Talk:Grange, Cork

Merge

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

I propose to redirect this title to Douglas, County Cork. As per the reasons discussed in a previous/recent discussion (overridden by a single editor). To restate these:

• The content meets WP:MERGEREASON - in that, despite blanking and other contra-guideline behaviours, the content requires context from, and overlaps substantially with content on the broader suburb of Douglas. And,
• The title meets WP:GEOLAND - in that, despite uncited characterisations of Grange as a stand-alone suburb, it is not managed as such [in planning or administrative terms] by the local authority. And hence a "populated place without legal recognition". And therefore also likely meets the expectations of an "informal place [best] included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it".

As per the notes in the previous discussion, if the content here is expanded beyond a few sentences (about the 2 shops and 1 bus serving the area), and clear/verifiable references added which establish independent notability, then I'll be the first to help split it out. But, right now, I'm not seeing a rationale for a standalone article. Guliolopez (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is the same Situation as the Rochestown, Cork article which doesn't have much content and near Douglas — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

RE: Merge - Personally I would suggest that Grange (a grouping of housing estates with limited formal administrative boundaries, a few hundred meters from Douglas proper) and Rochestown (a settlement that historically had it's own post-office and train station, several kilometers from Douglas proper) are not directly equivalent. In any event, even if there was equivalence, we wouldn't normally use "other stuff exists" "two wrongs make a right" type positions to inform discussions/decisions. Not solely anyway. Happy to talk about it though. Either if you feel the Rochestown article could do with some improvement/expansion/cleanup - there. Or if you have anything else to add on the merge discussion - here.

RE: Population - Today you added a note to the article that a "large amount of the [Grange] population attend school". Do you have a reference to support that? (For myself I had a quick look at the Small Area Population stats for several SAP entries in the locale. And - at a quick glance - I see that approximately 15% of the population (in the granted limited SAP areas I checked) were of school-going age (5-19). Compared to the county average of about 20%. If anything the percentage of the population over the age of 60 seemed a little higher than the norm. At 30%. Compared to the county average of about 20%.) So that other editors can verify, and perhaps better clarify for the reader, can you advise what source you are using for the "high percentage of the population are school-going" statement?

Thanks Guliolopez (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs)

First things first, I completely agree that Grange needs to be merged (again) with Douglas. However, I do believe that Rochestown should also be merged, as I see nothing indicating that it was at any point more notable than any of the other suburbs of Douglas:

• From the 6 inch historic maps it seems no more populated than Grange or any other region, and only Douglas is mentioned as a village on the map. The railway station is mentioned, and is notable, but there is already an article for it and there were many rural stations along that line.
• The historic townland of Rochestown is actually further east than the developments mentioned by that article, and now listed as "Rochestown" on maps.
• The census doesn't show Rochestown as being more populated than any of the other suburbs:
  • As a baseline, the population density of Douglas was 767/km² in 1901, 739/km² in 1911.
  • The population density of Grange was 189/km² in 1901, 566/km² in 1911.
  • The population density of Rochestown (the rural townland) was 87/km² in 1901 and 1911.
  • The population density of Monfieldstown (from the waterfront to the Garryduff Sports Centre) was 103/km² in 1901, 127/km² in 1911.
  • The population density of Maryborough (present-day Mount Oval/Mounthovel) was 36/km² in 1901, 51/km² in 1911.

As this article appears to take "Rochestown" to be the townlands of Monfieldstown & Maryborough, the population of this area in 1911 would have been 289 persons, which is still less than Grange, at 366. Looking at the historic maps above, most of the housing development in both cases appears to be due to spillover from the Douglas townland, and not due to a separate centre springing up in either townland.

Both could be fleshed out in terms of the importance of the "Big Houses" in the region, but that could be done in the Douglas article. My choice would be to merge them both into Douglas, and expand that. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 19:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Wasechun tashunka. Once we've closed the thread here, I'll open a merge discussion at Talk:Rochestown. Guliolopez (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Bump. OK. There are clear arguments for a merge, and only one (OSE style) argument against. Hence I am going to go ahead with the merge. Before that, it is perhaps appropriate to clarify what that will look like. Unless there are other thoughts, as the:

1. lead text ("Grange is a residential area" .. "within Frankfield/Grange Parish") is covered in the "Residential areas" section. So there's nothing to merge.
2. bus service text ("Grange is served by one bus") is redundant to the "Bus" section. So there's nothing to merge.
3. park/trails text ("Calls for a trail/bridge near Vernon Mount") is not currently covered. So I'll create an amenities/green-spaces section in the Douglas article. And put that there.
4. church text ("New church opened owing to Douglas population growth") is not currently covered. So I'll add that to the "Religious congregations" section. Which needs work anyway - as it is not in keeping with MOS for embedded lists.
5. amenities text ("There are shops and a school") is redundant to the "Residential areas" section. So there's nothing to merge.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with those changes. Regarding the opening of Frankfield Church, I'm working through a few books regarding the history of the buildings specifically, and it does mention the grant of lands for that church so I'll be adding that to the history section of Douglas, County Cork shortly. I'm trying to make that section cover all the surrounding lands of Grange, Donnybrook, Rochestown etc., in order to facilitate future merges. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 19:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Resolved Done. Closed. Moving on. Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)