Talk:Rochestown

Proposed merge into Douglas, County Cork

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Outcome was: 'improve rather than merge'

---

Following on from the Grange merge discussion, I would like to propose merging this page with Douglas, County Cork along similar grounds:

• The current page is uncited.
• Most of the information is duplicated elsewhere:
  • Despite what this article claims, the "parish of Rochestown" actually appears to be the same parish as the Douglas parish[1], so the religious section is adequately covered by Douglas, County Cork#Religious congregations, with its mention of St. Patrick's RC church.
  • Both schools are already mentioned in Douglas, County Cork#Education.
  • Information about the roads could be incorporated, if it is really necessary...
  • The old railway station is covered by Rochestown railway station.
  • Rochestown Park Hotel is mentioned on Douglas, County Cork#History for its historical worth, a garage isn't notable, and the Mount Oval development is covered by Douglas, County Cork#Residential areas.

So since the content is already duplicated elsewhere, this article is not necessary.

What are everyone's thoughts? Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 17:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support (content merge). Unsure (title redirect)

Upon reflection, I am somewhat conflicted on this.

Subjectively, I have always considered Rochestown to be separate from Douglas. Rather than a sub-set. In that it has it's own border signage (a full 2km from Douglas proper), historic railway station, etc. And as it is dealt with separately in a number of books on the area. (Like Hopkinson, Cottrell or Borgonovo's books on the Civil War fighting in the area - including what Borgonovo dubbed the 'Battle of Rochestown'.)

Objectively, however, other than distance, I don't really have much to back up that perception/personal-bias. (Or, to put it another way, my gut tells me that the articles should be separate. But my head is conflicted.)

Given that we can't operate on a "gut V head" basis, what I would recommend is that we remove all the obvious issues (like the note which implies Rochestown is a separate RC parish - when it isn't), the obvious overlaps (like the note that the Rochestown Park Hotel is in Rochestown - when it isn't [Rochestown Road != Rochestown]), apparent NN issues (having a petrol station isn't relevant/encyclopedic), and - flatly - see what's left. If what's left can be improved to the extent that it meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT, then we keep it as a separate title. If not, then we redirect the title.

In short: For now we merge the content. Once that's done, we review redirecting the title.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made a draft containing what would be left of the article, were we to remove false or duplicated material. What would be left is some mention of housing developments stretching up to Mount Oval/Mounthovel, a description of the road layout and a couple of lines on the railway track and Rochestown railway station.

The border signage you linked is interesting, but raises a question as to where is actually meant by Rochestown. For example, the border signage starts at 51°52'36.0"N 8°23'57.9"W and ends at 51°52'37.8"N 8°23'08.5"W, and a completely different border marks out the electoral division of Rochestown, as seen here. Meanwhile, Google Maps places Rochestown much further to the west, and sources seem to differ as to whether or not Mount Oval/Mounthovel is included.

I'm not insisting that it need to be merged, as there are lots of similar small places that are notable enough in themselves, but the problem I see with this location in particular, and many of the smaller suburbs surrounding Douglas, is that the history and current amenities are greatly interlinked, so we run the risk of overly segmenting and encouraging overlap of information if we give each its own article, especially if the boundaries aren't clearly defined.

I've also put a notice about this discussion on WP:IRELAND as it came to my attention that this article has fewer than 30 watchers, so hopefully we might reach a conclusion soon! Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 16:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Shoot. Sorry. I started to make some of those amends before I saw your note and draft. Apologies. (However it looks like we were thinking along similar lines in a number of areas.)

I will await the input of others (if any is forthcoming) before doing anything else. In the meantime, would it be OK (cheeky I know) if I contributed to your draft? To see what any remaining content might look like? Before then progressing with any merge/redirect in the main-space?

On the "border", I don't disagree. It is - at best - subjective. And - probably - self-defined by residents. (Perhaps even akin to this storm-in-teacup last year).

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about that sandbox, I just wanted to show what it would look like with said lines removed! Go ahead and edit the article all you like. (That article is hilarious, and probably relevant to this situation!) Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 17:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I support the merge of the article Rochestown with Douglas due to the lack of content and information about the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWIreland26 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wasechun tashunka. In the coming days I'm planning to add some (hopefully) improved and cited content which is materially independent of the Douglas article content/scope. This may address any WP:MERGEREASON overlaps and provide additional fodder for a discussion on the merits of WP:GEOLAND. We can then discuss with any other editors (perhaps even some aware of the basic tenets of the project and capable of rationale discourse) on the basis of the then content/scope/criteria. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Guliolopez, it'll be good to see the article expanded, hopefully to a point at which it can stand on its own merits! Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 17:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wasechun tashunka (and indeed other contributors). I have made those edits. Which are (hopefully) improvements. If you have time, please let me know what you think. In general. And with relevance to this thread. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks much improved, I guess a content merge is no longer appropriate! Hopefully other editors will take an interest in the future. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 18:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm gonna close this thread and remove the hatnote. Much appreciated. Guliolopez (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)