Talk:Asdee

WP:COMMONNAME / WP:OFFICIALNAME / CONVENTION

Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES (and the application of these conventions in umpteen other articles on Irish places/placenames), the guidelines expect that we:

• use "the name that is most commonly used" in the opening and title. In this case "Asdee" is the local/common name. Per the logainm source and others.
• mention "Alternative names [..] in article text", and where those names are "significant alternative [..] forms of names [..they..] should usually be made to redirect. In this case "Astee" falls into this bracket. Per the same logainm source.

Based on these conventions, this is what we do in the article's on:

• Annascaul (officially "Anascaul", per logainm and lead)
• Ballyheigue (officially "Ballyheige", per logainm and lead)
• Derrynane (officially "Darrynane", per logainm and lead)
• Doonshean (officially "Doonsheane", per logainm and lead)
• Firies (officially "Fieries", per logainm and lead)
• Gneeveguilla (officially "Gneevgullia", per logainm and lead)
• Knocknagoshel (officially "Knocknagashel", per logainm and lead)
• Lahinch (officially "Lehinch", per logainm and lead)
• Kilmoyley (officially "Kilmoyly", per logainm and lead)
• Spiddal (officially "Spiddle", per logainm and lead)
• (and dozens/dozens of other such articles - often were the "official name" is a redirect to the "common name"; Just as for Astee...)

The suggestion that the lead of this article should ignore these guidelines (and the conventions arising from the guidelines) is inconsistent and inexplicable. And the only justifications for bucking the convention include non-policy based statements about "the facts of local history of north Kerry" (where, even ignoring the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT elements of the argument, I don't see how one mention of a supported/"official"/accepted variant could possibly override either facts or local history or otherwise). The other edit summary ("Either a Country makes sense or it's illogical") is not one I could make any sense of.... Guliolopez (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

moving statues

Surprising omission? Fintan o'toole describes an incident from 1985 in which children claimed that statues in the church moved, and that subseqyently large numbers of people came to the church. Whatever the factual status of this, surely it is part of the history of the settlement. ~2026-82029-5 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Unclear why you are describing this as an "omission". As the current revision of the article, in the "church" section, specifically mentions the moving statues phenomenon at the church in February 1985(?) Guliolopez (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)