Jump to content

Talk:Bray, County Wicklow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sport

[edit]

Please expand this section Peter Clarke 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Picture?

[edit]

I took a photo recently which I think is a better overview of the town than the current one. I recuse myself from replacing it, but encourage anyone else to do so. Ideally a closer-up image of the promenade could be added separately. jnestorius(talk) 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

current
proposed

Hi Jnestorius Maybe we should say 'more suitable' or something rather than better! This is where fools rush in...but being a fool I will try something...(Sarah777 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]


I think we need a few new pictures from within the town. The ones up at the moment are very 'artsy' & thus don't give a very good representation of the town, perhaps photos of the town hall... churches... seafront etc would be a good idea.--Onynyo 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, though I really like the railway station one (having taken it myself!). Certainly the Town Hall or Esplanade (symbols of Bray) would be better than the Swans or the Cross. But I'm not sure I have any. (Sarah777 22:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Fine hotels?

[edit]

I live near bray and this article is complete bull! Bray is a dirty ugly town to be blunt 83.147.138.80 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder they say. Personally I'm not so sure about - has to be a brain-wired thingy surely? Sarah777 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Can you repeat that in a clear sentence? 83.147.138.250 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, hard as I might try...Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

This edit appears to have gone under the radar a long time ago. Bray's population, according to the CSO at 2006 census (here) is 31,901 (town proper 27,041; environs 4,860). --Schcamboaon scéal? 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bray. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup hatnote tags - partially actioned - some work remaining

[edit]

As per the OR and other tags added by someone in August last, this article had (and at least partially still has) significant issues under the WP:PROMO, WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK, WP:PUFFERY and WP:OR guidelines.

On WP:WTW, we had (and still somewhat have) terms like "scenic", "popular", "picturesque", "splendid mountain scenery", "flock"s of day-trippers, "scenic views", "social focal point", "renowned", "easy access", "seamless integration", etc. These are all glaring examples of unattributed POV and PUFFERY which the project has specific guidelines against. I have removed the worst of it.

On WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK, we had similar content about the "range of shops serving the consumer needs of the surrounding area", the "sea and land adventures of all types", the "seafront bars characterised by extensive open air terraces", the "fabulous coastline is a perfect spot for learning and enjoying sailing", and how "fortunate" everyone is to have access to a lovely commercial horseriding company where we can all "learn and enjoy horse riding". Again, this all carries a totally inappropriate tone relative to project scope. I have also tempered the most glaring examples here.

Finally, on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we had a "list of every school, childcare outfit and commercial English school within 20 miles". Also inappropriate relative to project guidelines. While the article could perhaps do with an "education" section (maybe *summarising* the number of schools at each level), an exhaustive list of 30 institutions is not useful to the reader. At best the "list of every last school in Bray" could be split-out. Per WP:ListFormat.

Happy to hear thoughts, but I might actually take a second pass on any remaining problematic content in the coming while. (Otherwise the clean-up hatnotes will remain in place for further months or years - unactioned and therefore largely pointless. Other than to highlight to readers that "we know this isn't the community's best work.....) Guliolopez (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly a lot of unnecessary fluff and as you say an "Education" section should be included. The guidelines for what should be included are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure in the sequence suggested. That's a good start and maybe you will get time to follow up. BTW, the TOC limit I placed was to specifically reduce the long and cumbersome TOC that you reverted for no apparent good reason except it now reverts to display too may sub headers in several section that are really unnecessary for the TOC display. As you say this is not the best work and there are several others suffering the same fate. We need more editors to dig into them. ww2censor (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. RE "Education section". As per my note, I have readded a summary. If anyone feels the project needs a "list of all schools in the area", they can add to the County Wicklow section of the "list of schools in Ireland" article. RE "Article structure". I have added the education section to fit within that recommended order. RE "Reduce the long and cumbersome TOC". My own preference here has been to address the problem directly. To actually remove the over-used section heads. And unnecessary sections. Like the gallery. If the length of the TOC continues to present a problem, then we should probably further review what content can be "grouped". Some section headings were (at least previously) atop a "section" containing all of 6 words. If we re-add a {{TOC limit|3}} type construct, then it should go after the lead. Rather than before it. It should be noted also however that this template doesn't "work" on the mobile version. And so it doesn't solve the problem on the channel where the problem is most impactful. Hence it's probably best to address the root cause. RE "Need more editors". Yup. Certainly more who are familiar with project norms. Or existing ones who feel empowered to react to "cleanup" tags that have been in place for (in some cases) a decade or so :) Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bray. 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) 16:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bray (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

County Dublin

[edit]

Not sure why the article doesn't mention that a fraction of Bray is in County Dublin. There's an entire housing estate (Woodbrook Glen), a Circle K and a Lidl on the Dublin side of Bray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRCC (talk • contribs) 20:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Why doesn't the article mention that a fraction of Bray is in County Dublin". Perhaps for the same reason that the Limerick article is careful to clarify that the outskirts/suburbs of Limerick that are in County Clare are therefore/actually/defacto not part of Limerick city. Because they are in County Clare. And administratively covered by Clare County Council. Not Limerick City and County Council. And therefore (defacto) not in Limerick city. Guliolopez (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense! Interesting to note that about Limerick. I'm intrigued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRCC (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bray,_County_Wicklow&oldid=1200334074"