Talk:List of long course swimming pools in Ireland

Length of West Wood Club pool?

West Wood Club states that this pool is actually 49.9 metres, not a full 50. Can anyone find any confirmation that this is the case? Nick Cooper (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Maps of the pool?

Why have you removed the links for the Dublin maps of the swimming pool? This is the most comprehensive way to find where to go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epaillac (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 November 2008

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a "How to..." guide. We already include links to the venues' own websites, which include location details. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Based on the discussion below, I believe the answer to the RFC question is Yes and that the suggestion that the article be renamed: List of long course pools in the Republic of Ireland be followed. This title allows inclusion of all appropriate swimming pools and does not preclude categorizing individual pools as Olympic Standard, Sized, or just 50 meters. It is my recommendation that one of the editors in this discussion or in the RM discussion below initiate another RM to the suggested title with the hope that there will be consensus for it. Once the move is made, the appropriate edits may be made to the article to include all the relevant pools. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Should the list Include pools that are large but that are not actually Olympic-size swimming pools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.207.51 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 April 2012

• Question How large are they to be? What is the cutoff?Curb Chain (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Olympic-size is an informal term for a pool that is about 50m in length. A pool that meets official Olympic specifications (an "Olympic Standard" pool) is more precisely defined.--Mervyn (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think we should be including non-olympic pools unless we have a solid source adequately defining what counts as "olympic". The term seems to get thrown around by hotels and gyms as a marketing term more than anything, and if we include them in the list all we're doing is helping to promote them. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The long-standing wording makes it clear what the actual Olympic standard is, but non-standard 50 metre pools have always been within the remit of this page, and the West Wood Club one was included from Day 1. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• No Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• No, only include pools that are actually Olympic-size swimming pools. --PnakoticInquisitor^talk 00:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• No, otherwise it would have to be titled List of Olympic-Size and Almost-Olympic Size Pools. However, I have to wonder if this meets the notability requirement? Tlqk56 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion on deleting it before, no consensus was reached: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, and I created this page back in 2006 precisely to do just that, it being parallel to and based on the widely agreed format of List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom. Given that 50 metres is the required length for international competition, non-Olympic 50 metre pools are just as relevant, because they can be used for training purposes, if not actual competition. The pages could be just as easily named List of Olympic-size and 50 metre swimming pools.... or just List of 50 metre swimming pools..... Regardless of that, on both pages it is clearly explained what the strict Olympic standard (now) is, and which of the listed pools comes under it, or not. This format has obviously been perfectly acceptable for the five or more years the pages have existed, and it seems pedantic in the extreme to seek to change than now, not to mention being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both the subject and the purpose of the page. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing whatsoever pedantic about wanting the article to accurately reflect its title. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they "fundamentally misunderstand" a topic. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As Mervyn notes above, "Olympic" is a frequent synonmym for 50 metres, even if the actual width of the pool in question is not that required by the Olympic standard The latter was only adopted in 2009, anyway. Many 50 metre pools were Olympic standard when built, but the standard changed. It seems rather telling that you would rather destructively alter the page, rather than amend the name, if it offends you so much. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Telling"? What does that even mean in that sentence? Just because I changed the page away from your preferred version doesn't make my changes "destructive". You don't own the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that the page as originally created included the information you are so keen to pedantically remove - and the presence of which was always clearly explained in the lead paragraph - gives lie to the idea that it doesn't fit with the intended remit of the page. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Having the content of the article match the title is not pedantic in the slightest. Intended by whom? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering said content was on the page since Day 1, it's more a case of questioning if the title matches the article. However, the form of the title has been sufficient for 5+ years, and the identical form on the UK equivalent for a lot longer than that. The issue was raised once at the latter (which also from creation included non-current Olympic standard 50 metre pools), but never gained any traction, no doubt because the introductory text there - as well as here - adequately explains the full scope of the these pages. Please stop trying to create an issue where there isn't - and never has been - one. Also, your appeal to interpret intention as a personal WP:OWN issue is a red herring. Both pages were started with the inclusion of non-current Olympic standard pools from the outset, and were further vastly developed by multiple editors on that basis, not least because when constructed, some pools were within the standard at the time, but the standard subsequently changed (this is also true of actual past Olympic venues). Nick Cooper (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, pending discussion. "Olympic-size" is merely an informal term referring to a long-course pool - these are notable by their scarcity. "Olympic-standard" is the more precise term referring to the formal FINA definition. Article could be renamed "List of Olympic Standard swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland" with only FINA pools admitted, but this would probably be unnecessarily precise.--Mervyn (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Additional comment: Since the initial objection was that the page content did not match the page name, I would suggest that a better course than deleting useful content would be to simply re-name the page, e.g. to List of long course swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland. This will not open any flood-gates, as there are only the three that were previously always listed on this page, plus one former venue (i.e. Blackrock Baths). Nick Cooper (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes If we look at the article before the first contested edit we see that the scope is clearly defined by the lead and the listed pools are clearly separated into those conforming to the Olympic standard and others, with dimensions etc for the others, so readers can see clearly which is which. The title and separation are consistent with the corresponding UK article. I see no problem (apart from any routine improvements) with the contents of that version and no justification for making the scopes of those two articles different.

