Talk:Castleknock

General editing

This article has suffered a number of recent (mostly anonymous) vandalism changes. I suspect these are mostly school kids using the page for a form of silly graffiti, but I don't believe warning the talk page or isp's is an effective solution in this case. I suggest the page be set to semi-protected temporarily until this storm of nonsense passes. I'm not hugely experienced in how to do this so I don't think its as simple as just adding a protect tag to prevent unregistered users adding garbage? Perhaps some more knowledgeable Wikipedian can help solve this please. G. 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And more recently....sometimes a bit of obvious "vandalism/trolling" can provide a view of the watchers! (Sarah777 01:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Tidying-up. Article a bit stagnant, needs a section on Localities and maybe housing areas, incl. Deerpark, which does not need its own article. SeoR (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The Gaelic word for "hill" is "cnoc". This is not the same as "Chnucha". Even the grammar would tell you that. If it was truly the "castle oif the hill" it would be rendered "caislain an chnoic". Instead, it is a reference to a proper noun - a person - Cnucha. So it really means the "castle of Cnucha". (Laurel_Lodged 09/02/2010

Updating article

I agree with SeoR - the article was a bit stagnant. What a pity that SeoR seems to resent any changes to the article though, as petulant editorial deletions can only ensure to it's on-going status of back-water. Where philosophical differences of opinion in the direction of the article arise, would it not be more gentlemanly to engage in a scholarly debate before pressing the delate button? The original article in it's opening paragraph rightly set out Castleknock's dual role as suburban village and barony. Nothing indicated that either should take precedence. Therefore there is as much merit in listing the location of the barony (and it's constituent townslands) as the village. And what were the grounds for the deletion of those community services so vital to the life of any village (e.g. the GAA, the tennis club)? Are they any less vital than the state body that anomolously remained? I look forward to hearing from SeoR (pronounced "shore"?).Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy? Not sure where that comes in but as a former resident of Chapelizod, I observe the Mount Sackville School thing with interest. Castleknock the village (the topic of this article from its creation) and Castleknock the barony (which runs to Finglas, and so is obviously a totally different thing) do not share the article. I don't know about any other editor, but I would certainly not stand in the way of a Barony of Castleknock article! What I do know is that sticking a list of townlands (some familiar, some meaningless today) high in the article was bad format, and out of line with guidelines, just as someone else went sticking long population lists on many town articles. I have followed the previous editor's guidance and moved this list (which is of genuine historic interest) to footnotes. I don't quite know what the GAA / tennis thing is about, as these items seem to be stable in the article - but if you refer to deletion of the massive set of links, this list was entirely out of line with policy, and needed culling. And no, no idea how you pronounce SeoR - they've been around a few years, with busy and quiet spells, but tend to background editing and assessment. 194.237.142.20 (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this over coffee, I looked at Coolock to compare approaches, and again there is a mention of the barony, but that is all. As for the other baronies, Balrothery has more issues, as modern Balrothery (the only one most people know) is a tiny village, while there are two like-named Baronies, East and West. And then Uppercross and Half-Rathdown are not really covered in Wikipedia at all. I can see room for brief articles on all, or a general article on Baronies of Dublin - but in line with the aim to be accessible, and to reflect WP:Common (common usage), the main article on each of Dublin's suburbs and areas should be about just that, as now met, and with a reasonable, proportionate, bit of history. 194.237.142.20 (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my Talk Page talk. I will check the edits mentioned above. SeoR (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on his Talk Page talk. I will abide by your recommendations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating or Destructive criticism

Why did 178.176.0.194 come along and delete a bunch of content without reasonable discussion or obvious reason? I don't wish to edit the article, but perhaps one of the more recent editors may wish to review this. --DubhEire (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

after double checking it would appear that things were just moved around, but that wasn't shown when comparing across multiple edits. Mt bad. --DubhEire (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see so much editing - I had seen a 194... but this 178... also seems to have helped, especially on making it tidier and tight. I do not see any further editing I wish to do right now. Good, getting late. SeoR (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population

I have inserted the population from the 2006 census:

