2nd opinion required |
|||
Line 522: | Line 522: | ||
* I think that the article [[North Channel (British Isles)]] should be renamed to [[North Channel (Britain and Ireland)]]. I've never renamed an article before - can anyone point me as to what is the procedure, or would anyone just like to rename it? [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 18:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) --[[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
* I think that the article [[North Channel (British Isles)]] should be renamed to [[North Channel (Britain and Ireland)]]. I've never renamed an article before - can anyone point me as to what is the procedure, or would anyone just like to rename it? [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 18:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) --[[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:It's unlikely to be a controversial move. Now you've posted there, I'd leave it for a couple of days to make sure. Then just move it. First, click 'What links here' to see what pages carry links to the article. Then just click on 'Move' and enter the new title. Then you can manually fix the links on other articles. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
:It's unlikely to be a controversial move. Now you've posted there, I'd leave it for a couple of days to make sure. Then just move it. First, click 'What links here' to see what pages carry links to the article. Then just click on 'Move' and enter the new title. Then you can manually fix the links on other articles. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|BaStun not BaTsun]]</sup> 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
== 2nd opinion with this article == |
|||
I found an essay on [[WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom]] and I found that the essay duplicated many parts of other articles, and also veered into dealing with the nationality of people from Ireland. I removed the duplicated parts. Now two editors have reverted the edits, and are talking about expanding the article from United Kingdom to British Isles. I don't believe articles like this are being created in good faith. I'd like a 2nd opinion on the matter, and I don't want to start an edit war. Can you take a look and tell me if I'm over-reacting or being too sensitive. Thank you. [[User:Bardcom|Bardcom]] ([[User talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:30, 24 March 2008
Irish Wikipedians' notice board | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Home
Irish Wikipedians' related news |
Discussion
Ireland related discussion (at WikiProject Ireland). |
Active Users
Active Irish Users |
WikiProjects
Irish WikiProjects |
Stubs
Major Irish stubs |
Peer review
Articles on Peer review |
FA
Articles on FA review |
FA Drive
Articles under consideration for FA drive |
Archives |
---|
|
Irish Featured Articles
In the last few months I have reported on the featured article reviews of President of Ireland (archived FAR here), George Moore (FAR here) and now Irish poetry (FAR here). Besides these we have also lost Celtic tiger, Donegal fiddle tradition, Economy of Ireland, Éire, Irish theatre and Ryanair since they were promoted. Most of these featured articles were promoted in 2004 and 2005 when the criteria for FAs was more lenient than it is today. So many of these FA losses are due to not conforming to current standards. The biggest problem is that no one seems to be interested in really helping to maintain the FA rating. If even one or two editors would take an article under their wing when it comes for review, or take on the demoted articles, and help being them up to the current standards it would really help. The most serious problem is that the articles suffer from lack of inline citations or even any citations at all though some have other problems too. Possible most Irish wikipedians are more interested in their own interests, but quality would be a good aspiration too.
Perhaps we need an Irish featured article campaign or completely revive the Irish Wikipedians' featured article drive to keep the featured articles up to standard even if they are not topics we really have a real interest in or even know anything about. I will be happy to coordinate such a campaign if there are a few willing participants. Nine other Irish FAs will no doubt come up for review and they have already been noted as mainly missing inline citations. Who is committed to this or does anyone really care? I know I do but cannot do it on my own. ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not the answer you want to hear, but actually "No", I don't really care. For me FA's and GA's actually make the whole WP experience much less accessible for newbies and relative novices like myself. I'm not sure what they actually contribute to the user experience. But that's just my take. Sorry. MurphiaMan (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well MurphiaMan your view may well be correct and the majority too, but I don't think accessibility and quality are mutually exclusive. Maybe the newer editors prefer to contribute to smaller and basic articles, and/or are intimidated by GAs and FAs, but as an encyclopaedia, I think a decent amount of quality articles are needed to show what is possible and should be aspired to. It just seems unfortunate that we should lose the higher status articles due to lack of interest by the more experienced editors, who are more likely to be involved in bringing, and keeping, articles to FA or GA. I was just testing the temperature out there; I suppose that two days and only one comment tends to say it all. ww2censor (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- My 2p worth - (i) Featured and Good Articles are valuable, as, much as I like the vast breadth of Wikipedia, for an encyclopedia to be valuable, and especially to be useful to scholars (or even poor schoolkids), there has to be some measure of quality, (ii) I suspect this is one of those areas where aspirations get caught up in time limitations - if I have a small amount of time today, I can do more with a little tidying, assessment or basic material addition, whereas, like any scholarship, Quality work can take time (though sometimes a quick Google or newspaper search is enough), (iii) it seems clear that a revived Featured Article Drive is needed, led by experienced editors. To be a bit frank, it is not that there are so many, at least of FA's, to protect - maybe each of these should have a "minder" (2-3 articles per person).
