This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Djegan (talk | contribs) at 18:10, 9 June 2005 (opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:10, 9 June 2005 by Djegan (talk | contribs) (opinion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Dublin City Council redirects to Dublin Corporation - is this desirable? --Ryano 11:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- We should consider moving the page. Djegan 12:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Move requested --Ryano 21:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agree the current name of the authority, "Dublin City Council", is more appropriate. Djegan 21:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agree - though "the Corpo" has a illustrous (!) history. Ulysses and all that. But the content remains and the redirect will still find it. Use the modern title. --Red King 23:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Dublin Corporation and Dublin City Council are not the same. The Corpo existed in city government in a different way to Dublin City Council, was a two chamber entity, operated under royal charter, and had a different legal personality. Only the article dealing with the entity created under Noel Dempsey's Act should be at DCC. Everything before then should be at DC as it was different. Putting them together would be the equivalent of putting the Lord Protector at British Monarchy, the President of the Spanish Republic at Spanish monarchy, or indeed the House of Commons of Southern Ireland at Dáil Éireann. They are in each case part of a series, not the same. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 00:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agree ℬastique▼ 01:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agree Use a redirect, note the previous history to satisfy the pedantic, and let efficiency and user convenience rule over confusion. Pete 22:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've done what should have been done to start with. I've moved details of the modern city government to DCC, and turned Dublin Corporation into an article about the system of government previous to 2003, with the old coat of arms, details of the bicameral city government prior to the British reform of city government in the mid-19th century, etc. I'll add in more historic stuff on the page here and add in more about the modern system, the current political alignments, administrative offices and changes under the Local Government Act to the page on the current DCC page. Why instead of nonsensical moves people didn't do this to start of with I'll never know. Moving facts to wrongly named pages is in danger of making Misplaced Pages a joke of an encyclopaedia when 99.9% of the information actually would be on the wrong page under a rename. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 23:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why are you doing this in breach of what looks like a consensus? Pete 23:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I had added a comment to your original Oppose vote above, but I must not have saved it. My point was that Dublin City Council and Dublin Corporation are the same organisation - the only thing that changed in 2002 was the name. Everything pertaining to Dublin Corporation - its staff, its management, its elected members, its administrative area, its property, legal agreements made in its name etc. etc - was carried over. The other changes you mention above occured over the course of the Corporation's history, and well before 2002. I would contend that making a distinction based on the name change in 2002 is rather arbitrary. You could equally draw a distinction at any other stage in the reform of the organisation.
- Having said that, I've no problem with there being separate pages on Dublin Corporation and Dublin City Council. However, I believe it would be misleading to give the impression that these are separate organisations. --Ryano 09:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with two distinct articles, provided it is shown that their are two distinct organisations - or at least that their are other significant differences to warrant such treatment - if only history is complex and uses overlapping terms this can be stated in the detail of one comprhensive article. Secondly placing two different versions of a heraldry image into the different articles may to someone who is naive or misunderstands heraldry be lead to compound the believe that both are distinct organisations. Heraldry images are defined by a strict form of words, not a single image, see Heraldry, and this means that images are often subject to a form of artistic licence - the image in Dublin City Council is not official and should be read with the information on the image discription page and . My understanding is that the law regarding the status of the City Council is the Local Government Act, 2001 - and no form of words in the act provide for distinct organisations, rather a thinly worded rename statement. Djegan 18:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)