   Greater Dublin Suburbs in Fingal, Castleknock-Knockmaroon    17,115

   Greater Dublin Suburbs in Fingal, Castleknock Park*          4,342

I used the numbers above, which totals 21,457. Does anyone beg to differ. The data can be obtained from CSO.ie --DubhEire (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Knockmaroon would usually be seen as part of Chapelizod (this is arguable) but that's the problem with the way population stats are done in Ireland. On balance, the number seems about right. 109.188.202.186 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sport

The assertion that St. Brigit's GAA is one of the largest in the country. By what standard - square footage of playing fields? Supporters? Number of active members? How is any of this to be verified? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a link has been made to the club's website in the reference section. I suppose this was made to bolster the cliam. It says that it is one of "the finest in Ireland". This is a subjective statement. It makes no clain to size and is, in any case, not verified by external sources. I think this claim needs a ^{[citation needed]} tag. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Not a single picture of this supposedly picturesque village? DouglasHeld (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barony, parish, townlands

The barony details belong in Barony of Castleknock, not here. Whether the civil parish details belong here is also questionable. Assuming it stays here, I think the table of townland names is overkill and takes up a lot of space. I suggest dropping the Irish names and just making the townlands a one-sentence list. jnestorius^(talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about the barony detail. I think that the table is quite neat. I was also thinking of adding columns for acres & other notes. The single sentence would be unattractive I think. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Castleknock. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Castleknock. 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:

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) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but can I ask...

Let's start with "thanks" - Wikipedia is wonderful, gets the girls through a lot of their homework, and helps in the office. And all voluntary and free, amazing stuff. I even did a few edits 3-4 years back, on my own topic, QS. But I hear there's been a big decline in editors, I think an article in some paper wrote it up recently, and one of the reasons given was that some long-term editors take what we might call "an angle" or feel they "own" topics or articles. Now, what caught my eye here was seeing no mention of County Dublin on the article of one of its bigger settlements, and then going to the history and finding a little "edit war", as I think they are called, with a fairly new editor making a sensible correction, and someone (to judge by the user name, from Laurel Lodge in actual Castleknock) reversing that, because "County Dublin was abolished." Reality check, Co. Dublin is alive and well. Sure it's not a County Council any more, but the Council was never the whole county anyway, there's the city too - County Dublin runs from Gormanstown to Garristown, my corner, to Blanch, Tallaght, and around to Bray. And then I check and find this problem applies to many articles. Surely all the talented people in the Wikipedia community can find a way to accommodate the old county and the new admin. setup. Nothing against Fingal, the guys do a fine job, best parks in Co. Dublin, but no one thinks they live in "County Fingal" and neither do most map-makers, postal and delivery services, State bodies, and so on. I thought what this TMN suggested was a good way to put it, but now I've put my own suggestion in too. I hope someone can find a compromise, and not scare off the volunteers.

While I'm on the soapbox, I hope someone can eventually "re-balance" - please don't say if that's not a proper word - the article. Castleknock is a thriving community with many activities and facilities and a rich history - there was a great book a few years back - but the article splits this way (sorry for the bill of quantity approach, the job):

 25% contents or header, and links and references
 5%+ location and transport
 25%+ history 
  of which most of the lines are about the components of a "barony" and a "civil parish" - most of which are not part of modern Castleknock.  I know what baronies and civ parishes are, we use them in the building, but perhaps they should be in seperate articles, they tell nothing about Castleknock-the-village or suburb
  in fact, the whole "history" section contains about 4 lines of actual history, as in points about people and places, as opposed to archaic land divisions and a spot of myth
 up to 20% about the area today, which is fairly relevant. Maybe a bit "listy." 
 10%+ is a list of religious groups, which seems a bit over the top, in an area where a recent article mentioned attendance is below 30%
 and then notable people, politics, etc.

The History part really needs work, and some of the material, which is obviously the product of good work, just breaks the flow of the article, same as the long list of sects and denominations. Maybe some reps of local business interests and cultural groups could expand those sections? I don't know how the system works, do you reach out for such specific editors?

