BritishWatcher (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 547: | Line 547: | ||
:The primary usage of "Virginia" is [[Virginia]]. The primary usage of "Ireland" is [[Ireland]]. So what are you getting at? |
:The primary usage of "Virginia" is [[Virginia]]. The primary usage of "Ireland" is [[Ireland]]. So what are you getting at? |
||
:Are you from [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]? Perhaps this is the problem. I am only speculating. I know plenty of people from Ireland here in Canada. All of them just say they are from Ireland. Some, I happen to know, come from [[Belfast]]. Others I have no idea whence they came. The ambiguity in the word should be obvious, but perhaps this ambiguous use of "Ireland" is not common in Ireland (the republic) or on Ireland (the island). For example, "London" is usually unambiguous where I live: it refers to [[London, Ontario|London]]. Sometimes, of course, it is ambiguous and one needs to be clear and say "[[London, England]]". This does not mean, however, that Wikipedia has it wrong. "London" is [[London]]. On another note, remember that "Ireland" is unambiguous and has only one meaning throughout most of history and that meaning is not found at [[Republic of Ireland]]. —[[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |
:Are you from [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]? Perhaps this is the problem. I am only speculating. I know plenty of people from Ireland here in Canada. All of them just say they are from Ireland. Some, I happen to know, come from [[Belfast]]. Others I have no idea whence they came. The ambiguity in the word should be obvious, but perhaps this ambiguous use of "Ireland" is not common in Ireland (the republic) or on Ireland (the island). For example, "London" is usually unambiguous where I live: it refers to [[London, Ontario|London]]. Sometimes, of course, it is ambiguous and one needs to be clear and say "[[London, England]]". This does not mean, however, that Wikipedia has it wrong. "London" is [[London]]. On another note, remember that "Ireland" is unambiguous and has only one meaning throughout most of history and that meaning is not found at [[Republic of Ireland]]. —[[User:Srnec|Srnec]] ([[User talk:Srnec|talk]]) 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
: The island is the primary article, not the state. Thankfully even if F loses this vote, the result will not see the state moved to Ireland.. quite right too, its a very offneisve option for a modern day state to claim ownership over the whole of Ireland and its history. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:10, 16 August 2009
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Possible compromise?
This section below was copied from my talk page and posted here by Jack. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Right, if it were you and me alone, do you think you could come to a compromise on this? Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I was seriously prepared to compromise, although ofcourse it had to be if other supporters of F agreed and with others accepting the certain conditions, i wouldnt unilaterally change my vote lol. Declaration that ROI is not British POV and that such accusations in the future should be considered a violation of WP:AGF with the aim of having Arbcom agree with that view, seemed like a reasonable outcome. Sure some would not agree that it isnt POV, but like i said before surely a name change is more important if the term really is such a problem.
- I must admit it didnt take me too long after seeing some of the responses to change my mind. Sarah was the first to respond to my post and i was stunned because it sounded like she would accept it, but then 10 minutes later went on saying the same things again, which disappointed me. Strong responses by those who support F saying bad idea to compromise, also supporters of F getting called extremist by a moderate helped changed my mind. I certainly think now compromise is near impossible.
- Also i get rather nervous with a live poll, F doesnt have this in the bag yet. A compromise to secure the second best option which i could easily live with would be better than a sudden change / surge in the vote which leads to an option i dont support winning. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it was just me and you then quite possibly we could come to a compromise.
- We agree that Republic of Ireland is not British POV and such accusations should be considered a violation of WP:AGF.
- We try to get Arbcom to agree with this view to prevent future accusations or have accusers punished.
- Move country article to Ireland (state).
- Lock it for two years, problem solved.
- Both sides are reasonably happy. One side gets the name change, the other side gets recognition that there is nothing wrong with Republic of Ireland and ensures that there are no future claims of British POV about the term Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it was just me and you then quite possibly we could come to a compromise.
- Right, if it were you and me alone, do you think you could come to a compromise on this? Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I could agree with that. Depending on the second point (arbcom)
- We try, but if arbcom don't go with it the agreement still stands
- Agree
- Agreed
Although we can't guarantee the impossible. That is, a rogue editor claiming British pov. Jack forbes (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ofcourse, but i think if it was all part of a package to get a compromise i recon they would agree, even if it was just to get them to accept such claims cause problems and should be avoided rather than will result in warnings/ blocks etc. How to deal with all the other articles like Politics of Ireland is alot more complicated though.
- But anyway like i said before i cant see compromise being possible anymore with everyone. I support F, i hope it wins but im not going to lose sleep if it doesnt. My main concern going into this vote was that A or B win, both of which i strongly oppose. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well - I was going to respond to this - but now I see it is, as the lead sentence implies, a conversation between just two people... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please form an orderly queue to discuss this. No barging, one at a time. Bastun, join the discussion, don't be shy. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well - I was going to respond to this - but now I see it is, as the lead sentence implies, a conversation between just two people... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL thats the last time i stay alone in a room with Jack!!! Just to avoid confusion, the above conversation was stolen from my talk page and posted by Jack here :| BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Note to Jack: That being the case, as born out by the page history, Jack I strongly urge you to place some sort of notice that you are copy-pasting whenever you do that here or anywhere in the project as a courtesy to others attempting to follow threads. Thanks Sswonk (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's me told off. :( Jack forbes (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- serves you right lol BritishWatcher (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you must agree that conversations are differently handled by people than are debates, and I think it is important that you let people know you are transferring a conversation into a debate, that's all. It's important to context, no bad feelings. Sswonk (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's me told off. :( Jack forbes (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wasn't this discusssed above already? I can't find where. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but i striked all my comment out including the title so its no longer on the contents. its below the "I go away for five days and what happens?" section BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Examples of Disruption, again
Since nobody answered my question before, I'm going to bring it up again. What kind of disruption are we talking about? Could anyone present any specific examples, or some kind of relatively detailed summary of what is going on? If you want to get people to support a compromise on the basis of the status quo supposedly resulting in some horrific amount of disruption, I think it behooves you to actually explain what that disruption is. Nobody answered my question above - I was told to research it myself. But why should I research it myself? Is it really my job to wade through several years of archives in order to understand the situation? I think Republic of Ireland is the best title. People have tried to persuade me otherwise on the basis that that title causes too much disruption. But so far as I can tell, this is just a bald assertion for which nobody has presented any evidence. Obviously the current title causes a lot of irritation on talk pages. But that's not disruption. People arguing is, more or less, what talk pages are for. I want to know how often and in what ways this has crossed over into the main namespace - how has it affected Wikipedia content? If nobody can provide me with any examples of this, I'm going to assume that by "disruption" is largely meant "people arguing on talk pages." That is not, imo, disruption. This poll and the discussion of it, as impolite and irritating as it may be, is not disruptive - normal users can look at the Ireland articles just fine without having any sense that this is going on.
But if there's real disruption I'd be interested to hear about it. If the situation is so bad as it is claimed to be, people should have an answer beyond "read the archives." john k (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody answered because nobody wants to go there again. It was hellish. Repeated polls, call for polls, simultaneous polls (e.g. at one there were near weekly polls with three or four identical polls being conducted simultaneously on different pages - the ArbCom arose after an admin closed one that was being held in an obscure corner of the encyclopedia that showed a different result to others being conducted at Talk:Ireland, Talk:Republic of Ireland and the IMOS at the same time, and made the page move). Flame wars, uncivil accusations of POV pushing or outright bias, naming calling. Tenacious postings to talk pages (e.g. if one discussion wasn't going the way a particular editor wanted another would spring open - maybe on a different page or on the same page or on multiples pages - supposedly discussing a "newly unearthed claim of bias"). Campaigns by sub-groups of editors to militantly change in-article names, moving of categories and related pages to preferred titles, ensuring edit wars, WP:POINTy edits (e.g. of the kind "Ireland is a name of the state in Europe that is called Republic of Ireland by the British and their supporters." and other 'blah blah' being added to articles). Isolated incidents of page blanking or full content replacement. Reprisal edits (e.g. changing another editors preferred terminology on unrelated topic just to piss them off, or stalking opponents across the Wiki reverting innocuous edits and demanding sources) or reprisal stances in unrelated discussions (e.g. taking a position against an "opponent" from the Ireland-name-issue on an unrelated discussion that an editors would not normally hold or give a fig about, just to piss their "opponent" off and/or make sure they didn't get their way). Wikilaywering, being a dick, trolling - not just by one or two troublesome editors (who you could always ignore) but my groups editors in concert. The worst is simply the great chasms of ill-will that has been gouged across the Irish Wiki community over this. It was truly hellish. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- BTW the above was not merely weeks, it was years, recurring in spasms, bring quite for maybe long periods, or taking the form of low-level hostilities being conducted over months, and exploding into to spitting games and throwing tables and chairs at each other, then dying down out of exhaustion and stalemate. All the time, you felt every operation was a new tactic, or a reinvention of an old one, not a new discussion. Hellish. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I would say that's a pretty fair assessment. EverType and HighKing will (in good faith) possibly argue that the above exactly is why we need to compromise. I would contend that "compromise" is not any real compromise when the very small but vocal minority essentially get everything they want, and that it's a signal that similar tactics will work again elsewhere. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Whilst it may be used on many different articles i cant help but always think of the British Isles article where Sarah has been heavily involved in attempting to get a rename too. If it can work here when theres a valid name, then it may work elsewhere if enough hell is raised. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Ran - this is useful. I just wanted to be clear that we were talking about real disruption in the main namespace, rather than simply flame wars in the talk space. This is certainly problematic, and something should be done to put an end to it. My preference would be for sanctions against people who are disruptive, rather than giving into them. john k (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I would say that's a pretty fair assessment. EverType and HighKing will (in good faith) possibly argue that the above exactly is why we need to compromise. I would contend that "compromise" is not any real compromise when the very small but vocal minority essentially get everything they want, and that it's a signal that similar tactics will work again elsewhere. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The hellishness (even if the most rational of editors may recognize that it is and has always been entirely unnecessary) is there—and will be there—if the status quo doesn't change. Gods, I'd love it if we just TRIED changing the name to Ireland (state) and locked it there for two years and see what happens. I am absolutely convinced that life would be a lot better for everybody in the Irish Wiki community. It's distressing that people like John K and Hans just don't seem to care that we've suffered such strife for such a long time. That we're all exhausted. What's very sad, though, is seeing people like HighKing quit the project entirely, is seeing people like BritishWatcher and others argue against compromise for no good reason, or for spurious reasons. Nobody's gven a decent argument against the name Ireland (state). It's bland, it's got precedent, it's accurate, and it's NOT a red flag to a bull. BritishWatcher says above that he's been worried that A or B (my own preferred options) might "win" the poll. And I removed both A and B from my vote, in an effort to seek compromise—because I know that people like BritishWatcher find A and B problematic. I hoped that people like BritishWatcher would understand that F is also problematic, and that is why I asked—and ask—people to avoid voting for A, B, or F entirely. No winners. No losers. No fits of ego or righteous smugness. Good for the Irish Wiki community. I hope. I hope. I hope. I hope. I hope. And I keep hoping. -- Evertype·✆ 10:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's not that I don't care. It's just that I don't like rewarding people for being disruptive. I also think that Republic of Ireland is the title mandated by our naming guidelines. It's not that there's anything wrong with Ireland (state), per se. It's that it's less right than Republic of Ireland, and I don't like the idea of using a less right title for reasons having nothing to do with content. john k (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is how the other wiki solved this issue [1] ClemMcGann (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- So? Did you not notice the big disclaimer there? Do you not know how Citizendium works? MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is how the other wiki solved this issue [1] ClemMcGann (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is Evertype apart from trying to make a few editors less unhappy i still have not seen a valid reason for changing the article name which has been the same for over 5 years, such change needs justification. I think Republic of Ireland is the best title for the article, its certainly less messy than (state) especially when we get on to how to handle other articles like Politics of the Republic of Ireland, Culture of Ireland etc.