Recommendations:

• Adopt the format of the UK article (tables etc) for the RoI article too
• Complete the references as far as possible (title, publisher, access date, ...)
• Look for independent references for each pool (news report of an opening, refurbishment, major competition or whatever) which would give the reader some context
• Add the former venue (see examples in the UK article)
• If there is the occasional addition of spa(m) links to the Other section, we can add an html comment about "no commercial links" to the source
• Any decisions about name or overall content should be coordinated for the two articles (and take account of the possiblity of similar articles for other countries)

--Mirokado (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The current move request is at Requested move 2. --Mirokado (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland Move should not have been made during the RFC above. The absurb discussion below is nothing more than a pissing match between two editors over the Content of a 2-3 entry list article. Resolve the RFC first. The article remains move protected --Mike Cline (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Mike Cline (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

---

List of 50 metre swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland → List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland – This was the previous stable name of the page. User:Nick Cooper moved the page without discussion because consensus in a previous discussion on what should be included in the article went against his views. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From it's very beginning, this page included the non-Olympic standard 50 metre West Wood Club Clontarf pool. More than five years down the line, 89.100.207.51 decided to pedantically object to the page being titled "List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland" on the grounds that the West Wood Club Clontarf pool - which had always been on this page - was not Olympic standard, even though the parallel List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom page has also long included 50 metre pools not to full Olympic standard. 89.100.207.51's claimed "consensus" was not fairly reached, because these facts were not made clear before others were invited to comment. As Mervyn noted above, "Olympic-size" has long been regarded as a synonym for any 50 metre pool, and does not necessarily mean full Olympic standard, not least because that standard has changed over the years - e.g. some of the UK 50 metre pools were Olympic standard when built, but not once the standard was changed. Ultimately, it makes no sense to remove valuable and worthwhile content for such pedantic reasons, so if it seems that "Olympic-size" cannot be properly understood by certain parties, the obvious solution is to simply amend that part of the page's name to plain "50 metre." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because something has always been on the page, up to this point, doesn't mean that it should remain forever. By that logic, anything on a page at creation can never be removed, which would be absurd. Consensus was reached fairly, through discussion. If you want to change the name of the page, then you need to gather consensus for that change. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, consensus was not fairly reached, because you didn't make it clear that the material you were seeking to censor has always been on the page. Since it has always been on the page, then obviously it was always intended to be included. I note that you are failing to address the explained difference between "Olympic-size" (i.e. the widely recognised synonym for a 50 metre pool, regardless of width), and "Olympic standard." I also note that you have not even made hint of an attempt to take similarly destructive action at List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom, presumably because you don't want to draw attention to the fact that the same distinction is made and understood there. Nobody has previously exhibited the funadmental misunderstanding of the subject matter as you have, but clearly since such ignorance exists, and you are so insistant that the page name that stood for more than five years was not appropriate, it has been changed accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Intended by whom? I am not trying to "censor" the article, and my actions were not "destructive". I do not "fundamentally misunderstand the subject matter", nor am I "ignorant". I proposed a change, and the consensus was that that change was appropriate. Consensus was reached fairly, and you're just going to have to accept that not everyone agrees with your point of view, and that you can't simply make changes that are directly against consensus. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You can't appeal to WP:OWN on the grounds that I created the page, and then somehow try to pretend that I didn't know what the page was intended to document - i.e. "Olympic-size" pools, whether full Olympic standard or otherwise. The bottom line is that you porposed a change, but did not highlight salient facts - i.e. that the material that you seem hell-bent on censoring had been included in the page all along - that would have enabled a proper debate. You clearly do "fundamentally misunderstand the subject matter," because not only do you not understand the difference between "Olympic standard" and the widely recognised synonym of "Olympic-size" for any long-course or 50 metre pool - which is even explained on the Olympic-size swimming pool page - you have also totally failed to acknowledge or address it when explained to you. This page was created to document long-course pools, and that is a fact. The West Wood pool is 50 metres, and there is no logical reason why is should not be included on this page, which of course it always was. Just what have you got against this particular Irish 50 metre pool be included on a page listing Irish 50 metre pools?

