Talk:List of public art in Dublin

message: I added a no citations tag because none of the information in this article is verified by reliable sources. Rigby27 Talk 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the concern over these nicknames, however what I think will be a problem is that these are part of an oral tradition in Ireland/Dublin and are passed mainly by word of mouth. I have not contributed to this article but as a Dubliner I've heard almost ever name here multiple times and use them myself. If someone really did want to find literal references there may be some in local and national newspapers. This has become something of a national passtime over the past 10-15 years so often a new monument would be announced with a front page article using a suggested nickname.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.6 (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No References

message: The names are all newspaper suggestions. Nobody uses them in real conversations . Have u ever heard any one say ' ill meet you outside the kylemore beside the prick with the sticks?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.196.179 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've done some editing and tried to re-focus the article on the statues themselves and tone down the nicknames. Snappy (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicknames

message: The previous article on nicknames was great fun, if perhaps not entirely appropriate as the only article on Dublin statues. And of course, nicknames aren't always used for directions, but those in Dublin do reflect the humour of the city.
How about adding a shortish section on nicknames? Emphasise that this is part of Dublin craic.
Korhomme (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not! This is a serious encyclopedia, not a collection of humorous things you heard in a pub! Start your website if you want that sort of thing. Snappy (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Voting YES on nicknames.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.211.134 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicknames — Subsection? 

message: Why is user:79.97.226.247 reverting to a year old version of this article? It's been cleaned up alot since then. I see no valid reason for reversion. If 79.97.226.247 wants to restore those dubious nicknames, then please provide reliable references.  Snappy (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted information pertaining to the nicknames of statues without any discusssion. That's the valid reason for reversion. The nicknames of statues are relevant to the page - there's a reason why Dublin statues and their nicknames redirects to this page, it was decided to redirect the page to here rather than delete it. Just because you think that the nicknames are "silly" doesn't make them irrelevant to the page. A parks superintendent with Dublin City Council has even commented on the topic of nicknames when talking to the media about the relocation of a statue. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the dubious nicknames that some wit came up with in a pub 15 years ago but never stuck. Just because there is a reference somewhere that a statue was once called by a nickname does not mean it is in common usage. This is not an indiscriminate list of every nickname that was every thought up for every statue in Dublin. The is called "Statues in Dublin" not Nicknames of Statues in Dublin. Please stop reverting to an old version, if you must then try adding a nickname with a recent reliable reference. Snappy (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already explained, the page Dublin statues and their nicknames was redirected here for a reason rather than deleting it. Please stop removing cited content. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the original article, which was saved "if the "nicknames" part was removed". this article is about statues not nicknames, please stop adding them with your dubious, ancient and out of date references. As I said they were thought up years ago, but none of those have stuck, I live in Dublin, I know! Snappy (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was in relation to unreferences nicknames. All nicknames bar one are now cited. I have added ten additional references, and marked the remaining unreferenced nickname with a cn tag. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it irrelevant to the article. The fact that the nicknames are mentioned again and again in works on topics as diverse as cultural studies, travel, linguistics, and military history shows that they are clearly pertinent. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding these dubious nicknames with old unreliable references. The article is about statues not nicknames. Snappy (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing dubious about the nicknames, or unreliable about the references. As I have already pointed out, the fact that they are covered in many diverse works clearly shows them to be a noteworthy element of the topic. Please stop removing cited content without a valid reason. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As an attempted compromise, I have put the nicknames in their own section. I hope this will be agreeably. Snappy (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still removing cited content. And there's no need that I can see for nicknames to have their own section. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to compromise again, so I think it reads better this way with a nicknames section, and now all cited content that you added is there. Snappy (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why put them in a different section? The nicknames are an important part of the article, not an appendage. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is primarily about Statutes in Dublin. Only a minority of them have nicknames (14 of 75 or 18%), so it makes to group them in their own section. In any article, things in common are usually put together in a common section. Again, try to compromise with you but getting nothing back! Snappy (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Please them reverting because you don't like it, and also you don't own the article. I have compromised, you just want your own way all the time. Snappy (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fully aware that I don't article. Based on your previous behaviour, it seems that you are not aware that you don't own it either. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no valid reason for your continued reversion. The nicknames are not a defining characteristic as only a small minority (18%) have them. They are grouped logically in their own section. Please stop reverting. Snappy (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, the Pepper canister church is a building not a statue. Please stop adding it. Snappy (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of sources speak about not just specific nicknames, but on the phenomenon of nicknaming itself: "In Dublin fashion, Joycean monuments have been greeted with irreverent rhymes", "In keiner anderen Stadt gibt es mehr Monumentebeinamen. Allein der Dublin Spire hat ein Dutzend Beinamen in Reimform", "Dubliners have cultivated the slightly cutesy habit of giving abusive rhyming nicknames to the city's sculptures", "No piece of public statuary can be said to have entered Irish public consciousness without being christened with a derisive rhyming nickname", "Les Dublinois ont beaucoup d'humour et prennent un malin plaisir à affubler les statues et les monuments de leur ville avec des sobriquets souvent comiques et parfois assez trash." It's clearly a noteworthy part of the article. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of this article is Statutes in Dublin, please stop adding buildings and bridges to it. Perhaps you should create a separate article called 'List of nicknames of things in Dublin'. Snappy (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is clearly about monuments, not only statues, which are a particular class of sculpture. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your support, that's what I have been advocating for a while now. Snappy (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP editor restoring old version 