- Most of the people voting dont have anything to win or lose they are voting for what they feel is the best setup/names, their verdict (so far, although it could easily change) is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an idiot, BritishWatcher. I already KNOW that you don't think that making "a few editors" less unhappy is a valid reason to make a change of this one article title. That, in my view, is selfish and mean-spirited. I have YET to see any serious argument against Ireland (state). Those of you who want to give two fingers to the "few editors" must just want to perpetuate the bad feelings throughout Irish Wiki users. You want to win, and you want them to lose. So if Option F is chosen, nothing will be resolved, and in two years we'll be back here in this shite. -- Evertype·✆ 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- STOP! - "...any serious argument against..." of course you would say that, and obviously you are selectively reading the material here; you see only the "facts" that suite yourself. John Kenney has written some excellent points and is neew to this issue. As for this two years nonsense, who is to say we would not be back here again irrespective of the outcome. People need to decide for themselves what way to vote after examining the issue; but no one should be backmailed or coerced into voting a particular way. Your an intelligent and articulate person and its just about the most patronising and simpistic reason I have ever seen for doing anything. Openess and tranparency is the way forward; the qualifications and rules are clear. Djegan (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an idiot, BritishWatcher. I already KNOW that you don't think that making "a few editors" less unhappy is a valid reason to make a change of this one article title. That, in my view, is selfish and mean-spirited. I have YET to see any serious argument against Ireland (state). Those of you who want to give two fingers to the "few editors" must just want to perpetuate the bad feelings throughout Irish Wiki users. You want to win, and you want them to lose. So if Option F is chosen, nothing will be resolved, and in two years we'll be back here in this shite. -- Evertype·✆ 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this "process" is now dead. I'll be coming back to that later. It is clearly not the process mandated by Arbcom. Sarah777 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- So what? So you're unhappy about the process. Let's all throw our toys out of the pram? NO! NO! NO! Let's talk to each other, let's keep talking to each other. Let's try to build a consensus understanding that A, B, and F are all problematic for some people whilst the other options are much less problematic in the same way. -- Evertype·✆ 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- A genuine offer of compromise doesn't begin by you ruling out all of the options you don't like and leaving only those options you do. The number of editors that cannot live! with the status quo vis-a-vis the IRL/ROI/(dab) articles titles are a tiny. A great problem, IMHO, is the inordinate amount of time we spend getting bent up over the issue of one article title. The wider issue - references to ROI/IRL in articles, use of ROI/IRL in other article and category titles (scores of them!), use of ROI/IRL in templates - is forgotten about in all of the stress over one article title and the supposed national insult that stems from it. It is from the wider issue (where we are all broadly in agreement) that compromise can come. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't "start" by ruling anything out. I have come to the conclusion that if we are mature and reasonable editors we will do the ruling out on our own. You may scorn the "supposed national insult". That's still not a reason to dig heels in and insist on Republic of Ireland which —RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY— is controversial for "a few" editors and has been for years. That's the problem which ought to be faced. The wider issue, as you rightly point out, is less of a problem than this one freaking article title. I earnestly hope we have the will to deal with the problem. -- Evertype·✆ 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Evertype, could you point me out to the policy or guideline which tells us that one of the things we should consider when deciding what content to include is whether a subject is controversial for wikipedia editors? Obviously, when a term can be demonstrated, using reliable sources, to be controversial in the real world, that is one thing. But this does not seem to be what you're saying. So, chapter and verse? john k (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- John, I don't wikilawyer. I don't cite "chapter and verse" because the chief rule here is "Use your intelligence". If the use of Republic of Ireland as an article name has been controversial or problematic for seven years here, then that should be indicative of its controversiality or problematicity regardless of whether someone like me bothers to try to invest time in trying to find external sources for controversy. In my view, exercising one's natural intelligence on this matter leads me to be convinced that if the article resided at Ireland (state) it would be less troublesome than where the article resides now. I am tired of these debates. I'd like to edit articles about Irish river names or something. But here we are, over and over and over and over, and now we're looking at a poll which (at present) shows that there is more support for Options F and E than for any other options. Option E, if chosen, has a greater likelihood of ending this misery. This is why I advocate that people who don't like Option F much don't give it any transfers at all. And, in order to foster a spirit of collaboration, this is why I have removed A and B from my own vote—even though I happen to prefer them. -- Evertype·✆ 08:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Evertype, could you point me out to the policy or guideline which tells us that one of the things we should consider when deciding what content to include is whether a subject is controversial for wikipedia editors? Obviously, when a term can be demonstrated, using reliable sources, to be controversial in the real world, that is one thing. But this does not seem to be what you're saying. So, chapter and verse? john k (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't "start" by ruling anything out. I have come to the conclusion that if we are mature and reasonable editors we will do the ruling out on our own. You may scorn the "supposed national insult". That's still not a reason to dig heels in and insist on Republic of Ireland which —RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY— is controversial for "a few" editors and has been for years. That's the problem which ought to be faced. The wider issue, as you rightly point out, is less of a problem than this one freaking article title. I earnestly hope we have the will to deal with the problem. -- Evertype·✆ 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- A genuine offer of compromise doesn't begin by you ruling out all of the options you don't like and leaving only those options you do. The number of editors that cannot live! with the status quo vis-a-vis the IRL/ROI/(dab) articles titles are a tiny. A great problem, IMHO, is the inordinate amount of time we spend getting bent up over the issue of one article title. The wider issue - references to ROI/IRL in articles, use of ROI/IRL in other article and category titles (scores of them!), use of ROI/IRL in templates - is forgotten about in all of the stress over one article title and the supposed national insult that stems from it. It is from the wider issue (where we are all broadly in agreement) that compromise can come. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- So what? So you're unhappy about the process. Let's all throw our toys out of the pram? NO! NO! NO! Let's talk to each other, let's keep talking to each other. Let's try to build a consensus understanding that A, B, and F are all problematic for some people whilst the other options are much less problematic in the same way. -- Evertype·✆ 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this "process" is now dead. I'll be coming back to that later. It is clearly not the process mandated by Arbcom. Sarah777 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you assume you'd have a quiet life if A, B, or F weren't adopted and you started writing about rivers?! The "problem" is not those options, but is endemic to any and all articles related to anything to do with these islands. (Can't use another term for fear of offense!). View - well, any wide-enough ranging watchlist or the Irish project pages... there are currently disputes on British Isles (what's the longest river there, by the way?), how many people the IRA killed and/or injured and how and whether WP should be saying it and what form their infoboxes should take... and that's just from my watchlist for the last few hours. Regardless of what option "wins" on this poll, there will still be disputes on a huge range of articles directly or vaguely related to Ireland. But at the poll's conclusion, subject to some additional consensus (as being discussed on the project page) - we won't have pagemove/naming disputes for two years. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Because I've been watching this for years and the greatest part of the conflict has been about the article title. We often have fairly decent consensus on what to do within articles. This (the article title) is the one thing that really stands out as needing a solution. -- Evertype·✆ 14:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why do you assume you'd have a quiet life if A, B, or F weren't adopted and you started writing about rivers?! The "problem" is not those options, but is endemic to any and all articles related to anything to do with these islands. (Can't use another term for fear of offense!). View - well, any wide-enough ranging watchlist or the Irish project pages... there are currently disputes on British Isles (what's the longest river there, by the way?), how many people the IRA killed and/or injured and how and whether WP should be saying it and what form their infoboxes should take... and that's just from my watchlist for the last few hours. Regardless of what option "wins" on this poll, there will still be disputes on a huge range of articles directly or vaguely related to Ireland. But at the poll's conclusion, subject to some additional consensus (as being discussed on the project page) - we won't have pagemove/naming disputes for two years. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Apart from the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland what countries share the island of Ireland? This matter only involves those two countries but many project pages were informed.. EU/Geography/History i came across an advert for this poll on the disam project which we forgot to include in the original list of places to advertise. Most who have voted are not British editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Partly agree with you, but there are two issues here. Whether naming the state the "RoI", or "Ireland (state)", is not the exclusive interest of UK area. Tfz 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst the title is all we seem to talk about on this page, its not the only thing involved in this vote. several options attempt to move the island from its prime spot.. thats what i have a big problem with not the title. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- John K: I said she spends a lot of time accusing other people of racism. As that is not a statement consistent with the facts (any diffs?) I would ask you to withdraw it. I don't assume political bias is always an expression of racism. Sarah777 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You have certainly argued that Wikipedia's coverage of these issues is racist. I don't think you've specifically accused any users of racism, so I'll apologize for phrasing my statement in a way that might be unfair. Let me reword - you spend what seems to be a sizeable percentage of your time on wikipedia engaging in nationalist grievance-mongering. Is that better? john k (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, that isn't better. And I'd apologise and withdraw that remark too or you will soon experience the joy of being blocked. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to further engage with you. If you want to try to find an admin to block me, go right ahead. I'm not going to apologize for saying things I believe out of fear that you're going to get me blocked for a day. john k (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- OMG -- Sarah you are living in a fantasy Ireland all of your own making. Djegan (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, that isn't better. And I'd apologise and withdraw that remark too or you will soon experience the joy of being blocked. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You have certainly argued that Wikipedia's coverage of these issues is racist. I don't think you've specifically accused any users of racism, so I'll apologize for phrasing my statement in a way that might be unfair. Let me reword - you spend what seems to be a sizeable percentage of your time on wikipedia engaging in nationalist grievance-mongering. Is that better? john k (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- John K: I said she spends a lot of time accusing other people of racism. As that is not a statement consistent with the facts (any diffs?) I would ask you to withdraw it. I don't assume political bias is always an expression of racism. Sarah777 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Whilst the title is all we seem to talk about on this page, its not the only thing involved in this vote. several options attempt to move the island from its prime spot.. thats what i have a big problem with not the title. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion
The reason some editors are against the use of Republic of Ireland as a title is because it's suggesting that ROI is the name of the state. With the island at Ireland and the state at ROI it could be viewed that the layout is suggesting that Ireland is only the name of the island and not the name of the state. If ROI is going to be used, maybe another compromise would be to make Ireland a disambiguation page, keep the state at ROI and move the island page, it would make it clear that both are called Ireland, but also would use ROI.194.179.120.4 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The island of Ireland is the primary topic in many peoples minds, i think its right it has the prime spot. The island article makes very clear at the top of the page where the article on the state is. The state article makes very clear (rightfully) in the intro that Republic of Ireland is just a description. The only official name of the state is Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (yet another ficking edit conflict) Hi BW, don't get me wrong I am not looking to get in a pissing match with the following, I just want you to hear it as a comment to take into consideration. You have said several times that "island of Ireland is the primary topic" in a definitive way, generally qualifying it with "many, most, etc. people". A poster above has pointed out, and I will reiterate, there is a somewhat different view of what exactly that means here in the United States. Just food for thought. Sswonk (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- There has never been a requirement that articles be located at their official names. The way to deal with any misconceptions brought about by the title is to explain them in the article intro. Which Republic of Ireland does. john k (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) According to the introduction, "Republic of Ireland" is only "sometimes used" to describe the coutry, which makes it a very poor candidate per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Actually the name of the article initially misled me into thinking that ROI was indeed the official name of Ireland until I read the Irish Constitution. I'm sure that people who only quickly skim through the article (and miss the name clarification in the lead) get to the same conclusion too. Laurent (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. That is the main bone of discontent. It's just misleading.194.179.120.4 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The article is probably understating the case. "Republic of Ireland" is almost always used to describe the country in circumstances when one needs to disambiguate it from the island as a whole. Obviously, this isn't in most circumstances, but it is in many. And the circumstance which we find ourselves in with the article's title is precisely one such circumstance. Furthermore, the fact that some people don't bother to read carefully is not a legitimate content concern. Also - seriously, you can't be bothered to read the introduction to the article, and were forced to learn the truth from reading the Irish Constitution? That sounds implausible. john k (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well it's simple - I've skimmed through the article, missed the name clarification, and went on to read the constitution because I didn't understand why the article was called "Republic of Ireland" when everywhere in the article it's simply called "Ireland". Maybe it's just me though, but I'd be interested to know how many people end up thinking that ROI is the official name. Laurent (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If they read the first paragraph of the introduction, nobody should. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well it's simple - I've skimmed through the article, missed the name clarification, and went on to read the constitution because I didn't understand why the article was called "Republic of Ireland" when everywhere in the article it's simply called "Ireland". Maybe it's just me though, but I'd be interested to know how many people end up thinking that ROI is the official name. Laurent (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Many - possibly most - countries are not at their official name (short selection below) without controversy over whether their position is misleading.