- I understand MurphiaMan's point - but I agree with ww2censor on the aspiration. The former point is perhaps in part driven by the much-commented issue of nit-picking by some editors - but where, for example, an article has no sources or citations at all, in fairness, something has to be done. Jimbo Wales and others have noted that Notability and Referencing must be handled with common sense, but some backup is required for any encyclopedia. And while some may argue about the current rules for FA and GA, the encyclopedia is maturing, and that means standards go up. I personally think the inline citation aspect is overdone - but we in Ireland are not going to change the rules.
- As a 2007 joiner, I am still learning, but am willing to help as a junior - such as with cases where I have knowledge or access to relevant sources, notably in those where very basic sourcing / citation is lacking - and I have done some work on a couple of the Irish FA's, where there were basic improvements possible. SeoR (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- A scan of the discussions on this page will tell you why. So many editors are otherwise involved in disputes.
- Belfast is currently at FAC, and will pass hopefully. It took a lot of work though, most of it janitorial - inline references etc, which take forever to do. I think that's part of the problem, it can take hours to properly format a long article including refs and whatever else needs doing. Northern Ireland needs a lot more sources, and its 59 existing ones properly formatted, which is daunting to say the least. As most people have limited time on Wikipedia, the featured article drive is a great idea, but only if people take notice of it. I for one am willing to lend a hand, but it will take more than two people to make a difference. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Input required
Can you all please have a look at talk:List of non-Gaelic Games played in Croke Park, should this be for non gaelic games played in CP and their notablity due to Rule 42 or every non Gaelic game played at the site Croke Park now is? Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would opt for current, i.e. games played since Croker was established. I think that is more likely to be what people expect based on title (the other is part of Croke Park history, maybe). With appropriate clarification on the list page. SeoR (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- A bit of background here. Gnevin is contesting the inclusion of the Irish Cup Final of 1901, generally accepted to have been the first and only major soccer game to have been played at Croke Park/Jones' Road. The user seems to think that simply because the GAA did not own the stadium at that stage, and because it was called Jones' Road, it was an inherently different stadium; this is a ludicrous assertion, for example Wembley Stadium was originally called Empire Stadium and own by a private company, it of course did not 'become' a new stadium when the FA finally bought it. Gnevin has reverted the inclusion of this game four times in the past (here, here, here, and here). When myself and User:Guliolopez tried to explain this situation to Gnevin on the talk page, he decided, without any consensus, to change the purpose of the page to something along the lines of 'List of non-Gaelic Games played at Croke Park while it was owned by the GAA and while Rule 42 was either in force or relaxed', claiming to be following WP:BOLD. At this stage, I really think think this is a non-issue. Schcambo (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this is an encyclopedia after all. If the 1901 game is unique, then it's notable, and if it's notable then I would include it. It's not as though it's going to open the floodgates for every gang of kids that played kickabout on the field before it was a sportsground. I will expand on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Important work for somebody to do
List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2002 Census Records needs a 2006 version created or the 2006 results added to this. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
Ireland portal - now a featured portal
Great news! The Ireland portal has been made a featured portal, taking it's place along side the Scotland, London and North West England portals on these islands and the France and European Union portals on the continent.