message: *I support the inclusion of nicknames.  Procedurally, such inclusion was recommended as part of this AfD discussion and the nicknames are themselves notable.  (I just added a few additional references.)  Complaints about silliness are variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have no basis in policy.  The presence of nicknames in the article does not imply that they are in common usage but (OR alert) I've never heard of the Hags with the Bags called anything but that.  However, I also support User:Snappy's idea of a separate section for the nicknames with an explanation of the phenomenon for both editorial and formatting reasons.  The article is better served not to have nicknames sprinkled throughout.   —  AjaxSmack  01:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your support, that's what I have been advocating for a while now. Snappy (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: Is there a list of murals?  Could murals be mentioned in this article?  I ask this as, tragically in my opinion, the "Sweeney astray" mural, up the steps from the Aongus Óg Chariot of Life statue in the Irish Life Center has been demolished   ClemMacGána (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see my proposal below. Snappy (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Murals

message: Hi, being bold I moved the article to List of public art in Dublin and listified it, per my suggestion above. It allows for more images and more important information like the artist/sculptor and year erected to be more prominent. The nicknames are still there in their own column with all the references. Please discuss here first, instead of reverting as a default approach to disagreement. Snappy (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very disappointed that straight back from their second block for edit-warring, user:79.97.226.247 heads to this article to insert OR. They continue to claim that all of Dublin's public art has nicknames. Nothing in any of the references provided supports this assertion. If this is so, then please provide the nicknames for the following: Daniel O'Connell statue, Charles Stewart Parnell statue, Sir John Gray statue, Theobald Mathew statue, William Smith O'Brien statue, Thomas Davis statue, and all the rest. If non are provided then stop claiming that all of them have nicknames. Snappy (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not insert any OR. I have never claimed that all public art in Dublin has nicknames. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be news to me! You've spent the last several months claiming exactly that. I have further clarified the sentence in question. I have you can set aside your ownership issues and not start edit warring again. Snappy (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never claimed that. I do not have ownership issues. I hope you do not start edit warring again. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You edit history shows that you repeatedly claimed that. Worst case of ownership I've seen in a long time. Who's been blocked twice for edit-warring recently? If we can agree that we are happy (or can live with) the article as it is now, then that would be the most constructive outcome? Snappy (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I have explicitly stated before "No claim is being made that all statues have nicknames". Your replying to someone's suggestion with "Start your website if you want that sort of thing" is the worst case of ownership I've seen in a long time. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You claimed one thing in your comments, and then removed text to imply the opposite in the article. Still waiting for that website, which was a humorous aside and anyway not said to you. You (79.97.226.247) still win the Perpetual trophy for Best Ownership of an article. Snappy (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't. It not being said to me is irrelevant. You still said it. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed you did. And yes it is irrelevant, you're taking offence to something which was written before you ever edited this article. You can't just turn up later and take offence to previous posts, this is not how it works! Snappy (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not taking offence. I'm just reading what you wrote. Which was a declaration of ownership.79.97.226.247 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You declared of ownership of this article from the minute you started editing it, and you're still at it. Snappy (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List-ified article 