- (edit conflict) According to the introduction, "Republic of Ireland" is only "sometimes used" to describe the coutry, which makes it a very poor candidate per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Actually the name of the article initially misled me into thinking that ROI was indeed the official name of Ireland until I read the Irish Constitution. I'm sure that people who only quickly skim through the article (and miss the name clarification in the lead) get to the same conclusion too. Laurent (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- But they're able to be at their common names because there isn't another entity residing there. Whereas we have an island and a state "competing". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- My suggestion or any other compromise would make it a bit more of a fair fight.194.179.120.4 (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Both the most common name and the official name are ambiguous. Another title is required. In that circumstance, we go to the most common name which is unambiguous. This is Republic of Ireland. And the idea that Republic of Ireland is some kind of obscure form, rarely used in the real world, is just bollocks. It is very commonly used, and for the exact purpose that having the article titled at Republic of Ireland serves - to disambiguate from the island as a whole. john k (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you read my suggestion, I was saying to use ROI as the title, but with different setup elsewhere, there will be less confusion and readers being mislead about the facts.194.179.120.4 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think, in fairness, very few are actually "confused". And to be honest, it's way too late now to add additional options to the poll. But might be something to remember for two and a bit years time... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you read my suggestion, I was saying to use ROI as the title, but with different setup elsewhere, there will be less confusion and readers being mislead about the facts.194.179.120.4 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- But they're able to be at their common names because there isn't another entity residing there. Whereas we have an island and a state "competing". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- This suggested poll option really is of limited use, and would still be objected to for the usual reasons for having the state at ROI. It would only help readers in a limited respect, namely only typing in Ireland in the search box. And arguably, it helps nobody who is not absolutely clear when they get to their two choice option, whether their intended target was a whole island or a post 1922 sovereign state (and arguably, these are the very people who would not be confused by the current hatnote arrangement, if the phrase Repubic of Ireland already lights a bulb of recognition in their head). People have tried to get around this limited use issue by having a million dubious entries at an 'Ireland' disambiguation page, but that's just bad practice imo, and not what dab pages are for (read the disambiguation policy, the current Ireland dab page is totally IAR). There is an WP:Outlines project which aims to do those sorts of things better, but their Outline of Ireland effort to cover all the island seems to have got lost in the post, for the very same reason that this poll exists. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Other issues...
I have open a discussion at WP:IECOLL on the wider issues surrounding this vote (excepting discussion of the three articles being voted on here). For reasons stated there, I think now is a better time to discuss these matters - for both practical reasons and to encourage a spirit of fairness and compromise, as well as to shift focus from one narrow matter back onto the substantive matters. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Some background on the name "Republic of Ireland"
I am slowly beginning to understand why somebody might conceivably, though IMO without real justification, be offended by the term Republic of Ireland. I asked for a reference to a reliable source indicating that this is not just a fixed idea of some Wikipedia editors, but that people are offended by this in the real world. I promised to change my vote if provided with such a reference. So far nobody has presented such evidence, and I started looking for it myself.
The closest thing I found was a European Union styleguide that instructs to call Ireland Ireland and says: "Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’." [2] This styleguide has been written for a context in which highly formal language with sometimes unusual definitions and conventions is normal, and in which Ireland appears much more often as a state than as an island. So it doesn't completely convince me.
Looking further, I found a few things that I believe are of general interest for clueless outsiders like me and perhaps even a few insiders. I had to quote extensively because the sources are very long documents. Therefore I have collapsed the quotations to save screen space. It begins with the Dáil debates concerning the Republic of Ireland Act. There was also a Seanad debate in December 1948, which was a bit more confused. E.g. Republic of Ireland was sometimes referred to as a "name", and Ireland as a "description".
Dáil protocols 1948 |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Section 2 [of the Republic of Ireland Act] provides: “It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.” [...] Deputies will recall that under the Constitution the name of the State is Éire or, according to Article 4, the name of the State is Éire or, in the English language, Ireland. Now, this section does not purport, as it could not, to repeal the Constitution. There is the name of the State and there is the description of the State. The name of the State is Ireland and the description of the State is the Republic of Ireland. That is the description of its constitutional and international status. Deputies are probably aware of the fact that tremendous confusion has been caused by the use of that word “Éire” in Article 4. By a misuse by malicious people of that word, “Éire”, they have identified it with the Twenty-Six Counties and not with the State that was set up under this Constitution of 1937. In documents of a legal character, such as, for instance, policies of insurance, there is always difficulty in putting in what word one wants to describe the State referred to. Section 2 provides a solution for these difficulties, and those malicious newspapers who want to refer in derogatory tones to this country as “Éire” and who have coined these contemptuous adjectives about it, such as “Eireannish” and “Eirish”, and all the rest of it, will have to conform to the legal direction here in this Bill. Section 2 does these subsidiary things but it does more than that. It does something fundamental. It declares to the world that when this Bill is passed this State is unequivocally a republic. It states that as something that cannot be controverted or argued about and we can rely, I think and I hope, on international courtesy to prevent in future this contemptuous reference to us and the name of our State being used for contemptuous purposes, as it has been, by some people and by some organs in the last few years.
I hope, as I have already said, that we will see the day in which it will be admitted by everybody that the State that we have will be the Republic of Ireland which was proclaimed in 1916, which was ratified by the vote of the people and formally proclaimed by the Dáil on 21st January, 1919, and for which very many lives have been given.
Everybody who has listened to this debate cannot but feel that this is a memorable day in the history of our nation. The expression “The Republic of Ireland” has a far greater historical significance for our people than any language we could utilise here can express.
Section 2 of the Bill makes me suspicious—suspicious that that recourse to the people is being deliberately avoided. The name of our country cannot be changed without altering the Constitution and, therefore, without a referendum; so in the Bill we are to be described as the republic of Ireland. To me that is a quibble, especially—and I say this advisedly—when we look back at the type of thing that was said a few years ago, by those who were then in opposition. When Deputy de Valera was talking about the republic, scorn was poured on him because the word “republic” did not appear in the Constitution. I certainly clearly got the impression that those in opposition firmly believed that we would not be a republic until the word “republic” was in the Constitution. If it was felt essential then that, to make our position clear as a republic, the word should appear in the Constitution, why are those same people now avoiding it? I believe that the answer is that it is felt undesirable that the number of our people who are opposed to this should be clearly known. I admit I may be quite wrong about that, but there is that element of doubt. It is more than probable that my sentiments towards the Crown are not shared by most of the members of this House, but I am sure that many members, and certainly many people in the country, are disturbed by the way this matter is being rushed.
There was one reference in the Taoiseach's speech, however, which caused me personally some concern. The Bill declares that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland and it seemed to us that that was intended to be the formal declaration of Deputies opposite that they had now discovered that to be the case, but the Taoiseach rather suggested that the reason why that section was inserted in the Bill was merely one of convenience, a device to ensure that it would be easy to distinguish between this 26-county State and the whole of Ireland, and thus to avoid the use of the word “Éire” as meaning only this portion of Ireland. I find there an indication of the circumstances which made us hesitate to use in connection with the enactment of the Constitution of 1937 the term “Republic of Ireland”. That name had for us a sentimental connotation. It signified not this 26-county State but the whole of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland, as proclaimed in 1916 and ratified in 1918 by the people, was a 32-county republic and there was a reluctance to use that name in relation to any other State [...]
There was also considerable concern in this debate whether, after Éire had been "degenerated" into a term for the 26 counties, the same might now happen with Republic of Ireland. |
soc.culture.celtic FAQ and Irish FAQ |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is an obsolete part of the soc.culture.celtic FAQ. It used to have an Ireland section, which said: Regularly posters get flamed for calling the Republic of Ireland, Eire or Southern Ireland. This is seen by some as pandering to the British as the British Media insist on using the terms Eire or Southern Ireland, as a way of differentiating between the North (the part inside the UK) and the Republic. If you don't wish to offend use the term Republic of Ireland when refering to the 26 counties. Note that this information seems to pre-date the Good Friday Agreement.
From the Irish FAQ: British people often call the Republic Éire (possibly because it was the word used by the BBC for years) but this is not popular amongst Irish people. The word is grating to many Irish ears when used in English. "Éire" is the name of the state in Irish, "Ireland" is the name in English. The Constitution says as much (but also contains the phrase "We, the people of Éire" in its preamble, arguably a case of mis-translation). Some Irish don't mind the mix and even use it themselves, however if in doubt, you call it "Ireland" if you are speaking English. "Ireland" is ambiguous: it may refer to the island or to the part governed from Dublin. You may want to say "the island of Ireland" to avoid this ambiguity. "The North" and "the South" are often used as shorthand for Northern Ireland and the Republic respectively. [...] Finally, you cannot tell someone's political allegiance reliably from what names they use: these are all generalisations. The safest terms are "Northern Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland". |
Hans Adler 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not agree that the style guide suggests any form of offence, its important for an international organisation to get the name of the state right especially when so many do have "republic of.." as their official titles. Having a note saying never use Republic of Ireland, is just the same in my opinion as having the current intro saying Ireland is the ONLY official name of the state.