p.s. Nollaig shonna diobh! --sony-youthpléigh 18:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good stuff Sony. Great job. Guliolopez (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent news!! Well done, all :) - Alison ❤ 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Referencing Years in Ireland
Copied from Ww2's page:
Unreferenced History
Ww - take a look at what I've done to 1349 in Ireland! Events are being taken out of the "Annals of Ulster" but the generalised refs makes checking impossible. Being BOLD I am suggesting that we insist on in-line refs unless there is a link to a Wiki article which contains the information. Otherwise we'll have all sorts of junk and fiction listed and spotting hoaxes will be near impossible without time-consuming research. Sarah777 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- At first I though you had added lots of details to this page but then, after looking at the history, I see what you have actually done with the citation tags. Well, the question will be whether these year pages should have references or do we accept the info as taken from the main article in which it is mentioned, so long as it is referenced there, which it may not be. Much of this historical type data seems to have been written back in the day before references were a big deal like they are now, so much data is not referenced in the main article either. You make a good point that a load of garbage might be added if there are no references so perhaps we need to insist on them and even place a notice on each page indicating that unreferenced additions will be deleted. This topic might be better discussed elsewhere in more detail, maybe on the Irish Wikipedian's notice board would be best. See you there. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Suggested policy
- (1) If the facts are contained in a linked Wiki article they should stand so long as they remain standing in the linked article.
- (2) If they are not mentioned in a linked Wiki article then they must be referenced in-line or be deleted on sight.
Otherwise we will get massive hoaxing on these pages when the bored students of Ireland discover them! Sarah777 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be worth doing a basic check on the references before blanket tagging them. I quickly traced the quote in the first "event" to the Black Death article, where it was sourced. When I added the citation to 1349 in Ireland, lo and behold the same book is already listed under references! Possibly - even probably - all of the facts in the article come from the same two sources, but there's not much point in waiting for the original author to come back and provide the citations — he/she may well have moved on. If we want to improve articles, we have to be prepared to do some of the work ourselves. Scolaire (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some, but with 1,000 years or whatever that is a lot of checking every time someone adds to 1753 in Ireland; Events; Localised famine devastates parts of the Mayo, Sligo and Donegal. Turlough MacFadden, last of the traditional Donegal sean-nos singers dies in Galway. Sarah777 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I was talking about the articles as they stand now. Anybody adding information should be required to source it or have it removed. But these articles were presumably created/edited in good faith in the days when WP:V wasn't such a big deal. If you fill them up with tags and nobody comes back and sources it, then you have a choice of leaving it in an ugly state indefinitely or removing all the useful information from a useful article. Why not just add an {{unreferenced|date=January 2008}} tag to the bottom of the article instead? Scolaire (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2008
- I take your point on existing information, most of which was added by Ardfern (and all his material is referenced to Wiki articles - he's kinda our gold standard!). I was more concerned that the information from the various Annals could easily be hoaxed if the references are not much easier to pin down. Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with anybody adding information should be required to source it or have it removed. If I can be of any help with referencing existing information please let me know, I would be more than willing to help. --Domer48 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Soccer in Ireland
Talk:Football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Requested_move ,can you all have a look at this discussion Gnevin (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
NFL
Does anyone agree with my sentiment on this disambiguation page. Discussion is taking place here Any imput would be appreciated. Go raibh míle.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid WP:COMMONNAME wouldn't agree with you, google won't either.In Ireland the usage the league is more common than National Football league The current redirect is grand Gnevin (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the help.--Play Brian Moore (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
IBAL Litter Survey
Has anyone got any comment to make on the latest 2007 IBAL litter survey, especially in relation to Sligo (see this comment). Being a Sligonian, I'm loath to change this in case I'm perceived as being biased in some way! --The.Q(t)(c) 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Renaming Republic of Ireland
Republic of Ireland is being discussed for renaming to Ireland (state) on this talk page and may be of interest to some editors here. ww2censor (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Phil Grimes
Phil Grimes place of birth is listed as the free state , do we have any guidelines on this Gnevin (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess if he was born between the betrayal of the Republic in 1921 and it's re-declaration in 1948 he'd be a Stater? Sarah777 (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Or a freebie? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your saying this should be applied across all Irish(ROI) births 21-48 such as Garret_FitzGerald,Michael O'Kennedy 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)?