It seems you are just one of those anonymous IP editors who gets a kick out of deleting material, rather than reaching sensible and logical compromises. If you attempt to vandalise this page again, I will deal with it accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether I have an account or not is irrelevant. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I don't get a kick out of deleting material. I'm going by the consesnsus that was reached, that you have chosen to ignore. Do not call me a vandal. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be considered valid if it was sought on false or mis-leading grounds, as you did. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a page listing Olympic pools, consensus being that only olympic standard should be included. You don't get to unilaterally change the name of the page so that you can include material that consensus is against including. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to explain this to you yet again in very simple terms.

• "Olympic-size" is not the same as "Olympic standard" - this is clearly acknowledged and explained on the Olympic-size swimming pool page. Even some past Olympic venues are now not Olympic standard, but they are still colloquially considered to be "Olympic-sized" - e.g. the Munich Olympia Schwimmhalle, which is 21 metres wide, rather than the current standard of 25 metres.
• This distinction is widely recognised, and the basis on which List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom is - and always has been - organised.
• This page was create to complement List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom - the discussion being here - and is therefore based on it. 50 metre pools - whether full Olympic standard, or otherwise - are inherently notable in countries were there are few of them relative to population, and this is as true for the Republic of Ireland as it is for the United Kingdom. 50 metre pools are the "gold standard" for swimmers, and the actual width is of secondary importantance. Both pages document all 50 metre pools in their respective countries regardless of width for that reason, but even so the UK page includes a small number of notable pools that that either just under, or much longer than 50 metres.
• The long-standing descriptive text both on this page and List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom clearly explains this distinction, and "Olympic standard pools" and "Other 50 metre pools" are clearly and unambiguously separated and identified.
• The West Wood Club Contarf pool was included in the very first version of this page - here. It has therefore always been within the remit of the page, and you have absolutely no grounds for claiming otherwise.
• Given your failure to understand the distinction between the strict "Olympic Standard" and "Olympic-sized" as per this page, we have to acknowledge that such ignorance exists, so it is acceptable to replace "Olympic-size" in the page name with "50 metre" since all three pools that have always been listed on this page are that length. If there is potential ambiguity in a page name, then it makes sense to amend the name, rather than destroy valid and worthwhile content the page was always intended to include.

Your continued failure to accept or even acknowledge any of the above is noted. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus went against you. You have to either accept that, or try to build consensus for your position. You can't unilaterally change the title of an article to overturn the consensus decision that resulted from discussion. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The "consensus" was not valid because it was falsely sought, and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the page on your part. It is certainly not enough the over-turn the more than five years of page history, just because you aren't familiar enough with the subject to understand what the page is for (I'd certainly wager that I've swum in more of the pools listed on this page than you have). This page was set up to document long-course pools in the Republic of Ireland - i.e. ones of 50 metres length, regardless of whether they are full Olympic standard, or not.