- Interesting quotes / info though, is a good insight into it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about the styleguide. That's why I said the closest and why I am not changing my vote yet. I often go against the mainstream here and get attacked with references to WP:NOT#CENSORED because I argue against gratuitously offending significant numbers of readers. But in this case I only found some indications that RoI outside a football is slightly less idiomatic in Ireland than elsewhere, but no indication that it's actually offensive to anybody.
- Except... those in the Dáil who in 1948 were concerned about RoI eventually referring only to 26 counties had a valid point. The state name Ireland still expresses the claim to a united Ireland in a way that RoI probably stopped doing shortly after the RoI Act. But certainly that isn't a valid argument for a naming discussion. Hans Adler 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice research, and informative. It's a pity more editors don't read the sources. Tfz 01:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its ashame those seeking for the status quo to change do not provide external evidence of the dispute / offence Republic of Ireland causes. It would help their case. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nice research, and informative. It's a pity more editors don't read the sources. Tfz 01:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The EU issue makes me laugh actually. Recently, the Irish media triumphantly announced that the EU agriculture bods had declared Ireland free of some goddawful cow-borne disease that can infect humans. This fact somehow made it onto Wikipedia In the News, and surprise surprise, somebody came along to point out that it should be Ireland not Republic of Ireland in the hook. This disease is transmitted by contact, and the Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border is totally open to humans, and escaped cows. I searched and searched the cited links, and the hooked article, and came away none the wiser as to whether the declaration meant the island or the country, and whether the nominator had simply guessed it should be ROI, before the obligatory piping request. There's an example of the logic behind some of these Wikipedia disputes, and how they have zero grounding in actually helping the reader, and are instead all about national pride (even when highlighting your country was recently blighted by a deadly disease!). It would be interesting to see if, in their press release, the EU made any distinction, as we can at least forgive the Irish media their worldview (even though the internet has no borders). MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Lmao @ escaped cows. I would think the EU always only refers to the state when it talks of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
On the issue of the naming, here's some comments I made on Sarah's talk page and on my own:
- I understand that the official name is Eire in Gaelic or Ireland in English by the constitution, but plenty of Irish people, books, newspapers, etc. use Republic of Ireland, and that's how the country is generally known worldwide, not just by we Brits. I did find a letter to a psychiatry journal noting that Eire shouldn't be used in English, and noting disapproval of Irish authors using the name "Republic of Ireland",[7] but they didn't seem offended by the use, rather they were being a stickler for strict accuracy by my reading.
- "The South" and "The North" are colloquialisms, and I've heard that the phrase "Southern Ireland" isn't well accepted, and it's also inaccurate as parts of the Irish state are in Ulster and are more northerly than Northern Ireland... I had a look for recent news coverage using the term "Republic of Ireland", trying to exclude football. See [8]. The British press uses it, such as the BBC, Guardian, Independent, and many US sources use it too. On a quick search, I found a couple of Belfast Telegraph stories - I realise Belfast isn't in the Republic - and a couple of RTE stories. On a search of RTE, again excluding football, there are plenty of stories using "Republic of Ireland":[9]. In contrast, the Irish Times seems to have very few references:[10]
- The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 says the state will be known as the "Republic of Ireland",[11] so it has been an official description and not one that caused any offence at the time, and it certainly wasn't imposed by a British point of view. The difference between a name and a description would seem semantic, and to rest on the fact that the act would have had to be a constitutional amendment to officially change the name. I think there's no dispute that the strict legal name of the state is "Ireland", but Wikipedia goes by the name commonly used internationally and not what a state rules, e.g. see Union of Myanmar.
- There's many hits for "Republic of Ireland" on Irish government sites, see [12].
- The reason it is seen as British POV is that from the '50s, the Irish government wanted to be referred to as "The Government of Ireland", and they wanted the state to be officially referred to as simply "Ireland". The British government refused to play along, presumably due to Unionist sentiments, and consistently referred to them as "Republic of Ireland" or "Irish Republic", which annoyed the Irish. When Ireland was admitted to the UN and the EC, they were admitted as they wished, as "Ireland", but the British government protested. The Irish get their own back by refusing to acknowledge the full official name of the UK as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", preferring to drop the "and Northern Ireland" bit, originally because the Irish state still had territorial claims on that part of Ulster.
- But this bickering between governments is pretty irrelevant to what we should call articles on Wikipedia - we go with the widest recognised usage internationally. I don't much mind whether it is Ireland or Republic of Ireland, but the idea that the usage of Republic of Ireland is universally offensive to the Irish is wrong, especially as many Irish sources use it themselves. Some Irish people don't like it, and that's acknowledged, but we can't please everyone all the time. Fences&Windows 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sour grapes?
To date, six editors have either struck or removed their votes from the poll in order to protest the process:
Sarah, HighKing, and BigDunc provide their rationale here, Tfz, Jack, and Sswonk in their edit summaries. I note that none of them even ranked F, which has been the winner in ever count done so far, whether of all votes or just Irish and British subsets, by Rannpháirtí anaithnid: here, here, and here. So I ask: is it really the process? Srnec (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, maybe we don't care about blocking and censorship - it's all a pretence? Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sour Grapes??? It doesnt smell of sour grapes :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does it smell like then? I removed my vote for the reason given. It's a free world isn't it? Jack forbes (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- This topic really can serve no good. Please don't turn the vote into a competition or a battle. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- My concern is that this vote will not end up being binding for two years, in which case many will have wasted their time. Very little of the discussion that has accompanied this poll has served any good, yet some editors just cannot seem to do anything else. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. It's all been a complete waste of time. Some editors forgot that this vote is only step 1 of a process, but they've decided to not bother with the "compromise" part of the process (which we all discussed in good faith and were still discussing into the middle of June) and try to lock down the status quo. Only problem is, this step isn't a standalone step - it's part of a process, and when the process fails (as it inevitably will now), then we don't get a 2 year lockdown of anything. Perhaps when the dust is settled, one of the editors who switched from pro-compromise to anti-compromise will let us in on whatever brain fart occurred. --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- So what, in your considered opinion, is "pro-compromise" if accepting the preference of the majority of editors is "anti-compromise"? I can only speak for myself, but "F" was my least favoured option. I believe accepting that my preference is not shared by the majority of editors with a modicum of grace and respect is compromise on my part. Is all well and good bandying about such terms, but they do no good whatsoever in actually help us reach a solution. Put up or shut up, HighKing: tell us how we make a better decision, rather than persistently bitching about the ongoing process we agreed on. Rockpocket 00:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. It's all been a complete waste of time. Some editors forgot that this vote is only step 1 of a process, but they've decided to not bother with the "compromise" part of the process (which we all discussed in good faith and were still discussing into the middle of June) and try to lock down the status quo. Only problem is, this step isn't a standalone step - it's part of a process, and when the process fails (as it inevitably will now), then we don't get a 2 year lockdown of anything. Perhaps when the dust is settled, one of the editors who switched from pro-compromise to anti-compromise will let us in on whatever brain fart occurred. --HighKing (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- My concern is that this vote will not end up being binding for two years, in which case many will have wasted their time. Very little of the discussion that has accompanied this poll has served any good, yet some editors just cannot seem to do anything else. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- "I note that none of them even ranked F." It may have been an oversight or I may be misunderstanding what was meant by that statement, but " F " was originally my third choice. Here is my complete voting history, with the original copied directly and the rest dated, with edit summary italicized and diff link provided:
- The discussion process was valuable in determining the course of my voting. The reasons given by me above at the bottom of the "Strike out votes" section are not simply bitterness at the prospect of losing. Similarly, the long history of previous statements by others who have chosen this course have been given here and elsewhere, and are important and valid. The contention that the votes have been stricken or removed is an example of "sour grapes" is: bullshit. Sswonk (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- this is getting very intense and im not quite sure why. We have the separate issue of the recent block incident which i think people from all sides agree originally should not of happened considering people from all sides here (including myself) have been making rather direct comments at times.
- But then we have this attempt to make this vote some how invalid. Now Highking is going around saying that this vote we were having was never meant to decide the outcome of where the articles belong, and that we had some how agreed on a compromise on where the articles would be BEFORE the vote started.. that just does not make sense. We agreed to the vote because we failed to get compromise on the main question of where the articles are meant to be (we agreed to agree a compromise on how to use Ireland in articles or in other titles after this vote), But we started the vote, the ballot clearly states what its for and we have to live with it.