- Strictly speaking, yes. Anyone born in the 26 counties between December 1922 and April 1949 was born in the Irish Free State. The next question is: what about people born between December 1920 (the partition of Ireland) and December 1922 (the commencement of the Free State)? Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- So who wants to open this can on worms ? Gnevin (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the requirement for the country of birth field from the {{Infobox GAA player}} template? Then you could just say he was born in Waterford, full stop. Crispness (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- No thats a total backwards\avoidance solution to the issue and what about {{Infobox Prime Minister}} and {{{Minister for Finance (Ireland)}} they don't have country fields and people still add it to Garret_FitzGerald, and Michael O'Kennedy, I'm happy enough to go with Irish free state but i think others may not Gnevin (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It adds nothing encyclopaedic to the article on a GAA player to know what was the political nature of the state s/he was born in. Absolutely nothing. It's flagcruft without the flags. Crispness (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you really want to add United Kingdom as the country of birth for most of the six counties players? Crispness (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Every person infobox I know has a country of birth or includes a the country of birth,Northern Ireland is already in common use for NI GAA players as is Londonderry for Category:Gaelic_Athletic_Association_clubs_in_County_Londonderry this is not a political issue .I just asked about IFS here as i hadn't seen this before and wondered was this an once off or the norm Gnevin (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- How many of those infoboxes make it a compulsory field? Not {{Infobox President}}, nor {{Big Brother Contestant}}, nor {{Infobox musical artist}}, to name the first 3 on my watchlist. Its not avoiding the issue. Its avoiding unecessary and unproductive conflict. Crispness (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not compulsory and sure of the 3 you linked too i'd say 99% of the articles included the country , your solution is not workable and even if we remove the county field. We are still back to square 1 what to put for Phil Grimes country wise,its has to be included in the article somewhereGnevin (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- How many of those infoboxes make it a compulsory field? Not {{Infobox President}}, nor {{Big Brother Contestant}}, nor {{Infobox musical artist}}, to name the first 3 on my watchlist. Its not avoiding the issue. Its avoiding unecessary and unproductive conflict. Crispness (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Every person infobox I know has a country of birth or includes a the country of birth,Northern Ireland is already in common use for NI GAA players as is Londonderry for Category:Gaelic_Athletic_Association_clubs_in_County_Londonderry this is not a political issue .I just asked about IFS here as i hadn't seen this before and wondered was this an once off or the norm Gnevin (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- No thats a total backwards\avoidance solution to the issue and what about {{Infobox Prime Minister}} and {{{Minister for Finance (Ireland)}} they don't have country fields and people still add it to Garret_FitzGerald, and Michael O'Kennedy, I'm happy enough to go with Irish free state but i think others may not Gnevin (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the requirement for the country of birth field from the {{Infobox GAA player}} template? Then you could just say he was born in Waterford, full stop. Crispness (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- So who wants to open this can on worms ? Gnevin (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, yes. Anyone born in the 26 counties between December 1922 and April 1949 was born in the Irish Free State. The next question is: what about people born between December 1920 (the partition of Ireland) and December 1922 (the commencement of the Free State)? Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your saying this should be applied across all Irish(ROI) births 21-48 such as Garret_FitzGerald,Michael O'Kennedy 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)?
