Talk:Fota Island
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fota Island article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Giraffe Image
[edit]I removed the giraffe image as it had little relevence to the Park Whoisthecatalyst (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
NAMA's association
[edit]The hotel, the golf-course and certain other parts are now 'enforced' by NAMA. Please discuss in detail. Morsecode10MM (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fota Island. 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/20121130014152/http://www.passagewestmonkstown.ie/foaty-island.asp to http://www.passagewestmonkstown.ie/foaty-island.asp
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) 19:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Name of the Island
[edit]I see that the townland is officially Foaty, but is that the historic name of the Island also? I am not sure the term "Statutory" is correct ... open to discussion on it @Guliolopez ... what statutes are being referred to? Munstertom (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @Munstertom. Thanks for the note. In terms of the:
- Townland. The "statutory" instruments, which refer to it as "Foaty", include the S.I. 395/2012 (2012) Placenames (County Cork) Order and S.I. 391/2021 (2021) EU Conservation of Wild Birds (Cork Harbour SPA) Regulation. Other "official" sources, which refer to the townland as "Foaty", include the Placenames Commission entry.
- Island. The "statutory" instruments, which refer to it as "Foaty", include the S.I. 89/1961 (1961) Cork Health Authority Area (Registrars' Districts) Order and S.I. 63/1961 (1961) Cork Health Authority Area (Dispensary Districts) Order. Both of which state that the registrars/dispensary district areas of "Cobh No. 1" include "
Foaty Island, Spike Island, Rocky Island and Haulbowline Island
". Relatively authoritative sources include works by Patrick Power (1862–1951), whose Place-Names and Antiquities of S.E. Cork suggests that "Foaty townland, in two parts, occupies the whole island of the same name
". Other "official" sources which use "Foaty Island" include the Cobh Municipal District Local Area Plan (2017), which refers to "the area around Harpers Island, Foaty Island and also the channel south of Carrigtwohill"
. - Terminology. I'm not personally wedded to "statutory". If we think this is too strong, then "officially" would also work. And would be consistent with how we cover other Irish placenames where the COMMONNAME differs from the OFFICIALNAME. (Like Ventry or Geesala.) I don't think, however, that we should only say "historically". As it implies that the "official" name has no modern use/relevance. Which I don't think is the case.
- @Jnestorius: may also have an opinion. As it was they who originally added the term "statutory". Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Guliolopez i agree with you on historic, even though it was I used the term, its too loose.
- I'm impressed with the level of statutory research you have done 👏 Munstertom (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- The distinction I had in mind is "statutory name" vs "local name". I used "statutory" because it is the spelling used in statutes, and also because the authorities that fixed the spelling in the 19th century, principally the Ordnance Survey, were established under statute. The problem with calling it the "official name" is that the non-statutory "local name" is often the one used by local government and the post office (now An Post in the Republic), both of which are "official" organisations. I'm not wedded to the label "statutory" if other suggestions are forthcoming.
- More generally, what is needed is a section in Place names in Ireland about the variation (historically and in both jurisdictions) which could be linked to from all the geographic articles where multiple names need to be considered. (e.g.
'''Fota''' ([[Place names in Ireland#Variants|statutory spelling]] '''Foaty''') is a ...
- I might even suggest...
'''Fota''' ({{Irstatspelling}} '''Foaty''') is a ...
- ...where {{Irstatspelling}} is...
[[Place names in Ireland#Variants|statutory spelling]]
- ...so that "statutory spelling" could be changed later; but that might violate WP:TG "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content."
- jnestorius(talk) 13:42, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jnestorius. Personally I think that the current (simple) approach is fine. And agree that, perhaps, "official" doesn't account for uses that are "official" but not "statutory". Given that we've had "statutory" now for well over a decade, and it doesn't seem to have been an issue, I'm inclined to leave well-enough-alone. And certainly don't think we need to come up with solutions (on this article, other articles or in templates) to distinguish the numerous implications of anglicisation.
- (Any number of places have sets of COMMONNAMEs and OFFICIALNAMEs which vary. And even within the set of OFFICIALNAMEs there are differences. Where the name used by the council (on road signs) and An Post (on post office signs) and in statute (placenames orders/etc) all vary. While someone might be minded to open that can of worms sometime, I don't think this particular placename vagary is the reason to take on that heartache...) Guliolopez (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)