- What exactly are the reasons for this protest? and what are the demands? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I've explained on the IECOLL talk page, the discussion of the process leading up the vote is right in line with what ArbCom directed the project to do. ArbCom knew this would possibly come to a vote, there was general agreement to do a vote (yes, a few outspoken against it), and the process was generally agreed to. There are people treating this like a battleground and are feeling they are "losing", insomuch as that means on WP, and fighting to prevent that. Discussion is fine, but this is turning into a very hostile, uncivil environment. Unfortunately, there's no one finger to point at, so there's no point in bringing admin action to this, but I remind everyone to try to keep a civil mouth. If the type of antics that are going on continue, I will seek an uninvolved admin to get involved. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, those that think they are "winning" should not be rubbing it in others' facing. No single side is necessarily at fault for the current incivilty. --MASEM (t) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, although i think you should get an uninvolved admin to police this place now so its a more calm enviornment. Should take action on future outbursts from anyside so its fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- HighKing says this vote will inevitably fail. All he really means is that this vote will not give him the result he wants. This is the problem. I would love to have an uninvolved admin step in, especially to remove the strikethroughs that you, Masem, are unwilling to remove. In my opinion, quite without justification. The edit summaries and comments elsewhere demonstrate that the strikethroughs are comments on the validity of the process, just as one would expect. This is not the place for such discussion. And the voting page clearly states that the result of the poll will be binding. I repeat: sour grapes! Srnec (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I've explained on the IECOLL talk page, the discussion of the process leading up the vote is right in line with what ArbCom directed the project to do. ArbCom knew this would possibly come to a vote, there was general agreement to do a vote (yes, a few outspoken against it), and the process was generally agreed to. There are people treating this like a battleground and are feeling they are "losing", insomuch as that means on WP, and fighting to prevent that. Discussion is fine, but this is turning into a very hostile, uncivil environment. Unfortunately, there's no one finger to point at, so there's no point in bringing admin action to this, but I remind everyone to try to keep a civil mouth. If the type of antics that are going on continue, I will seek an uninvolved admin to get involved. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Rockpocket, if Option F was your least favourite option, why did you give it any weight at all? That's what helps putting F in the lead. -- Evertype·✆ 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's also my opinion that, however principled their reasons for removing their votes may be, Tfz and BigDunc and Sarah777 and Jack Forbes and HighKing and Sswonk have made a mistake in doing so; their votes for C, D, E, (and even A, B, though maybe not as firsts) are more valuable than their not voting at all. (I am encouraged by what Masem has said recently.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The "poll" on the 'state' part of Ireland has been given over almost exclusively to UK voters, a clear case of GUBU there, and not as promised. On principal I cannot sustain support for a blatant gerrymander. Tfz 11:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was a political stunt which is counter productive, i am sure they will unstrike their comments by the final day if another option is able to beat F. Whilst at the moment it looks like F is going to win, the final round is still far too close for anyone to think this is over yet. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Calling my strike a "political stunt" is absolute fucking bullshit!!! WTF???? Will someone please!!!! put an end to this constant sniping and point-scoring. That comment goes against AGF, is an ad hominen attack, and is trying to politicize my action. It is grossly grossly unfair. This sort of bullying *must* be stopped, dead, in it's tracks. --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- To avoid accusations of violating WP:NPA, I'll be oblique in seconding your comment here. Suppose there is a hypothetical group, let's call them "some editors". When some editors ask questions about why others don't support option " F " and then are given reasons, they simply respond "I haven't seen any valid reasons" that aren't about "so-called British POV". Day after day. As if no reasons have been given. Not on the position statements pages, not in the replies given, ever. I guess you and I must be seing things. It appears we are also hallucinating when it comes to reasons for striking or removing votes. My reasons given above, the conversations on Sarah's talk page, conversations about the Mooretwin proposal, nowhere are irregularities listed. Some editors have the remarkable ability to blot out the hallucinations we are suffering, and we should turn ourselves in to the Thought Police and confess our sins, I imagine. For now, rather than kneel before the telescreen and confess love of our leader, I'll just note that for whatever reason I can't shake these awful hallucinations we share. Sswonk (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- What else do you want me to call it? This protest is a political stunt, i refuse to take back that comment. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- You could try not calling it anything. Why people withdraw their votes is entirely up to them. As for me, there was nothing political about it. Believe that or not, but you shouldn't be shouting your opinion on it here. Jack forbes (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- @BW. It is an ad homenin attack. Masem should be more on the prowl. Tfz 12:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- People are free to strike out their votes if they wish, im not saying every single person that strikes out their vote is making a political stunt, however some of the edit summaries of those strike out clearly show theres a political motive behind it. Yes Jack it is my opinion, and i think i have a right to say that here just as some people had a right to say what they said in those edit summaries. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- And all it does is make this place a bigger battleground than it already was. Here's an idea. Why not have everybody take 24 hours away from this talk page and then maybe things will calm down a little. Very optimistic I know, but it's better than this constant sniping. Jack forbes (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is a good idea yes, and its why id like to see Masem get an uninvolved admin to come here and police they place to ensure we dont step over the line and get back into the fight. Would also be alot more productive to try and sort the other things out on the collab page, where actions have an impact on things, we cant change this vote now its started. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we need to get our heads out of this. If chill time will do it, then chill time I'm all in favour of. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea. Give people some space, time to think, chill. OK. --HighKing (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- And all it does is make this place a bigger battleground than it already was. Here's an idea. Why not have everybody take 24 hours away from this talk page and then maybe things will calm down a little. Very optimistic I know, but it's better than this constant sniping. Jack forbes (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- People are free to strike out their votes if they wish, im not saying every single person that strikes out their vote is making a political stunt, however some of the edit summaries of those strike out clearly show theres a political motive behind it. Yes Jack it is my opinion, and i think i have a right to say that here just as some people had a right to say what they said in those edit summaries. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- @BW. It is an ad homenin attack. Masem should be more on the prowl. Tfz 12:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- You could try not calling it anything. Why people withdraw their votes is entirely up to them. As for me, there was nothing political about it. Believe that or not, but you shouldn't be shouting your opinion on it here. Jack forbes (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Calling my strike a "political stunt" is absolute fucking bullshit!!! WTF???? Will someone please!!!! put an end to this constant sniping and point-scoring. That comment goes against AGF, is an ad hominen attack, and is trying to politicize my action. It is grossly grossly unfair. This sort of bullying *must* be stopped, dead, in it's tracks. --HighKing (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- It remains my opinion that, however principled their reasons for removing their votes may be, Tfz and BigDunc and Sarah777 and Jack Forbes and HighKing and Sswonk have made a mistake in doing so; their votes for C, D, E, (and even A, B, though maybe not as firsts) are more valuable than their not voting at all. Self-disenfranchisement simply gives power to others. Your voices should be heard. -- Evertype·✆ 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
All those in favour of a 24hr rest period from this talk page (battleground) please sign below
- Jack forbes (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- (struck out battleground) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- ClemMcGann (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sswonk (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC) One polite response to Hans below and then I'm done until Friday
- Good idea. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Better late than never, Hans added some interesting input. Tfz 15:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good Lord YES!!!! Sarah777 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try, but I'm usually quite gabby. --GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sustainability
The point, surely is that options A, B and F are the contentious ones that are likely to perpetuate conflict. The way in which the options are presented fail to make uninvolved editors aware of the some of the issues around this. Add to that an involved admin banning an editor from the other side (sorry DrK but I think that was plain wrong). In retrospect a parallel "most disliked" poll might also have been informative. I'd also say that I saw no attempt at moderation of the subject, just a move to a vote. --Snowded TALK 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The introduction clearly points out the status quo has caused problems over the years, that is why we are having a poll on it. People are urged to read the position statements, some of which detail this problem. Although i notice none provide any details as to WHY the term Republic of Ireland is so offensive and how many are offended in the real world.
- Several months ago i supported a compromise to choose option D, i also on several occasions said we should avoid the two problematic options (B + F and later A which was added) but that time has been and gone. No compromise could be reached, we could hardly have a poll on the Ireland article names and not include the status quo. As for the system, this STV means people are able to rank their preferences and put F as their least favourite option or not include it at all. This system is far harder for F to win than if we would have used First past the post for example.
- On the issue of the previous ban, it is hardly a major incident that has a radical impact on the poll. People from all sides agree it was unfair for one editor to be blocked for 24 hours whilst there had been many comments on this page that could merit warning, but she is here now and able to "contribute" as usual.
- Whilst at the moment it looks like F is doing well, if that was not the case i would not be trying to make out like this poll is somehow invalid or needs rejecting. I was concerned about many things before the poll started, wanting further clearly presented detail of the pros and cons added to the ballot page but that proved to be impossible. The collaboration project supported this process, voters of F were not the only ones pushing us to start the vote (I was delaying right up until the night the poll opened), we must all live with the outcome of this vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- To repeat once more:
- I did not say that I - or anyone else - found the term "Republic of Ireland" offensive - nor did I say otherwise. To name that state "Ireland" comes from the Irish law. To name (not describe) the state "Republic of Ireland" comes from British Law. I am attempting to explain why it could be said that to use "Ireland" is Irish POV and to use "Republic of Ireland" is British POV. ClemMcGann (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that those from the Republic of Ireland who want to have their country have the prime spot could be considered as supporting their countries own POV as it seeks to undermine the island of Ireland. I dont make that claim, all im saying is some may consider / look at it that way. However i totally reject this idea that ROI is British POV or in some way offensive (which some have claimed). No evidence has been provided to show Irish people are offended by it, the evidence all goes against this claim because it is used by the Irish government, Irish parliament members, Irish media, Irish football team and ofcourse the term was created by the Irish government. One point that i will accept, is that if we were trying to make people think ROI was the title of the country before the belfast agreement then yes that would be pushing British POV. But we are not trying to mislead people about the country name, it is very very clear in the first paragraph of the introduction (if people read it) that the title of the country is Ireland, and ROI is just a description uses because Ireland is ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I guess if somebody says "it offends me" you have to take them at their word. It doesn't have to be the case that everybody is offended, you know. Surely you understand that people have feelings about their country, and about its history, and about its recent and not-so-recent history in relation to another country. The "total rejection" that you offer is counter-productive in terms of this Collaborative project. -- Evertype·✆ 14:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- To call the state "Republic of Ireland" comes from common practice, originating in Irish legislation. In the same way, to call the state "Ireland" comes from common practice, also originating in Irish legislation. This is not a legal encyclopedia, it is a general one. Irish or UK law does not dictate what we call one thing or another. And merely a clutch of states are located at titles dictated by legislation in whatever jurisdiction one editor or another may favour or despise. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you that those from the Republic of Ireland who want to have their country have the prime spot could be considered as supporting their countries own POV as it seeks to undermine the island of Ireland. I dont make that claim, all im saying is some may consider / look at it that way. However i totally reject this idea that ROI is British POV or in some way offensive (which some have claimed). No evidence has been provided to show Irish people are offended by it, the evidence all goes against this claim because it is used by the Irish government, Irish parliament members, Irish media, Irish football team and ofcourse the term was created by the Irish government. One point that i will accept, is that if we were trying to make people think ROI was the title of the country before the belfast agreement then yes that would be pushing British POV. But we are not trying to mislead people about the country name, it is very very clear in the first paragraph of the introduction (if people read it) that the title of the country is Ireland, and ROI is just a description uses because Ireland is ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- "The issues around this" are discussed on the position statement's page and above on this page. Uninvolved editors are voting for "F" because, from what they have said, they are unconvinced by arguments for other options and convinced are by argument for it. What the poor judgement of DrKiernan has to do with an argument to or for a title for the ROI article, I don't know. It looks like mud-slinging to me.
- "The point, surely is that options A, B and F are the contentious ones that are likely to perpetuate conflict." It's arguments such as that that they find particularly unconvincing to them from what I understand. As things stand nearly 50% of people rank "F" as their first preference (out of a field of six options). After transfers, it's one-and-a-half times more popular that the second-place option ("E"). Trying to pass it off as contentious is disingenuous. All of the options are contentious for one reason or another. And all are valid or one reason or another. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is one uninvolved editor (hmm, am I still allowed to call myself that?) who is slowly beginning to make sense of the situation. If I am allowed to take up so much space again:
- In the Republic of Ireland, the term Republic of Ireland is only used for disambiguation purposes, and in situations where people can guess what is meant Ireland seems to be preferred.
- Outside Ireland, the term Republic of Ireland is quite generally used as if it was the official name of the state, and Ireland is used as a convenient shorthand for that. This is a misunderstanding based in part on analogy with a large number of other countries which did not have a slow phase-out of a monarch in their history.
- Any offence caused by this is initially not nationalist but simply the kind of pedantry that makes almost all of us have a strong opinion (one way or the other) about minor details such as serial commas or split infinitives.
- Since there is a widespread misconception about the country's name, the article should set it right. It currently tries to do so at the end of the first paragraph, but that is not effective because what sticks in people's minds is the article title.
- The misconception could be set right in the first sentence, but that would be undue weight to what is really just a very minor aspect of a large country inhabited by many people, with a long history etc. Starting this article with a discussion of the name is like starting an article on Shakespeare with a discussion of his use of the split infinitive. (By the way, the etymology also has extreme undue weight. That's a problem in many Wikipedia article and unfortunately sanctioned by MOS.)