- Or a freebie? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) Fixed ,so Crispness back to the topic at hand , do you have any objections to the use of IFS in Phil GrimesGnevin (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It adds nothing to the article. Why not just use plain Waterford. Anyone who reads the article and doesn't know where Waterford is, can jsut click the link to find out. It's a no-brainer to me. Crispness (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's the country this particular Waterford is in see Dublin_(disambiguation),some country has to be used its just standard good practice,I'm inclined to go with historical accuracies Gnevin (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- is in or was in? Why is it in anyway relevant what country Waterford was in when Phil Grimes was born? And what has dabDub got to do with Phil Grimes? Crispness (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because where he was born is an important fact about a person , dab Dub has nothing to do with Phil Grimes but I'm talking all Irish people born between 21-48 as maybe something that should be added to the WP:IMOSGnevin (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- We all know exactly where he was born. He was born in Waterford. Whats uninteresting and irrelevant is which political entity was Waterford part of on the date of Phil Grimes birth. Its a red herring! An irrelevance! And if there is a change to be made to the MOS it will probably be that " ... where the country of birth of irrelevant to the article and its inclusion is in any controversial or disruptive, the most appropriate action may be omit the country of birth from the infobox." or something very similar. Crispness (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't understand why some folk think the state at the time of birth is necessary. Tale the British Isles; the history section deals with stuff that happened long before "British" or "British Isles" was ever invented. So we can just decide to use "Ireland" - pure and simple. This ridiculous flagcruft Wiki-constructionism is bordering on cultishness. A spurious Anglo-American "legality" is used to defy common sense. Sarah777 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is bloody mess, fucking wiki politics and nationalistic bullshit come together again to make a simple matter into one which would require the debating skills of a Roman senator, with some users intent to being as disruptive as possible over a none issues,if i could pull the plug on this i would but since i can't and it's already FUBAR ,i'm withdrawing myself from this crap Gnevin (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't understand why some folk think the state at the time of birth is necessary. Tale the British Isles; the history section deals with stuff that happened long before "British" or "British Isles" was ever invented. So we can just decide to use "Ireland" - pure and simple. This ridiculous flagcruft Wiki-constructionism is bordering on cultishness. A spurious Anglo-American "legality" is used to defy common sense. Sarah777 (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- We all know exactly where he was born. He was born in Waterford. Whats uninteresting and irrelevant is which political entity was Waterford part of on the date of Phil Grimes birth. Its a red herring! An irrelevance! And if there is a change to be made to the MOS it will probably be that " ... where the country of birth of irrelevant to the article and its inclusion is in any controversial or disruptive, the most appropriate action may be omit the country of birth from the infobox." or something very similar. Crispness (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because where he was born is an important fact about a person , dab Dub has nothing to do with Phil Grimes but I'm talking all Irish people born between 21-48 as maybe something that should be added to the WP:IMOSGnevin (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll
I'm going to straw poll this as Crispness seems to think their is no consensuses. For Irish (ROI) people born between December 1922 and April 1949 should their place of birth be listed as Irish Free State, Republic of Ireland or county but no country such as [1]. Please indicate your support below and reasoning below
Support Irish Free State
- Support Historically accurate Gnevin (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't pre-1922 people logically then have United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as their country of birth? And most of the current Ulster squad have a plain vanilla United Kingdom? Is historical accuracy the most important thing? Crispness (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. Everyone else gets England, Scotland or Wales, so there's no reason for Ireland to be an exception. There was a discussion on IMOS where United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]] was rejected. One Night In Hackney303 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support with reservations. December 1922 to April 1949: no problem. Pre-December 1920 should be "Ireland" as the country was united, albeit under British rule. But the period after the coming into existance of Northern Ireland and before the Free State? Tricky! Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Republic of Ireland
Support county but not country
Support "Ireland"; no qualification or dab
- Support - they were born in "Ireland", just as someone born in 1798, 1847, 1910, 1920, 1960 or 2008. Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ireland the island, would this apply to NI born also? Gnevin (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - agreed, including NI - its easier - the island - a geographic term - ClemMcGann (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support As a geographical term. No political terms where unnecessary. --Bardcom (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Support Remove country of birth field
- Support - Why not change the infobox to have only a "place of birth" field, which could contain whatever a particular editor thought appropriate. Waterford or Waterford, Ireland or Waterford, Irish Free State. Where it is appropriate to a particular article to include a particular phrase or link then include it. Where not, then don't. Crispness (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment this vote is the same as Support county but not country
