The claim that there have never been any traffic fatalities is a bit pedandic when we all know that a girl was killed when hit by a tree falling onto the bridge in windy conditions. The new road will make this impossible. Safety comes before heritige every time - and I have a Ph.D. in history!

I've never been hit crossing it, and never saw anyone being hit, however I've seen far more accidents on the main street, the Straffan road, etc, etc. I've also "nearly" been milled by a Dublin Bus going through a red light and "nearly" been taken down by a BMW at tesco. Nearly != anything actually going to happen.

The old bridge was as safe as the new one is going to be, theres going to be "nearly" moments on it to, as there is on every bridge, every road, every place that theres any chance of two cars passing. Additionally, with the use of CPOs it would have been possible to build a new bridge without removing the old one, but KCC never even seemed to consider that.

Garda Station

Surely Naas Garda station is bigger??

Nass isn't really in "the area", but yes, its far far bigger; feel free to change it if you want. --Kiand 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Layout

Hope new layout is acceptable and is clearer to read. Afn 18:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how come there is nothing in there about lodger, rad wheels, helmet head or free lunch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlynch (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Maybe add a pronunciation note? Flapdragon (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

Halifax is no longer in the centre. Also, Tesco never planned to demolition its previous store. Currently of course it lies vacant, but it does make up part of the retail park. Penneys was rumoured to be setting up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.252.161 (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population

I presume the population of 12 (!) is an error--Stephencdickson (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical population chart

There was something wrong with the formatting of the historical population chart. I couldn't figure out what the problem was but it was displaying in a strange way. If someone wants to undo the edit I made and fix the formatting of the chart, please give it a try. 20:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maynooth. 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/20120204103615/http://www.catholiccommunications.ie/ to http://www.catholiccommunications.ie/

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) 20:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable inhabitants

Shouldn't we add a "Notable inhabitants" section? 2603:6011:2701:51E8:5037:ED5F:DB29:4D31 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]