Keep the heads up guys, but keep it relevant too. G'day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.107.125.148 (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would direct the anonymous user to County Dublin where is is laid out quite plainly that the Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993 abolished the county and simultaneously established new counties. On 1 January 1994, Fingal, among others, was established as a county. No doubt County Dublin will continue to enjoy a certain folk status as one of the thirty-two traditional counties of Ireland (whatever that means). Who knows, Fingal may in time attract a similar affection in its residents. I agree that it contains some of the best public parks in Ireland. Regarding the space devoted to religion in the article, the anonymous editor may be unaware of the fact that Dublin 15 attracted a disproportionately large share of the "New Irish". Take a look at this document. Many of the "New Irish" have a variety of Pentecostal affiliations so it's not surprising that the Religion section should be wider than most other suburbs in order to reflect this diversity. Regarding the comment "I know what baronies and civ parishes are, we use them in the building", I am happy to inform the anonymous editor that they have indeed been incorporated into a separate article: see Castleknock (barony). Nevertheless, to avoid the nuisance of creating a third article to cope with the complexities of the civil parish, it has been thought best to let the Castleknock article carry some of that weight. I'm open to the possibility of creating a third article called Castleknock (civil parish). Castleknock is unusual in that it is a townland within a parish within a barony of the same name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the OP. There's far too much on the historical civil parish, and the table adds nothing. I'd agree this should be split off into a separate article, ideally, or if it remains, the table needs to go. I'd also suggest the anon OP adds to the article him/herself, possibly using the book mentioned as a reference? (Owners of businesses and members of cultural groups should be careful about conflict of interest). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit to add) - I see jnestorius also favours the removal of that table, so I'd suggest splitting it out to a civil parish article. The village/suburn is obviously the prime topic. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

Firstly, the article clearly starts out to be solely about the neighbourhood and NOT the Barony or Civil Parih as it states in the first paragraph that Castleknock "is an affluent residential outer suburb of Dublin". Separate articles are needed about the Barony (already exists) and the Civil Parish (someone needs to start this).

Secondly, the table related to the Civil Parish although interesting has no place in an article about the neighbourhood defined at the start of the article. Also, the reinsertion of the table has really messed up the references list with footnote numbers being doubled up.

Thridly, the title "Feudal Period" is incorrect as that section includes information up to 1980!.

Fourthly, most of the section called "Facilities" repeats information already given in the wider article (e.g. Castleknock College, GAA CLub, etc). I also think it is not very scholarly to bullet list items in the article as it is not a brochure. The information about the Abbey of St. Brigid is incorrect, it was Benedictine monks not Augustinians who founded the "Priory". ALso this is covered in the History section.

Fifthly, the point about Pentecostal and other religions coming into Dublin 15 is interesting BUT this article is not about Dublin 15, it is about the neighbourhood of Castleknock. The Churches listed are the only Churches in the area as far as I know, if there are others IN Castleknock then add them.

Sixthly, I have tried to address the above but would be grateful if someone would remove the Civil Parish Table and start a new page to which I will be happy to contribute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollamhnua (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please see comments in previous section. As promised, I will create a new article to deal with the things of the civil parish. Calm down pls. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I see your comments and addressed most of them in my previous edits which you sought fit to remove. Please create the page for the civil parish as soon as possible as I will be continuing to improve this article on the neighbourhood. Thank you. Ollamhnua (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have made considerable corrections and additions to the article today. Specifically, I have added an section on the etymology of the name and I have enlarged the historical section to include information on the early historical period i.e. pre-Chrisitian and Gaelic. I would like to remove the section on the Civil Parish so that I can develop the article further with more information relevant to the focus of the article.Ollamhnua (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's much more helpful. Pls continue working around the civil parish paragraphs until the new article is ready. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am happy to report the creation of Castleknock (civil parish) and the deletion of that content from this article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Laurel Lodged, I think this is a good development for both the neighbourhood which is the focus of this article AND the wider Civil Parish which deserves its own attention. Thank you. Ollamhnua (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]