Talk:St Stephen's Green

Untitled

These are some areas which could be discussed:

History of the park - who started it, when?
Size of the park
Characteristics of the park (does it have water? what type of planting? Paths? Green areas? Monuments?)

Really, most of the important details are missing!

zoney ███ talk 13:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RE: History - is there any more to be said?
RE: Size - added to "layout" section
RE: Features/etc - added to "layout" section

Guliolopez 14:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured Picture

I selected the shopping centre as the featured picture at the Ireland Wikiportal today. Go have a look!

Nasty things happened here during the 1798 (I think that there was a riding school, and a villain by the name of Sirr). Also there was a firefight here in 1916! Can some historian include something on it.87.192.60.9 12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

An editor recently replaced the infobox image. The previous image was of the fountain/garden in the park's centre. In my view this was a solid image, portraying one of the focal points of the green, and therefore representative of the park as a whole. The replacement is a (mainly dark) image of a corner of the green, showing one of the park's administrative buildings. I'm not sure it's a good representative image for the park as a whole. Any other thoughts on the infobox image? Is there perhaps an even better representative image available? Guliolopez (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this? As noted, the photo of the central garden/fountain would seem to be a more representative image of the park. Will therefore likely restore unless there's any other thoughts/suggestions(?) Guliolopez (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given that there are no comments on this, I'm going to restore the more representative central garden image to the infobox. Guliolopez (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the central fountain photo is much more representative and I have restored it again. The person who took the other photo of the gatekeepers cottage keeps trying to promote their own photos. It's not a bad photo and could go somewhere in the article, but I don't think its appropriate for the infobox. Snappy (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I believe that the gate keepers cottage is a good repsentitive pic of the park and I don't consider it an administrive building but the home of the park manager. It is to me an iconic image of thr park, however as SNAPPY seems intent on following me around wiki I will not revert to the earlier edition if the pic is placed in a lessor possition on the page. What do you think guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyler79 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Can you explain why you believe it to be more representative ("iconic" even) than the central garden and fountain? Surely the pic of the central garden is more representative, as it is the focal point of the park and seen by considerably more visitors than the park manager's home/office? Per Snappy's note, there's no reason one of "your" images couldn't be included elsewhere in the article, but there is no consensus to change the infobox image. Please discuss here first before making further changes to the infobox. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following anyone around but can DOYLER79 explain his recent edits to Mary Coughlan, Beverley Flynn and Mary Mitchell O'Connor? Also, in general is it against wikipedia image policy to sign your images and promote yourself using wikipedia? As Guliolopez said, there is no consensus here for changing the infobox image, and the house is definitely not an iconic representation of St. Stephens Green. Surely its a conflict of interest when the person who took the photo is the one campaigning for its inclusion in the infobox. Snappy (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are indeed following me around and with a hostile agenda . I consider my changes to the Stephens green page to be an improvement for the page which is after all what editing is suppose to be about and have always felt the fountain pic to be lacking something but will live with it for now. There is a tag on some of my recent pics which falls somewhat short of identifying me so I fail to see the problem with that, however I would be grateful to you if you can share a link with me here to the wiki rule you mention. Many thanks :)--Doyler79 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You indeed flatter yourself if you think that I am following you around. You fail to understand simple English grammar. I asked a question about signing images above, you can tell the difference between a question and a statement because a question has a question mark (?) at the end of the sentence, as above. I note you have not answered my question about your edits to Mary Coughlan's article. Snappy (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am awaiting the link to the mysterious rule RE logos on fotos.--Doyler79 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your wait is over! It's not mysterious. It's as follows: "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use..". If you haven't already then you should read Wikipedia:Image use policy. I suggest you remove your signature from your images in order to comply with Wikipedia image guidelines. Images which do not comply with guidelines are usually removed. Snappy (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That link made interesting reading, thank you for sharing it. I had recently started playing around with stamps for my pics which is why they appear only on my more recent uploads and where not stamped specifically for uploading to wiki, I will only place unstamped pics from now on. Once again, thank you for pointing it out. :)--Doyler79 (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Stephen's Green. 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/20120805170408/http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0803/green-light-given-to-luas-link-up.html to http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0803/green-light-given-to-luas-link-up.html

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) 18:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St Stephen's Green. 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) 22:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dublin Stephen's Green-44 edit.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Dublin Stephen's Green-44 edit.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 27, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-07-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

St Stephen's Green is a city centre public park in Dublin, Ireland. The current landscape of the park was designed by William Sheppard. It was officially re-opened to the public in 1880. The park is adjacent to one of Dublin's main shopping streets, Grafton Street, and to a shopping centre named for it, while on its surrounding streets are the offices of a number of public bodies as well as a stop on one of Dublin's Luas tram lines. At 22 acres (89,000 m²), it is the largest of the parks in Dublin's main Georgian garden squares.Photograph: Dronepicr

Archive – More featured pictures...

The Little Museum of Dublin

Hi all, I would love to propose some additions to the article:

The final key to gain access to the park is in the Little Museum of Dublin, which tells the story of the capital through items generously donated by Dubliners ^[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Léa Di Francesco (talk • contribs) 11:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ White, Trevor, et al. Little Book of Dublin. The Little Museum of Dublin. 2017. Print

Object This is spam by an editor with a Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 13:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Personally I'm not minded to add this myself. I have spoken (at some length) with several COI editors, all with an association with the Little Museum of Dublin. About their sustained attempts to, frankly, PEPPER the project with references to the museum. In a way that flies in the face of any number of guidelines. While this new editor was perhaps not "passed on the message" (about the project's COI/SPAM/PROMO) guidelines, this feels like another in a longline of NOTHERE edits. (Where the editor is more interested in advancing the interests of the subject (with which they have an association), than they are with advancing the interests of this project (and its community).) Personally I have zero interest in making this proposed change on behalf of the connected editor. As I'm fed-up with these SOAPBOXing and SPAMing behaviours. And certainly not minded to support them. Guliolopez (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To my opinion, this lady is misused by her employer for spamming. The Banner talk 16:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] White, Trevor, et al. Little Book of Dublin. The Little Museum of Dublin. 2017. Print

[1]