Talk:Parliament House, Dublin

2003 edits

Just, the article is too long to edit. Please break them down. -- Taku 04:13 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

too long to edit??? It is a standard encyclopædic size for a major article on a topic, as opposed to an elongated stub. It is actually 89 words less than the average EB 'major article' and 104 shorter than WB 'major' articles and shorter than a lot of wiki articles. ÉÍREman 05:04 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it is a standard here. See SARS. I think it is a better idea to have a separate article for some sections. -- Taku 18:01 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

There are many many many long articles here. See Abortion, Irish potato famine, history of Ireland, Papal Tiara, Saddam Hussein, etc. Once it is under 32K it is OK to have a long article.

The editor isn't giving the usual warning, so I think it's all right, lengthwise. I'm assuming you're going to restrict the content to matters relating to the actual buildings, not what goes on inside them? Deb 18:09 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

It is a contextual article, so it doesn't go into great detail, just explained what the building was, what it was used for, why it stopped being used for those purposes, why it wasn't used for those purposes again and what it was subsequently used for. If sub articles were used they would need more detailed info. The workings of the parliament can go into the separate page on both Houses or the page on the Irish parliament. This is specifically about the building, hence the name. ÉÍREman 18:42 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

This is a really great article and a credit to Wikipedia - thanks JTD. I've added it to Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. Enchanter

Thanks Enchanter. I really appreciate the comment. I got a new digital camera during the week and spent two days walking around Dublin taking photographs for wiki pieces I had written. I got the idea for it when I visited the building so that I could take photographs of it for my own collection. What to call the article was a bit of a problem, as no-one quite knows what to call the building. Bank of Ireland is too problematical, given we that that is the name of a bank and this building. Irish Houses of Parliament with links seems the best way to describe it, and ties it in nicely with the British equivalent. I am going to put links to other alternative names. But thanks for the compliment, Enchanter. I just hope the images work ok on all browsers as some browsers do occasionally muck up layouts. ÉÍREman 19:07 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

This may sound sarcastic but yes, I really do think the article is good. Particularly I like pictures you took. Of course, we want to have an article of this quality for other congresses in the world. Anyway about the length. I still do think the article is too long and should be splited but it seems anyone has no trouble unlike me, so it's probably ok. -- Taku 20:09 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Taku. And yes I would dearly love to see similar articles on other parliaments and congresses. Unfortunately I am a bit too far away to do the photographing *sigh* and if they are working parliaments, it may be difficult to be allowed to photograph but as this is a bank it is open for customers and I made a point of checking and was told that they had no problem with interior shots, or indeed the photograph of their photocopy of an eighteenth century painting of the House of Commons. (They also had a full colour laminate of the painting, but because of its lamination it was impossible to photograph clearly because the flash was reflected in the coating. ÉÍREman 23:07 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Too many images

Hi!
I've just seen the article on Irish Houses of Parliament. Your pictures are great but I don't think you realise that they are considerably too large. Your first two are 512 pixels wide but they should not be larger than about 350 pixels wide. They are absolutely fine on my 1024 by 768 screen but a disaster on an 800 by 600 screen for those who use the Standard skin (as selectable in Preferences.) This skin produces a column on choices on the left of the screen which narrows down the width available for text and pictures. I've been told by mav and others that we must consider those people who use 800 by 600.

I've checked your article by resetting my screen to 800 by 600 (with Standard skin) and I am correct. Only enough space is left, on the left of the picture, for about one word which looks horrible.

My method is to put a 350 pixel picture on the article, with a link to a big one (usually 750 pixels wide). Have a look at User:Arpingstone and choose some of the pic links to see my method.
Best Wishes,
Adrian Pingstone 21:40 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the ability right now to shrink the images. I checked them under various browsers etc and they looked OK but if there is a problem I will see if I can get something done. Thanks for the comment. ÉÍREman 22:53 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

From the looks of the screenshot on User:Jtdirl :-) you're running Mac OS X, in which case you can use iPhoto - suck digicam photo in with Import, crop or otherwise manipulate randomly, then do Export and click the radiobutton to save at a specific size and type in 300 or whatever. I've also found that iPhoto's Enhance button is useful for hazy pictures. Stan 23:06 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Great pictures J! but the aerial shot looks weird at that angle do you mind if I rotate it? I can fix up the other shots if I have time also Mintguy

Thanks guys. That's great advice, Stan. I really appreciate it. And yeah, Mint the aerial shot was originally rotated but it was so bloody big I decided the only way I could accomodate it was to rotate it that way. (I regularly do use the enhance button. I actually enhanced one of them, then inadvertently brought the unenhanced one in.) I am overall very happy with how the pics and the text work. Just a bit of tweaking for size is required. Thanks again guys for the advice. ÉÍREman 23:53 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

This is just a matter of opinion, but I think when a page has a good number of pictures like this, it looks a bit better if not all the pictures are crammed up against the right side; a little alternation gives a better effect, I believe. Does anyone have any objections? -- John Owens 09:03 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the shrinking; earlier today, I was looking at the page at a friend's place, whose computer is set to 800x600 as opposed to my usual 1024x768, and it looked really bad at that size; I was going to do it myself when I got home if no one else had beaten me to it, which obviously he has.