The fact that you are still refusing to accept, acknowledge, or even discuss any of the above points clearly demonstrates that you are more interested in not backing down, than working on the page constructively. It's rather ironic that because you were initially ignorant of the difference between "Olympic-size" and "Olympic standard," and so insisted that there was a conflict between content and title, that now after the title has been changed to avoid any potential ambiguity, you are demanding it to be changed back to the version you didn't understand, just so you can continue to falsely claim there is a conflict! I now have no choice but to treat your destructive censorship as vandalism. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND, WP:CON, and Censorship. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Failure to address any of the above points explaining the spurious nature of your position noted. (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

50 meter pools?

I seem to have walked into a discussion that has been on going for a while. A point for those involved, an RFC was raised, there should have been NO editing in relation to the outcome of the RFC until after it was closed, this takes 30 days, consensus comes about after and RFC not during. That includes the title. Murry1975 (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, 89.100.207.51 misrepresented the purpose and remit of page in the intial RFC, which they also prematurely initiated without discussing the matter here first, despite their deletions being reverted - first by Mervyn and then myself - with both of us explaining why they had misunderstood the purpose of the page. It has always, since Day 1 been about "Olympic-size" pools, i.e. 50 metre or other long-course pools, not simply those that meet the strict FINA/Olympic standard. The page was named "Olympic-size" rather than "Olympic standard" because it was based on - and designed to complement - List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom, which has long-since listed non-Olympic standard long-course pools. What little support 89.100.207.51 got for their RFC was only gained before the issue was properly explained, and - I believe - only achieved beacuse 89.100.207.51 relied on the same misunderstanding of the remit of the page by other editors.

Because 89.100.207.51 refused to accept or even acknowledge the difference between "Olympic-size" and "Olympic standard" I changed the name to the current one to avoid ambiguity. Since then, 89.100.207.51 has continued to remove the single non-Olympic standard pool, as well as insisting that the name be changed back to List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland, for it seems no other reason than to "justify" that very removal. It is notable that 89.100.207.51 has made no attempt to removal similar material from List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom. It seems that their approach to (in their opinion) a page name not matching content that has always been on it and was always intended to be on it, is to delete that content, rather than simply accept a change of name to a less ambiguous one. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to move pages around to ignore consensus just because you feel like it. Please read WP:CON. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And IP89.100 you should not have edited while an RFC was open. The only edit that has been made which does not effect the RFC was the IMOS edit I made yesterday. Until the RFC closes and consensus is shown, btw it hasnt yet been shown as the other article it is similar to the UK one is unadjusted and therefore shows inconsistancy and has to be addressed aswell- anything else is just wp:pointy, the article should have remained at the same article title and with the same original content. Murry1975 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the very validity of the RFC has to be questioned in the first place. 89.100.207.51's initial deletion was based on a fundamental misunderstanding on their part, which was explained by both Mervyn and myself. Rather than discuss the matter, 89.100.207.51 immediately opened an RFC, pitching it in a manner that repeated and compounded the same misunderstanding in a manner that seemed designed to mislead other editors. As can be seen above, 89.100.207.51 has consistently refused to accept or acknowledge the remit and history of the page, and is simply repeating their own misinterpretation of it ad nauseum. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick, you have to understand the title move aswell as the continous removal of disputed content should not have happened until after the RFC, 89.100 qoutes WP:CON, which hasnt run, the RFC is open and there is valid points on the article content. If you feel you need to bring it somewhere else please note BOTH of you would be blocked for awhile for edit warring. Murry1975 (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I accept that that wasn't the best thing to do, but that was born of frustration at 89.100.207.51's behaviour. The bottom line is that I created this page, based on the similar UK page, yet 89.100.207.51's response to that being pointed out (i.e. to refute their claim that the deleted content was not within the page's remit) was to spuriously cite WP:OWN, as somehow I'm not now allowed to say what I created the page for! It's also hard to recognise any degree of good faith in someone who makes edits like this Nick Cooper (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the RFC should have been left run, nothing touched until the end. If you know an admin that could help, or even go to the DRN, either way leave the article alone for awhile, it may be annoying when the other person isnt listening but to put it in perspective, the IP probably thinks that of you too! Murry1975 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just read the link you gave. ANI is also a possible destination. Murry1975 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

"It's also hard to recognise any degree of good faith in someone who makes edits like this". What level of courtesy were you expecting after referring to my constructive edits as "destructive censorship"? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, not much considering you'd consistently ignored all the evidence that you had misinterpreted the remit of the page in the first place. You didn't know the difference between "Olympic-size" and "Olympic standard" then, and you won't accept it even when it has been explained to you. When your first deletions were reverted, rather than discuss the matter here, you sought to mislead other editors into supporting a vexatiuous RFC that wasn't is the slightest bit necessary.