message: Since when are buildings and bridges considered public art? If so, then practically every building and bridge in Dublin would have to be included. These categories have there own articles, you can add the nicknames to those articles. This article is a list of public art not a list of nicknames. Some (< 20%) of the art happens to have nicknames, the vast majority don't. Just because something has a nickname does not mean it can be included here, it must meet the criteria of public art. Snappy (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You added trinity's campanile. A campanile is a building. If you can add buildings, so can I. You aren't the arbiter of what is and is not art. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A bell tower is not a building. It's a tower, it has no walls. Stop your obsession with nicknames. I obviously don't define what is art, and neither do you. I am following Wikipedia conventions for "List of public art..." articles. Snappy (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

text: On reflection, you may have a point. Therefore I have removed the Trinity campanile and the Smithfield chimney, as they would be considered by certain criteria to be buildings. Snappy (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever about the pepper canister, smithfield chimney and the ha'penny bridge are both monuments and should be included in the article. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are they monuments to? No references have been provided. St Stephen's Church is not a monuments to anyone that I'm aware of.Snappy (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "St Stephen's Church is not a monuments to anyone that I'm aware of." I did say "Whatever about the pepper canister." A monument is not necessarily to anybody.The  Spire, for example, is not a monument to, anybody, but it is a monument nonetheless. Likewise, the ha'penny bridge and smithfield chimney are also monuments without being monuments to anything.79.97.226.247 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really following you, St Stephen's Church is the pepper cannister church? Anyway, by that logic, every church in Dublin would have to be added, as they too are monuments to God, I would think. According to wikipedia: "A monument is a type of structure that was explicitly created to commemorate a person or important event, or which has become important to a social group as a part of their remembrance of historic times or cultural heritage, or as an example of historic architecture. The term 'monument' is often applied to buildings or structures that are considered examples of important architectural and/or cultural heritage.". Since you seem very determined to add these structure which are not "monuments to anything" (but have nicknames), I suppose they could fall under the latter description, i.e. "cultural heritage, or as an example of historic architecture". Though the logic is a bit dubious. Therefore if you want to re-add them to the list, I won't remove them. Snappy (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buildings - Public art? 

message: I vote that the millenium clock should be removed from this article. It was a temporary installation in the river Liffey - never intended to be permanent, and was intended simply to count down to the millenium, not as a piece of public art. UtDicitur (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. P.S. In Wikipedia, we prefer to discuss and build consensus rather than vote. Snappy (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millenium Clock 

message: Does anyone know what has happened to the Long Stone sculpture by Cliodna Cussen that used to be on College Street?   It was removed for roadworks and doesn't seem to be coming back. UtDicitur (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this video, it will be back later in the year. . Spleodrach (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Long Stone, College Street

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of public art in Dublin. 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/20160130143820/http://infomatique.org/public-art-in-ireland-photographed-by-infomatique/dublin-public-art-photographs/page38/index.html to http://www.infomatique.org/public-art-in-ireland-photographed-by-infomatique/dublin-public-art-photographs/page38/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Hi all, anyone know anything about the geometric sculpture of a knight on horseback with sword and shield located in a grassy verge beside the Con Colbert Road, at the Sarsfield Road turn-off? 53.34277126228811, -6.3195368269909995.
It looks sort of 1980s-esque. Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometric knight guy