Yes, I alternate the pics. We had some discussion on this in the Village Pump a few weeks ago and alternation was agreed on. I always put the first pic on the right hand side so that the text down the left hand margin is not immediately disrupted. Incidentally, the Style Guide recommends italic caption text and I also use use small text so that the captions are not too obtrusive.

Adrian Pingstone 14:46 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately italics is a disaster because one browser in one version (Internet Explorer of course, who else!) turns them particularly when small into barely legible spiderly writing. So leave the captions are they are. They way they are works. Alternatives I have tried don't. As to alternation, I've moved some but that too is highly problematical because some images interfere with headlines. That problem occurs on some versions of netscape because it does not recognise the <small></small> command and so text laid out as small which work perfectly on most browsers grow to full size on some versions of netscape, throwing everything all over the place and indenting some headlines. (In putting on a lot of images with captions lately I have run into those problems over and over and over again and had to avoid the practice. Unless we get everyone to collectively bin IE and netscape - and oh god I wish they would. Of all the browsers I have used they are by far the worst! - italics (which I love using in professional documents I lay out) is a problem and alternation of pictures needs to be used very sparingly, and not with the <small></small> commands unless there are a clear two paragraphs between a left indent and the next headline. Even then all sorts of additional problems occur. ÉÍREman 19:19 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hasn't it been found that (though I hate to use it, too) <font size="-1"> will work in places and on browsers <small> won't? -- John Owens 21:27 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the time I have been on wiki we have tried various guaranteed to work versions only to find that someone turns up to say "its not working on my browser" so I hope it works but having gone around changing things to a guaranteed to work format, only to find I had wasted my time, I'll live in hope but not expectation. (sorry for seeming so downbeat about it!) ÉÍREman 21:50 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I could not agree more with the comment immediately above. I still have little idea what the most acceptable coding is, even after illustrating 170 articles! Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge to write code so I rely on other people to tell me what's best.

EIREman, will you do a check for me, please? Go to two of my pics and tell me what you see (I have IE5.5). Go to St John's wort where the lower pic is from my own camera (an Olympus medium-priced digital). The caption should show Hypericum Hidcote in bold and the rest of the caption in non-bold italics. Thats the style I've done all my pics in, changing them all is definitely not on! Also please go to Sistine Chapel where all the captions should appear as italic, non-bold. I've not alternated the Sistine chapel pics because they form a series.

Thanks Adrian Pingstone 08:17 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

On safari they look fine (good work, BTW) but on IE 5.2 for a mac, the italics is readable but not easily to read, coming out in a spiderly italics. The bold text is fine. I had forgotten how much I hate using IE until I opened it to check this out!!! :-) I've just checked out netscape 7.02 and yes it has screwed up the Sistine Chapel. It has the captions in full size, meaning that picture one's caption is interfering with picture two, and has pushed it into the text. I found one way to avoid this is to put all the images together, with the </div> kept to the very end, so that it treats all images as one block, in effect as one image. But then I'm sure that will screw it up for some browser (we should take bets on which one!). St. John's wort has however survived the curse of netscape and is ok, though the caption as usual with that heap of junk that is netscape, is full size. ÉÍREman 19:47 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Image markup

Yesterday I converted some of the images with shorter captions to the new wiki syntax, which allows automatic thumbnails. I didn't actually do any shrinking, but that should now be easier. Problem is, now some of the images have the gray background, and the images with longer captions don't. Thoughts? – Minh Nguyen 02:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've fiddled around a bit with the images; all but the aerial picture is now of one format (and much clearer than those dratted thumbnails, IMO) - we might want to consider moving the aerial picture to be its own section. Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 04:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Better image

That photo of a copy of a picture of the Irish House of Commons in session in the 1790s (with light glare) is really not up to much. It seems to be a copy of Francis Wheatley's painting which is in the Gascoigne collection at Lotherton Hall, near Leeds (see website). Can we get a better version? Dbiv 00:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Removed this text

http://hometown.aol.com/cusam2/myhomepage/index.html Argues that King George III was acting 'ultra vires' since the Treaty of Limerick was not implemented [rather being set aside in favour of land theft and racial/christian-sectarian discrimination] and King Henry IX King of the Three Kingdoms de facto and of Irealnd de jure, being alive till 1807, when the Stuart Successors relinquished claim to a British Throne, THE ACT OF UNION [1801] IS VOID. And the Good Friday Accord if implemented shall be the first fully valid and lawful constitution in Ireland since King Henry VIII abolished the Papacy's thieving grant of Ireland to King Henry II.

Didn't really think it appropriate -- Blorg 10:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. But interesting. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know where the Irish parliament was for the centuries before it moved to Hoggen Green/ College Green? I am finding it very difficult to find this out. Also, is there not a set date when it moved to College Green?

I think it met sometimes in Dublin Castle and sometimes in Christchurch. In between the demolition of Chichester House and the building of the current building it met in the Bluecoat school. As to a date, I think it sort of drifted into Chichester House probably a once off that happened more and more until it suddenly found that that was where it always seemed to be. I hope that helps. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 07:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)