Talk:Rathfarnham

message: The recent batch of changes to the pubs inserts an awful lot of WP:POV and strange statements like "local pub full of local people" (presumably a League of Gentlemen joke, and inappropriate in an encyclopedia). It also inserts numerous self-links to this same article, which results in a bunch of bolded words that look ugly. So I've removed them. Also, a lot of the info that has been reinserted is very repetitive and mentioned elsewhere in the article, or would be better mentioned elsewhere. -Splash 16:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this whole section on pubs rather unencyclopeadic. It looks as if it would be more appropriate in a travel guide like Wikitravel than in Wikipedia. I can see that references to individual pubs may ocassionally be appropriate for Wikipedia, for example where the pub is of particular historic or architectural significance, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I suggest that we remove this section altogether. -- Chris j wood 13:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is at least in part because someone keeps on putting in things that just don't belong like mentions of plasma screen tvs and the like. When I originally merged them here from separate articles I kept it very brief but that hasn't stuck. Personally, I wouldn't object to the removal of the whole section as you say. It belongs better in Wikitravel. -Splash 13:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the whole section could do with being deleted.  However, I wrote the original article on the Yellow House which currently redirects here.  I believe that the Yellow House Pub (unlike the others listed) is a notable landmark in its own right with enough history that its original article should be reinstated if the pub section is removed from here. AndrewH 09:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some sort of balance would be sensible. Perhaps a merciless editing of that section rather than its removal? Generally speaking, my personal opinion is that articles on very local features benefit from being merged as they get much better context that way. -Splash 16:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, move the lot to Wikitravel. I was very surprised to come across it here. -- Blorg 12:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pubs

message: I have proposed merging Woodside, Rathfarnham into this article. It's only an estate of about 100 houses, with no assertion of notability, and needs at most a brief mention in the article on Rathfarnham, not a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. SeoR (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Support. Sarah777 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Another good decision! You get the odd one right :) Sarah777 (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from Woodside, Rathfarnham 

message: Anyone mind if I removed the redlinks in this article? They are waiting a long time for articles, eg Taylor's Grange. Sarah777 (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: Many moons ago this was a "B" class article. What does it need to get that rating again? Sarah777 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I'd say referencing, and following that, some tweaking of tone, and redaction or re-statement of stuff like "The statistics indicate that Rathfarnham is aging,[citation needed] with young couples that moved into the area in the 1960s entering retirement.[original research?] Due to the suggestion that there weren't many suitable sites in the area for apartment building, analysts[who?] for the Rathfarnham Community Website, predicted that Census 2010 would show further decreases.[citation needed]" Then a proper lede.  The redoubtable Guliolopez has had a good look, and they were right. There is much written about the area, and it's a large and historic one, and most of the facts stated are valid, so it's just a pity it was not better put together. SeoR (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stuff in here about finding Robert Emmets grave a bit discussy? Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions please

message: Several sources I have consulted say that Major Richard Doyne, who owned the Hermitage between 1859 and 1866 (his son taking over possession till 1898), was a veteran of the Crimean War, not Waterloo. The popular tradition (which I have not been able to confirm) that he built an obelisk over the grave of his warhorse may, then, be true. But the horse carried him in the Crimea, not at Waterloo.
Eroica (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterloo or the Crimea?