- The most elegant way to solve the problem is to rename the article to Ireland (some disambiguator).
- All of this is very hard to see when you come to the poll with no prior knowledge of the situation. Renaming Republic of Ireland makes the article slightly better and the disambiguation structure slightly worse. By focusing on the disambiguation structure and ignoring the content of the article Republic of Ireland, the poll favours the status quo.
- The discussions here, and in particular the red herrings concerning nationalism or national POVs, did not help to explain the issues to the uninvolved voters and make them consider the article as well as the overall structure.
All things considered, I think I am going to switch my vote (after sleeping over it once) and support renaming the article, although I am not at all happy with (state) since there are many "countries" such as the US which consist of "states" and I know only one "state" (the UK, obviously relevant here) which consists of "countries". I would prefer Ireland (republic), since that is even more effective in marking the difference to both the island and Northern Ireland and moreover seems to draw special attention to the title. But this is really just a minor point.
Sswonk above has accused me of simply following the decision tree and ignoring common sense. That would have been very atypical for me. What happened was that I didn't have the necessary information to even get to the common sense argument that trumps the decision tree, and nobody volunteered the information in a form that I could understand. Hans Adler 13:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't given this section an entire analysis yet, and have signed up to chill for 24 hours, but since your conclusion mentions me: just because I suggested following common sense doesn't mean I "accuse" you of anything. It's a summary statement of belief I made, not an accusation or disparagement by any means. That is all, see you tomorrow. Sswonk (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That might be the coolest-headed summary of the situation I have ever heard (I don't there there is even a person on the "anti-ROI" side that could sum it up better). Although, I would say that the article does kicks off with "Ireland is a country in Europe..." (as well as the usual info boxen). I personally thing that "Ireland (Republic of)" is the elegant of all compromises (although it doesn't fit with MOS), though all of these alternatives got shot down in a preliminary vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ireland (xxxx) is the only proper way for the encyclopedia to go with disambiguation. RoI, not being the proper title, is non-informative, and does not deliver the goods as far as education is concerned, and causes even more confusion. It's near impossible to understand the concept of RoI unless Ireland (state), whatever, is first understood. Hans Adler has hit on some very important points. Tfz 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's very thoughtful Hans, and probably the best argument I've yet seen for a move. That being said, I'm not convinced, largely because of this: Since there is a widespread misconception about the country's name, the article should set it right. It currently tries to do so at the end of the first paragraph, but that is not effective because what sticks in people's minds is the article title. I don't find this part particularly convincing. How do you know what "sticks in people's minds"? The infobox says "Ireland." The first line of the article says "Ireland." The use of "Republic of Ireland" is explained in the first paragraph, and there's a whole section on the name. Obviously, people can be careless and get the wrong impresion. But when people are careless they can always get the wrong impression. TfZ's point above seems incoherent to me - just because "Republic of Ireland" is not the name of the state does not mean its use is "non-informative" or that it causes more confusion. I don't understand the second to last sentence at all. What is there to understand about "the concept of RoI"? Is it even a concept? It's a disambiguating term. john k (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, RoI is a concept. No if I refer to you as John, will other editors know who I am referring to, as there is another admin called John. Some editors will catch on to my mistake, but many will not. Therefore it is important to use proper names at all times. Tfz 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be an argument for unambiguous names at all times, not official names, which doesn't seem to support your point. And even that makes little sense. How on earth is calling me "John" a mistake? It's my name. You are right about official names at all times. If my mom ever calls me "Johnny," I indicate to her that my official legal name, as registered on my birth certificate, passport, and social security card, is "John Lowenstein Kenney," and request that she call me that at all times. Perhaps I've been looking at this all in the wrong way. john k (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Gets a bit confusing, doesn't it? Think you missed my input about the "Wikipedian-disambiguation-handle" being bracketed. Tfz 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be an argument for unambiguous names at all times, not official names, which doesn't seem to support your point. And even that makes little sense. How on earth is calling me "John" a mistake? It's my name. You are right about official names at all times. If my mom ever calls me "Johnny," I indicate to her that my official legal name, as registered on my birth certificate, passport, and social security card, is "John Lowenstein Kenney," and request that she call me that at all times. Perhaps I've been looking at this all in the wrong way. john k (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, RoI is a concept. No if I refer to you as John, will other editors know who I am referring to, as there is another admin called John. Some editors will catch on to my mistake, but many will not. Therefore it is important to use proper names at all times. Tfz 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Just one minor point of clarification. I think the international confusion is not so much because of the different way in which Ireland remove the monarchy but primarily because Ireland is one of the very few countries where the "short form" is the official name rather than the long form. Most countries have an official name in a form that says what the country is - e.g. "Federal Republic of Germany", "Republic of South Africa", "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan", "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", "Commonwealth of Australia", "Argentine Republic" or "United Mexican States". Only a few have the official name in short form - off the top of my head New Zealand and Canada are the only other ones I can think of (Canada phased out most use of the term "Dominion of Canada" in the second half of the twentieth century). Hence people assume Ireland conforms to this trend. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just would like to suggest that if you want to make statistical statements like this ("very few countries use the short form") then you should back that up with references. Unfortunately it would take some time as [3166] just gives the short names. -- Evertype·✆ 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- We already have a good source as far as the EU is concerned. It turns out that Romania is the only other EU country with a short official name. [23] Hans Adler 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- The following countries have a form which says nothing about their form of government, as per List of sovereign states: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Canada, Georgia, Grenada, Ireland, Jamaica, Malaysia, Mongolia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, and Ukraine. As can be seen, of the 21, over half (11) are commonwealth realms. Also, besides Ireland, only Georgia is ambiguous. john k (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just would like to suggest that if you want to make statistical statements like this ("very few countries use the short form") then you should back that up with references. Unfortunately it would take some time as [3166] just gives the short names. -- Evertype·✆ 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I really need to take issue with Hans on another point. When he says "The most elegant way to solve the problem is to rename the article to Ireland (some disambiguator)", I really think he is totally wrong. The use of parentheses, whilst widespread across the encyclopedia, is anything but elegant. In fact I believe they are unbelieveably ugly. They are a simple, inelegant, geeky solution to a technical restriction of the mediawiki software used to manage the encyclopedia. For me, any solution that avoids their usage is preferable. Fmph (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This. My basic feeling is that it is long past due that wiki software can give us multiple articles with the same title. That would avoid the whole problem by allowing us to have Ireland and Ireland both at the the same title. john k (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Could have Ireland. -- and why not. By special arrangment with Arbcom support. 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- With a period? That's really awful. john k (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- An 'iota' is a small price to pay for peace. What price do you think we should pay? Tfz 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Grrrr i been trying very very hard not to comment for the day in line with the 24 hour break, but just a very quick point on the dot thing. Arguements would start over which article has to have the "." the island or the Country? anyway hopefully last comment by me here for the day. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes me too, but couldn't have missed that intriguing suggestion by john. Tfz 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Grrrr i been trying very very hard not to comment for the day in line with the 24 hour break, but just a very quick point on the dot thing. Arguements would start over which article has to have the "." the island or the Country? anyway hopefully last comment by me here for the day. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- A disambiguator shouldn't be completely random. How does Ireland. indicate that we are referring to the state? john k (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Actually mediawiki already HAS the ability to differentiate by initial case, so Bath/bath and Cork/cork are both possible, but Wikipedia has chosen not to implement it. Fmph (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This would be useful for those cases, although not so much for this one. But what I really think should be done is to have a system where the url for linking and such is at Ireland (state), but this displays at the top of the page as Ireland. This would allow a lot of much more elegant solutions to disambiguation, in that we could have the working title be something which is always consistent and parenthetical, and the display title could always be the most common name. Nobody seems interested in actually doing this, though. john k (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mediawiki (more precisely Template:DISPLAYTITLE) can do this, but the function doing it has been artificially restricted so that it only works if the displayed title is such that when you paste it into the URL bar you get the same article. Essentially this means that the only additional option we get from this feature is "Republic of Ireland". That would certainly be an eye-catcher. Hans Adler 19:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think that's a good idea. Personally, I think this artificial restriction should be removed, and it should become commonplace for the display title and the actual title to be different, but obviously this would be a project-wide decision which would have a lot of ramifications. It'd sure resolve a lot of problems here, though. john k (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Mediawiki (more precisely Template:DISPLAYTITLE) can do this, but the function doing it has been artificially restricted so that it only works if the displayed title is such that when you paste it into the URL bar you get the same article. Essentially this means that the only additional option we get from this feature is "Republic of Ireland". That would certainly be an eye-catcher. Hans Adler 19:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This would be useful for those cases, although not so much for this one. But what I really think should be done is to have a system where the url for linking and such is at Ireland (state), but this displays at the top of the page as Ireland. This would allow a lot of much more elegant solutions to disambiguation, in that we could have the working title be something which is always consistent and parenthetical, and the display title could always be the most common name. Nobody seems interested in actually doing this, though. john k (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- An 'iota' is a small price to pay for peace. What price do you think we should pay? Tfz 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- With a period? That's really awful. john k (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Could have Ireland. -- and why not. By special arrangment with Arbcom support. 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fmph, I totally agree with you that Ireland (some disambiguator) is inelegant and in fact ugly. That's exactly why I opposed it initially. But once I saw it from the other angle, I realised that if we accept this ugliness it gives us a very elegant solution to the problem of saying clearly enough but without undue weight how Ireland, the country, should normally be referred to. If there is another solution to that problem, I guess it's even more ugly. And I am in favour of addressing the problem. So it's really a trade-off. Hans Adler 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This. My basic feeling is that it is long past due that wiki software can give us multiple articles with the same title. That would avoid the whole problem by allowing us to have Ireland and Ireland both at the the same title. john k (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably a stupid idea
Using the DISPLAYTITLE function, we can make the title of Republic of Ireland display as follows:
- "Republic of Ireland".
I have tested it on the page, and you can see the effect here. If we do this, MOS will probably be updated to forbid it, but still... I just wanted to mention the possibility as one thing to think about during the cooling-down break, which I also intend to observe now. Hans Adler 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: Now this is really stupid, but technically possible is also the following:
- "
Republic ofIreland".
- "
I just tested it with the preview function. (Didn't want to deface the article in this way, not even for a minute.) Hans Adler 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Does Republic of Ireland work? woops broke the break rule again lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. Here it is: [24]. Hans Adler 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm if the outcome is the status quo id support that, doesnt make a huge difference but just another way to help highlight Ireland in ROI incase a few fail to read the first paragraph and just go on article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's technically possible to have the title just display "Ireland". All you have to put is {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span>Ireland}}. Some devs might come around and kill people for the hack, but like I say, it's entirely possible, and of course it could be done in other ways, as it's possible to hide anything in the same fashion. For example, we could do {{DISPLAYTITLE:Ireland <span style = "display:none">(state)</span>}} and so on. I think you get the idea. Cool3 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Tried {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span>Ireland}}, and it didn't work for me. Maybe someone else test it out. Tfz 06:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Technical solution to a cultural/political problem
We are at loggerheads here because a technical limitation of the Mediawiki software used to manage WP means we cannot have 2 artickes with the same title. Given that we cannot find consensus other than the somewhat unsatisfactory status quo, is it possible that we might be able to find a technical solution to the problem? The technical problem as I see it is that every article in WP must have a unique Title. The Title is the form of words which appears at the top of each article, below the tabs and any hatnotes and above the words "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". It also appears in the title bar of most (all?) browsers. In mine it would say "Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Mozilla Firefox" on the Ireland article.