The issue is really very simple. This page was set up to list long-course pools in the Republic, which are notable precisely because there are so few of them. I know, because I created the page. That isn't an invitation for you to spuriously invoke WP:OWN, but rather clear proof that if anyone can say what the remit of this page is, it's me. You have absoloutely no grounds to claim that it should only cover Olympic standard pools, just because you don't understand the difference between "Olympic-size" and "Olympic standard" even though the distinction is and always has been clearly explained on this page.

The bottom line is, just why exactly do you object to a page listing long-course pools in the Republic, even though it previously existed in this form for over five years? Given that there are a number of pages listing sporting venues in the country, just what do you think is to be gained from spuriously omiting one appropriate venue from this one? Why are you behaving in the way you are? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mislead anyone, nor did I seek to do so. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"I created the page. That isn't an invitation for you to spuriously invoke WP:OWN, but rather clear proof that if anyone can say what the remit of this page is, it's me.". That's clearly a case of you attempting to claim ownership. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That a page has been a certain way for a certain length of time doesn't mean that it must stay that way forever. Consensus can change. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You having fooled a few people into making the same mistake as you did doesn't somehow retrospectively justify or negate your original misunderstanding about the remit of this page. A simple question: just what is it that you have against the idea of a page that lists all three of the long-course swimming pools in the country? What do you think is to be gained by spuriously omiting one of them? Nick Cooper (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't "fooled" anyone. The page's remit is what consensus decides it is, not what you decide it is. Pools that conform to a widely used and recognised international standard are noteworthy. Simply being 50 metres long does not make a pool noteworthy. Why do you keep saying spuriously? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that pretty much betrays that you haven't got a clue about the subject matter. Fifty metres is the international competition length, so pools that conform to that - whatever their width - are certainly notable in those countries where there are few of them - and there are only three in Ireland - not least because availale facilities are an important factor for the training of world class swimmers.

Again, what do you think is to be gained by omiting one of them from this page? I'd also ask why you haven't dared to impose your wilful misinterpretation on the parallel UK pool? At the end of the day, it does just seem that you aren't man enough to admit that you were mistaken. You are a malicious vandal, plain and simple. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. I am not a vandal. Disagreeing with you is not vandalism, nor is it "willful misrepresentation". Ad hominem attacks like questioning my masculinity are unhelpful. Given that you don't know my gender, it doesn't even make sense. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Failure to answer key question noted. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Insulting people is a good way to get them to respond to the insult, but is not conducive to getting them to give you the response that you want. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Continued failure to answer key question noted. You really would rather readers think Ireland has only two long-course pools, instead of three, rather than back down, wouldn't you? Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I would rather you hadn't unilaterally changed the name of the page in an attempt to sidestep consensus. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Again: Just what is it that you have against the idea of a page that lists all three of the long-course swimming pools in the country? What do you think is to be gained by spuriously omiting one of them? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a list of olympic size pools. The consensus is that only olympic pools should be listed, not any 50m pool. What do you think is to be gained by going against consensus? And what do you think is to be gained by using the word spurious? You've used it six times so far, in the wrong context as far as I can tell, and you seem to be only using it for its negative connotations. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it has always been a list of Olympic standard and the other long-course pool. Why do you object to the latter, when the page text makes it perfectly clear what it is? What do you think is to be gained by pretending that one of Ireland's 50 metre pools does not exist? Why are you not raising the same objections at the parallel UK page? My uses of the word "spurious" have been entirely correct in the contexts in which they were used. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have said before, that the page has previously been a certain way does not mean that it must remain so in perpetuity. I am not pretending that one of the pools doesn;t exist. I haven't tried to edit the UK page because one of these arguments at a time is enough. Spurious means "false" or "not what something purports to be". Saying that I am "spuriously omitting" a pool makes no sense, and serves no purpose other than to paint me in a negative light. A more correct use of the term (assuming the club itself uses the term "olympic size" for its pool) would be "The west wood club's pool is spuriously called an olympic size pool".89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't said why you object to a page listing the three long-course pools in Ireland. If you thought there was a mis-match between the page name and the page content, why did you not suggest a change of name, rather than deleting long-standing content? Again, what is to be gained by the latter. Your last claim makes no sense, because this page has never said that - it has always clearly explained what the West Wood pool is. Even so, you're ignoring the fact that lots of 50 metre pools get colloquially referred to as "Olympic" or "Olympic length" whether they are the actual standard width or not. The UK page and this one (originally) always made it very clear which was which. I still think you're failing to grasp just how important 50 metre pools are within the sport, whatever width they are. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have explained. I can see why a list of olympic size pools is notable, because the olympics is of such monumental sporting and cultural importance. I do not see why a list of all 50 metre pools is important, nor did most of the contributors to the RFC. As I have stated repeatedly, the fact that content is long standing does not mean that it ought to be permanent. As this is quite an obscure article, it is hardly surprising that it takes a while for an error to be noticed. I'm not ignoring the fact that plenty of hotels and gyms like to falsely advertise their pools as olympic size, but as I have said already, an encyclopaedia should not be playing along with their marketing. That is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. An olympic size pool is a pool of the size used at the olympics, and an encyclopaedia should reflect that. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a more of an argument for a list of actual Olympic venues, rather than pools built to the same standard, quite apart from the fact that the standard has changed over the years, so some actual past Olympic venues no longer conform (e.g. Munich 1972 and most/all previous). Few Olympic standard pools could ever be used as Olympic venues, because of they don't have anything like the seating capacity. Most couldn't be used for the FINA World Championships, either. FINA does, though, only stipulates a 25 metre width for the Olympics and the World Championships; for other long-course events it's only "preferred."

