Talk:Dublin

Lord Mayor

It should be noted that the current mayor is Emma Blain not James Geoghegan as the infobox says Mind the gap 1 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

updated now, thanks for the heads up JamesKiernan1 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Baile Átha Cliath

I've seen this question asked somewhere back in the archives but I saw no replies - why isn't Baile Átha Cliath, with a pronunciation vocalization, stated as an official name for this city in the opening sentences of the article? That name is on street signs all over the Republic. Every Irish person knows it. It seems kind of Anglocentric to omit "Baile Átha Cliath" in the beginning of our article. Pascalulu88 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It is there - float your cursor / mouse / finger over the [A] beside the opening "Dublin" and you will see a box with the information. Most articles in the Irish domain do indeed put the name as Gaeilge ("in Irish") more directly in the text, but this is simply another approach. It in turn points to the Etymology section, which explains the whole background to the two Irish forms - BAC and Dubh Linn (originally two different settlements) - and more. Indeed, you can also encounter "Ath Cliaith" on its own on signage outside Dublin. There are papers and booklets on this matter, much lies below the names. SeoR (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally I wonder if the Irish name should be restored. And not "relegated" to a footnote. Not least (a) as that is the MOS:IRELAND convention and (b) this article is now (effectively) the only Irish city/town/village article which doesn't include the Irish language name in the lead.

While I, at least partially, understand the MOS:LEADCLUTTER rationale which prompted this edit a few months ago, and agree that having 1x English pronunciation IPAs and 2x Irish pronunciation IPAs was a bit much, I'm not sure moving the entire thing to a footnote was the correct approach. Personally I wonder if the IPA pronunciation guides could be "footnoted" - while leaving the Irish name in the lead. Which, IMO, would be consistent with both IRELAND#Place names and LEADCLUTTER MOS guidelines .... Guliolopez (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've thought about the point, and I agree, we should return to the MOS:Ireland approach, at least for the basic Baile Átha Cliath - it is clearer, and even more so for those viewing on smaller devices or with some aids. Perhaps the detail, and mention of Dubh Linn, could be left to this special footnote box. SeoR (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Urban Population 2024

The source used for this figure is a CSO infographic with an estimated population of Dublin, but it doesn't specificy whether it's the built up area or the entire county. The former would not include towns like Swords, Balbriggan, Donabate etc. where a lot of New housing is being built. Surely if we can't determine this it should be changed back to 1,263,219 figure of the 2022 census. Nirvanarox55 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Leaders Dublin have had

Dublin Have had many leaders. 2A0A:EF40:581:AB01:C42A:59EF:1D16:D959 (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Are you proposing a change or addition to the article? If so, what change is proposed? Guliolopez (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Excessive images (in body and infobox)

In recent weeks, the number of images in this article has increased significantly.

In the body, as part of a series of connected edits, perhaps a dozen or so images were added to the body - several of which required MOS:SANDWICHing and MOS:FORCEDSIZEing behaviours to even get them to "fit".

In the infobox, a large vertical image was added to the collage/montage in the "multiple image" template - resulting in the type of scrolling issues specifically discussed in WP:COLLAGETIPS as indicating that the collage is/was "too long".

While I endorse the rationale of the change by Merangs (to attempt to limit the "length" of the infobox collage - so that it isn't umpteen times as long as the lead and doesn't require excessive scrolling), I think the "skyline" image (which already includes a view of Samuel Beckett Bridge) is perhaps more "representative" of the subject. And have restored it as the "top" image (rather than the "bridge only" image). As, I think the skyline image fits the suggestion given in WP:COLLAGETIPS more appropriately. (Namely: "If a particular image stands out as the most representative of the subject, place it at the top").

In honesty, if any editor feels that additional images need to be added (to the body or the infobox), then they would (a) ideally read the guidance on ensuring images are not excessive and, per MOS:IMGREL, have a "clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject" and (b) ideally consider whether a montage/collage addition, that requires significant scrolling, is consistent with WP:COLLAGETIPS and other norms. And, ideally, explain (as expected by WP:ES) why they think the image is needed and how its inclusion aligns with applicable norms.

(Images are great. Especially high quality ones. But they shouldn't "take over". Or result in sandwiching, stacking, and disruption of text. Images are supposed to support the text they are placed alongside. The shouldn't replace or obfuscate it.)

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

PS. To confirm: I'm not proposing to remove specific images from the infobox or body. I've already removed the images which seemed excessive/disruptive from the body. And, as above, removed the spire image and replaced the top/collage skyline image in the body. The "point" of this Talkpage post is to suggest that, if other editors are adding additional images (to the infobox or body) that they explain/support their additions. With consideration to norms/policy (on collages that require scrolling and excessive galleries that require sandwiching/stacking....). Guliolopez (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)