So the title "Ireland" must be unique within the WP database - as it is currently constructed. This uniqueness is case-sensitive, so IRELAND would be unique from say Ireland. That's not a proposal BTW. There was a limitation within the software that enforced this uniqueness everywhere except the initial letter, i.e. eBay and EBay are the same article.
We know that there is a function available on the software which allows uniqueness including initial letter case uniqueness, but actually WP have chosen not to implement it here, for some reason. What if there were another technical solution to the duplicate article title issue? Suppose we could have 2 Ireland articles, one about the island and the other about the state? Would such a solution gain a consensus?
I don't imagine it would be simple, and I do imagine it might require lots of piping and/or templating within content, but if it were technically possible to do, would the community embrace it as a solution to this issue?
- Well i do not know how case sensitivity can be used to disam the two articles, even if it did not force the first letter to be a capital, the island of Ireland has a capital I like the state and it would be very random depending how people enter the term into the search option where they end up. The suggestion of trying to change the main title on the page to Republic of Ireland seems like a good idea and worth doing to help further point out the ROI isnt the official name of the state. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Citizendium http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Ireland_(disambiguation) , don't have Wikipedia's problems, though I do think that Ireland, as is now at WP should remain the wp:primary topic. Tfz 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, I would support this as a general change in how titling articles on Wikipedia works. It seems like doing it to only one article might create problems in terms of confusing people. But I'd certainly be open to the possibility, if it could be done. I will say that I would rather have Ireland (state) than Ireland (ctrl-click)">Ireland (ctrl-click)">Republic of '''Ireland'''. john k (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes i wouldnt like the link like that and would prerer (state), but having the title of the article appear in the way shown in the section above wouldnt seem that out of place and might be useful. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Limited Options
I am sure that this was discussed earlier but I haven't been following the preliminary discussions closely enough. Still the question of how to properly divide the content between articles and how to disambiguate the article on the modern sovereign state (assuming it is not the primary topic) are at least potentially separate. In particular, I feel quite strongly that the official, self-selected description "Republic of Ireland" should be used in preference to a parenthetical disambiguator, but don't really consider the island the primary topic as it is define on Wikipedia. Thus F is my first choice, but I'd prefer E or C if they used RoI instead of Ireland (state). When this is discussed again in two years, I think that a more widely publicized debate on that issue would be a good idea. Having reviewed this talk page, I realize that this wouldn't assuage the concerns of those editors who object to RoI as unacceptable British POV, but no sollution will satisfy everyone. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would go with C as my first preference; but accepted alternatives as a compromise. Dismissing concerns of "some" editors is all fine and dandy until you consider that those "some" who object object to British pov beong imposed on the Ireland article actually represent a clear majority of Irish editors. F is not a sustainable option. Sarah777 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO, there was enough options to choose from. PS: my 24hr break ends. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Eluchil404, this should certainly be looked at again in 2 years time no matter which option is chosen this time. Without going over old ground there was agreement we didnt want too many options on the poll and at the time the options were being added i do not recall anyone pushing for other options with ROI on the ballot. Infact some of those who oppose the status quo seem to think that should not of been an option on here either. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- As R.A.'s tally shows, Sarah, a clear majority of Irish editors actually favour F. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- But then I reckon that while folk like J Kenny insist on making poisonous statements like "Sarah's whole argument here has been "British people are racist against the Irish and they use 'Republic of Ireland,'" without a shred of evidence to support it and then goes on to suggest that Irish editors be banned while he can continue to spout gibberish unchallanged we are going nowhere.
- I would seriously suggest Kenny recuse himself from this process before he does any more damage. DrKiernan set a good example which Kenny might emulate. Kenny also said, without sanction or referral to anywhere "it seems to me that Sarah should probably be banned from this page for making "anti-British remarks," since virtually all of her comments qualify as such." So, analysis voting patterns and pointing out the obvious are "anti-British remarks"? The legitimate view that "RoI" is a diminutive title for Ireland which is maintained by weight of non-Irish votes, though factual, is "anti-British"?
- While this sort of intimidation of Irish editors is on-going (sporadically supported by Admin actions and threats) - we have no process. Bastun: it certainly does not. I ceased to tally the votes when this process was effectively dissolved - at that stage F was the least favoured option among Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way my silence since the bad block was while I tried to get officialdom to deal with personal attacks on me by Kenny, Egan and others. It appears that their language is OK; so I am now free to respond in kind. I'd be inclined to agree with Bastun that we should have some rules - but I sure ain't agree to rules that silence just one half of the debate. Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- So its back to the enviornment we had a few days ago with certain editors making grossly misleading claims. Welcome back Sarah. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You could at least spell my name correctly. And how on earth am I intimidating anybody? john k (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You threatened to block me when I removed your vile personal attack. In the edit comment I think. Notice how many Irish editor's have left the building in my absence? Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did not threaten to block you, and I certainly never had any thought that I might conceivably block you. You had said that you would remove any statements I made because I was making personal attacks on you, and proceeded to remove a comment I had made. My statement was basically an observation - if you had carried out that threat to remove any statements I added to the talk page, I suspect you would have been blocked. But I was certainly not threatening to block you. john k (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not only is the process not "dissolved", but RA's tallies - and Valenciano's - have been ongoing from pretty much the start, and consistently show that F is the preferred option of non-Irish/non-British voters, and of British voters, and of Irish voters.[26][27][28] BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. Nul points. Wrong. RA includes British editors in his "analysis". And I don't really want to expand this argument to the J Kennies but I refer you to my explanations of systematic pov problems on "List of events called Massacres". (Previously called "List of Massacres"). Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- No true Irishman? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. Nul points. Wrong. RA includes British editors in his "analysis". And I don't really want to expand this argument to the J Kennies but I refer you to my explanations of systematic pov problems on "List of events called Massacres". (Previously called "List of Massacres"). Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You threatened to block me when I removed your vile personal attack. In the edit comment I think. Notice how many Irish editor's have left the building in my absence? Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the way my silence since the bad block was while I tried to get officialdom to deal with personal attacks on me by Kenny, Egan and others. It appears that their language is OK; so I am now free to respond in kind. I'd be inclined to agree with Bastun that we should have some rules - but I sure ain't agree to rules that silence just one half of the debate. Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Stalking?
I note that J Kenney has now followed me to Earl of Mayo and List of events named massacres having earlier followed my edit log to Shrule. Some irony here; he was demanding evidence that the name "RoI" was leading to disruption or "collateral edit warring"; now is is personally providing the proof! Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- umm maybe im missing something? The edit history of Earl of Mayo says..
- 00:34, 13 August 2009 John Kenney
- 09:24, 13 August 2009 Sarah777
- The talk page history of List of Events...
- 23:04, 14 August 2009 John Kenney
- 23:37, 14 August 2009 Sarah777
- How did he follow you there? Am i reading these things wrong???BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as usual, you are. The migration of Kenney to "List of Massacres" followed me mentioning it on my talkpage; the Mayo edit warring followed his arriving at Shrule. Now BW, why don't you hop off back to the defence of British pov you are currently conducting at Talk:British Isles? (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, where you told him to look so thats hardly "stalking". Still two of those articles he edited or posted on the talk page before you. Thats very good stalking. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't tell him to look anywhere. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Y'know BW, if you were half as smart as you think you are you'd be a bloody genius. And if you were twice as smart as you really are I could call you "Rover" and teach you to do tricks. Sarah777 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- "See the talk on List of events called massacres." you said that on the Shrule talk page. Sounds like an invite to me. As for the British Isles, i will happily comment in both places. We should not forget that you have tried to rename the British Isles article on atleast 2 occasions because you reject the name, hmm you are pushing for a name change here too :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- How nice BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies. It wasn't meant to be "nice"; just evaluative. And I think you'll find I was addressing MrDowney when I referred to massacres. Kenney was not involved. Except he went off to do a bit of stalking. Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well it looks like ur comment was responding to him on the talk page. It was certainly AFTER hed made a post. I understand that after being reasonable in responding to that other matter (which i respect you for) you are now having to make up for lost time. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uhoh, Masems posted on a noticeboard about this talk page... i think its time me and you went to bed Sarah (not together ofcourse). BritishWatcher (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well it looks like ur comment was responding to him on the talk page. It was certainly AFTER hed made a post. I understand that after being reasonable in responding to that other matter (which i respect you for) you are now having to make up for lost time. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies. It wasn't meant to be "nice"; just evaluative. And I think you'll find I was addressing MrDowney when I referred to massacres. Kenney was not involved. Except he went off to do a bit of stalking. Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- How nice BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't tell him to look anywhere. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yes, where you told him to look so thats hardly "stalking". Still two of those articles he edited or posted on the talk page before you. Thats very good stalking. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Okay, firstly, I did follow Sarah to Shrule, but not from her edit history. I was reading her talk page because she was threatening to get someone to block me, and I was interested in seeing if anyone had responded to you there. I came across the Shrule issue there. I was interested in looking at the article, to see what the dispute was. I did some research on the subject, and posted it on the talk page with lengthy quotes from secondary sources, for the hopeful improvement of the article. I did not edit the article, nor did I change any of Sarah's work there, as I figured that might be inflammatory, given that we haven't built up a good working relationship, to say the least. While looking into the Shrule situation, I noticed that a Viscount Mayo was involved. I looked at the Earl of Mayo page to see if we had an article about this particularly Viscount. We did not, but I also discovered that the article was oddly formatted, and didn't include dates for several viscounts. So I changed that. Sarah followed me there and reverted me, on the pretext of removing red links (which were completely valid in that instance, since all of the viscounts and most to all of the earls are plausible subjects for having their own articles). She also posted at Talk:Shrule with what I took to be a suggestion that I look at List of events called massacres. I looked at that, and found the introduction to be horribly written, which I commented on at the talk page. I don't see how I've done anything wrong here, certainly nothing to justify a claim that I am "stalking" her. john k (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK John. I withdraw the "stalking" claim. Your explanations seem reasonable and I've made my WP:POINTY. I'm sorry you didn't withdraw your dissing of my edit record or your "poisonous" claim - but such is life. I still don't see how you justify the Earl of Mayo redlinks mind. Also apologise to BW. And Evertype. Though I'm not exactly happy about the things they said. 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Country vs. State
Options C,D, and E all provide for naming an article Ireland (state). This may well have been discussed, if so please just point me in that direction, but why has the decision been made to use "state" rather than "country". A state is a political entity, thus in such an article one would expect to see articles on political and institutional arrangements. The article in question refers to much more than the political encompassing the cultural, economic, etc. As such, it is an article not about a state but about a country. I would further point out that at the moment the note at the top of Ireland reads "For the sovereign country named 'Ireland', see Republic of Ireland." So I ask, why use state when country is a better term? Cool3 (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, for I proposed 'sovereign country' and didn't get the support to carry it through, and it's already used to describe the country, from your quote, "For the sovereign country named 'Ireland', see Republic of Ireland.". Agree, 'state' is a thin/shallow to describe the entirety of the country, ancient and modern. Tfz 05:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Prior to this poll, there was an internal poll at the IECOLL project to try to decide what options for disamb terms should be present (state, country, etc.), as each term would have added at least 3 options to this (so if we had "state" and "country" that would have 9 total options on this poll) so we wanted to minimize the number used. In that poll, "state" ran away with that vote, and thus was the only clear option to include. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- But it was not an internal poll, it was advertised in almost all the places and to the same people this main poll was. State had a strong lead, im not sure why (country) didnt do so well. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Prior to this poll, there was an internal poll at the IECOLL project to try to decide what options for disamb terms should be present (state, country, etc.), as each term would have added at least 3 options to this (so if we had "state" and "country" that would have 9 total options on this poll) so we wanted to minimize the number used. In that poll, "state" ran away with that vote, and thus was the only clear option to include. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The current Ireland article is about the country of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland article is about the modern state that covers about five sixths of the country, and that may or may not still be here in thirty years. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ohh yes that was the thing, some viewed the term country as meaning the whole island rather than the current sovereign state, something i never quite understood, but i seem to recall several people having those concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see, that at least sort of makes sense. The political scientist in me shudders, but the historian understands. Cool3 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- What does the geographer, sociologist, cultural studies, sportsman, artist/author, theologian, tourist, etc. in you think? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see, that at least sort of makes sense. The political scientist in me shudders, but the historian understands. Cool3 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ohh yes that was the thing, some viewed the term country as meaning the whole island rather than the current sovereign state, something i never quite understood, but i seem to recall several people having those concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a good place to respond to Tfz [29]; the Village Pump certainly isn't. My concern is that Ireland referring to the island or the state according to context is one thing, but if we set things up so that the sovereign state is the primary topic and the island secondary, I would expect serious conflict with some people from Northern Ireland, and I wouldn't blame them for that. If the European Union renamed itself to just Europe, I would similarly argue against putting it into the primary position for this name, out of respect for Swiss and Norwegian people. If I am wrong about this and it's uncontroversial to see Northern Ireland as somehow a part of the Republic of Ireland, then I will happily change my vote again and put option B first. Hans Adler 20:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed there is no way the sovereign state should have the prime spot, i feel far more strongly about that than the article titles issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Solution Found
[30]
Thanks to the expertise of user:Cool3, a solution has been found to the disambiguation conundrum, and here it is [31]. A piece of technology has made it possible to give both entities their proper title. Tfz 08:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- How is that being done? Definitely worth exploring. (Note, I'm seeing a 'nowiki' html code on the first line there). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- The code used is
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span> Ireland}}
- in other words, it suppresses the "Republic of" from public view.