As I've said before, 50 metre/long-course pools are inherently notable in those countries where there are few, relative to the population. Ireland has three (1 per 1.53 million people); the UK has 36 (1 per 1.73 million people); Australia has over 1,600 (1 per 14.3 thousand people). That's the difference that makes 50 metre/long-course pools notable in Ireland and the UK. Also, you're overlooking the fact that an Olympic standard pool is not necessary for Olympic or international standard training, but a length of 50 metres is. Plenty of prospective or actual Olympians train in "other" 50 metre pools, and certainly in the UK the sport's governing body sees them as being just as important as the actual Olympic standard ones for training purposes - e.g. the new 8 lane 50 metre Basildon pool, specifically built to support the 2012 Games. Your comment about "hotels and gyms" isn't really relevant, because there has never been any suggestion that such non-long-course pools should be included in these pages. I still don't see why you're insisting this is a content, rather than a naming issue. OK, you think "Olympic-size" should mean "Olympic standard," but why not simply replace "Olympic-size" with "long-course"? There are plenty of pages that list sporting venues by country, so why when it comes to swimming do you want to draw this arbitrary line? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Articles need to be updated. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

• List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland → List of long course pools in the Republic of Ireland
• List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom → List of long course pools in the United Kingdom

– Move of this page recommended by the closing admin at Talk:List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland#RFC, so the title better indicates the scope of the content. Since the two articles currently have corresponding titles and scope (mentioned in the RFC) I think we should deal with both together. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Mirokado (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(notified WP Olympics, WP Swimming are notified automatically) --Mirokado (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed, although it would probably be better to use the form "... swimming pools..." in both instances. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support (as opener) Nick Cooper's suggestion of "... swimming pools ..." will be clearer, more similar to the current while retaining clarity, still a tick shorter than the current titles, so preferable. From policy WP:TITLE: "the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and be recognizable." Clearly this encourages corresponding titles for the two articles. --Mirokado (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of long course swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland. 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/20071119192225/http://rhw.ul.ie/universityarena/ to http://rhw.ul.ie/universityarena/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928222824/http://www.ciarancuffe.com/PR/2006/PR061019.Blackrock.Baths.Meeting.htm to http://www.ciarancuffe.com/PR/2006/PR061019.Blackrock.Baths.Meeting.htm

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) 05:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)