- The code used is
- The problem with this solution is its effect on search and links. Readers unfamiliar to this discussion may well come to this article and assume that if they type Ireland in the search bar, they will come to this article - and will then be surprised to find themselves at a completely different one. Editors may assume that if they type the title of this article into their pipelink, they will actually get to this article. Neither assumption is unreasonable, but both would be wrong.
- Because of this, I think this solution considers the editors over the readers. The fact that editors cannot agree on a title is made more important than the potential for confusion of having two articles at (ostensibly) exactly the same title. Having an article that is difficult to find is not much better than not having an article at all. Pfainuk talk 10:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Surely your concern about editors typing the title of this article into their pipelink is an instance of considering editors over readers, as well? At any rate, I agree that it would be highly problematic to do this for this article alone, but I think it would be a fine thing to institute a general rule to allow it. john k (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Granted, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that this solution considers the editors involved in debating the Ireland naming issue over both readers and non-involved editors. My point is that such a system is likely to cause a lot of confusion, without any great benefit. Most readers, I would expect, do not care strongly whether the article on the Irish state is at Republic of Ireland, Ireland or Ireland (state). Neither do most editors. I would note that the advantage of a word in brackets as a disambiguator is that it is clear to everyone that it is a disambiguator - that's why E is my preferred solution to this. Pfainuk talk 13:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Pfainuk, to have two articles with identical titles may cause some confusion to readers. Im not against the idea and it may resolve part of the problem but would be too disruptive if this wasnt implemented on a far larger scale with more articles.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the opposite side to Pfainuk's argument is that most readers looking for the article named Ireland are in fact looking for the state, and they get the island. So why so important to one issue, and not to another! Tfz 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reasonably simple: I put it that way around because the example noted at the beginning of this thread suppresses the "Republic of" in "Republic of Ireland". Ireland is already the article on the island, so if a user types Ireland in the search box, they get the article on the island. If the articles are moved, details change - but the fundamental point is identical. If the state ends up at Ireland, people reading the article on the island will now be misled into thinking that that is the article at Ireland. Any time you have two articles that appear to have the same title, you're going to have this problem. Pfainuk talk 22:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Pretty good idea to use a "display:none" tag for "Republic of". Forget about the "</nowiki>" tag, that can simply be removed.
I have no idea whether I should like this solution or not. First I liked it. Then I thought, if we do it that way anyway, it's cleaner to call the article "Ireland (state)" and hide the "(state)" part. And then I realised that the reason for hiding the parenthetical disambiguator in this case is only slightly stronger than it is for the average disambiguated page. In other words: If we do it, then it should really be done for all, or at least many, disambiguated pages.
I believe encyclopedias sometimes have two articles with the same name following each others. I think we might decide that we want something similar in Wikipedia.
How about this new guideline:
- A parenthetical disambiguator in an article title may be removed using DISPLAYTITLE and display:none. In this case the article should normally start with a short note explaining that it resides technically under a different title, followed by a disambiguation note for the displayed title (not the long title).
Example. [32] Of course such a new rule would have be discussed widely. I don't know yet whether I would support such a proposal, but it seems to make some sense. Hans Adler 11:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Hans, this is a proposal that I think that I would support. It has a lot of implications that will need to be considered, but I think that ultimately there's a lot to be said for it. In particular, as you note, other encyclopedias all are willing to simply use the same title for different articles. If there's no longer a technical limitation, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same, since it would eliminate a host of unattractive parenthetical disambiguators. It would also allow virtually all articles to display the most common name at the top of their article. If this could be agreed upon for the project as a whole, I would certainly support a move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), provided that it displayed as "Ireland". I suspect there will be considerable opposition, though, on the grounds that it breaks the long-standing rule that the display title should always be the same as the real title. john k (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have some more larger scale (outside the bounds of IECOLL) issues with this - it's a potential UI problem for newer editors (they'll believe that the page's name is Ireland, and will not be able to figure out why linking to that keeps getting the island/disamb page, unless they knew to look at the URL. However, it's also not an idea to throw away, and I think the best place to get input is at WP:VPP, which I will do now. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hans did note that, in addition to the URL, there should be a notice at the top mentioning that the display title is different from the location. And obviously our editing guides and the like could be edited to take note of this, so as to warn editors about the possibility. Obviously the transition issues would be tough, but I think once people get used to the new system, it wouldn't be any harder to deal with than what we have now. john k (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
People are possibly missing the point that if option F wins this vote by a substantial majority, as seems likely, the article is going to have to be rewritten to state once again what was always true, that the state is also known as the Republic of Ireland. People are not voting for the article to be at "Republic of Ireland" just so the title can be hidden. Scolaire (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Scolaire - personally, I am voting for "Republic of Ireland" because I prefer natural disambiguators to parenthetical ones. If we can eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguators entirely - or, at least, for seeing the parenthetical disambiguators, that's a rather different matter. I support Republic of Ireland because it is the best title if Ireland is unavailable (which it is). If the article could be titled "Ireland," I would be happy to support that. This may not be true of everyone, of course, but I don't think it follows that everyone who is voting for it is uber-committed to having the title show as "Republic of Ireland." john k (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine for you, but I don't think we can assume that other voters had the same motivation. I voted for something completely different as my first choice, but I believe we must respect the wishes of the clear majority of voters, and not second-guess their intentions. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's a solution that should be given serious consideration. --HighKing (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
(multiple edit conflicts) Hiding part of an article's title has severe usability implications that should be discussed in a more natural forum. I would suggest WT:NC and possible a WP:CENT notice. Powers T 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If we were to go down this route, why is there a need to move the article to Ireland (state) if the title is just going to display Ireland anyway? I think there are some problems with having two identical titles on two very similar articles like this which would lead to confusion for many people. And if we are going to have to put a note detailing the article names, such a note could be added ensuring everyone knows ROI is only a description not the official title of the state anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- It raises a few issues that need further broad discussion at WP. 'Educational and reader objectives' must be paramount at all times. Tfz 15:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC).
- Please note that a parallel discussion of this issue is in progress at the village pump. Cool3 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. What a nightmarish precedent to propose for this encyclopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- We would need wide input before going down that route. It presents potentially serious UI issues for users. Any solution has to put the needs of readers first and the desires of editors last. I feel that this solution approaches the "problem" from the other way around.
- However, if people are serious about it I think this discussion should move to the Village Pump or to open a new WP:CENT discussion to get the wider input necessary for such an approach. - --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that you both comment in the right place. [33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Adler (talk • contribs)
- Thanks. (Less criptic note for other users: discussion is taking place at the Villiage Pump.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I have created a brief page at User:Cool3/Ireland that details the technical steps that would need to be taken and their effects. I invite others to add their own pros and cons to the page if they so desire. Cool3 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Virginian solution
I note that if you search Wiki for "Virginia" you don't get the town of Virginia, County Cavan. Or the old colony of Virginia. You get the modern state of Virginia as the primary location. The newer state of West Virginia is called just that. Like Northern Ireland. Using this precedent the primary location of "Ireland" should be modern state. Of course unlike Northern Ireland it was West Virginia seceded from the slave state. But that's just a technicality. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- The primary usage of "Virginia" is Virginia. The primary usage of "Ireland" is Ireland. So what are you getting at?
- Are you from Ireland? Perhaps this is the problem. I am only speculating. I know plenty of people from Ireland here in Canada. All of them just say they are from Ireland. Some, I happen to know, come from Belfast. Others I have no idea whence they came. The ambiguity in the word should be obvious, but perhaps this ambiguous use of "Ireland" is not common in Ireland (the republic) or on Ireland (the island). For example, "London" is usually unambiguous where I live: it refers to London. Sometimes, of course, it is ambiguous and one needs to be clear and say "London, England". This does not mean, however, that Wikipedia has it wrong. "London" is London. On another note, remember that "Ireland" is unambiguous and has only one meaning throughout most of history and that meaning is not found at Republic of Ireland. —Srnec (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- The island is the primary article, not the state. Thankfully even if F loses this vote, the result will not see the state moved to Ireland.. quite right too, its a very offneisve option for a modern day state to claim ownership over the whole of Ireland and its history. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)