- Comment - no, it is not Crispness (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I designed the template and i like to keep information is it 3rd form as much as possible for Category and AWB purposes , Having placeofbirth ,countryofbirth is no than placeofbirth where the country is just added Gnevin (talk)Gnevin (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you don't actually understand the 3 normal forms. Given that the country of birth is entirely dependent on the location of birth (and not on the article subject), then the 3rd normal form says you should not include it. And the fact that you like to keep information is entirely irrelevant. You seem to have serious ownership issues with this template. Crispness (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have no ownership issue with this template,this is about more than the template or Phil Grimes or the GAA , it's a very wide issue which got my attention via the template no more no less as User:One Night In Hackney says below, changing this template will not resolve the underlying issue, you also don't seem to understand that removing the country of birth field will no reslove this issue as people will include the COB information in the placeofbirth field and we are right back to square one Gnevin (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I think that would be ideal solution. That intelligent, sentient editors could make an informed decision about the relevance of a piece of information and decide if it should be included or not. Perfect, in my opinion. As I pointed out to ONIH below, I don't believe the faux dichotomy needs to be resolved at all. Crispness (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have no ownership issue with this template,this is about more than the template or Phil Grimes or the GAA , it's a very wide issue which got my attention via the template no more no less as User:One Night In Hackney says below, changing this template will not resolve the underlying issue, you also don't seem to understand that removing the country of birth field will no reslove this issue as people will include the COB information in the placeofbirth field and we are right back to square one Gnevin (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you don't actually understand the 3 normal forms. Given that the country of birth is entirely dependent on the location of birth (and not on the article subject), then the 3rd normal form says you should not include it. And the fact that you like to keep information is entirely irrelevant. You seem to have serious ownership issues with this template. Crispness (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I designed the template and i like to keep information is it 3rd form as much as possible for Category and AWB purposes , Having placeofbirth ,countryofbirth is no than placeofbirth where the country is just added Gnevin (talk)Gnevin (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - no, it is not Crispness (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose This seems to be chucking the baby out with the bathwater. Regardless of whether the infobox has this field anyway, the place they were born should still be in the main article body, therefore the "Irish Free State" vs "Republic of Ireland" still needs to be resolved either way. One Night In Hackney303 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - If you knew I was born in Dublin (birthplace) and you knew when I was born (birthdate) why would you need to know which country my birthplace was part of on that date? Unless of course there was something of relevance to that country within the article? Crispness (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Because not everyone is as familiar with Irish history as us , thats like saying if i told you i was born in Bílina and I gave you a date you would figure out the state name at the time ,crap, Wiki isn't in the business of creating guess work and vagueness Gnevin (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- All the more reason to use what the lay reader will understand - Ireland (the island) pure and simple. Sarah777 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the time a reader would have no interest in what country the placeofbirth was part of when the subject was born. And where there was something in the article which made it relevant (Phil Grimes seems to be lacking in this respect) it could/should be mentioned. Is there anything about Phil Grimes and/or his article that makes the fact that he was born within the political boundaries of the IFS interesting or encyclopaedic? Crispness (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- All the more reason to use what the lay reader will understand - Ireland (the island) pure and simple. Sarah777 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Because not everyone is as familiar with Irish history as us , thats like saying if i told you i was born in Bílina and I gave you a date you would figure out the state name at the time ,crap, Wiki isn't in the business of creating guess work and vagueness Gnevin (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Questions
- This is too big an issue to be decided on a single article/example. I need clarification if this vote is intended to cover just the {{Infobox GAA player}} or is it any infobox with a country of birth field? Perhaps this page is the wrong venue for the discussion. I am also unsure why the proposal would be date limited. It just doesn't make any kind of sense. Crispness (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would cover every articleas outline above and the date is limited as that is the time the IFS excised simple Gnevin (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see where there is any outline, list or category of article above. The straw poll doesn't say which articles would be covered. And I cannot understand why you want to limit the discussion/ruling to articles whose subjects were born between those dates. Surely the question that should be considered is "Should we include in the countryofbirth field the country which the placeofbirth was part of at the time of the article subject's birth." If you ask the wrong question you are bound to get the wrong answer. Crispness (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should look then as above I'm going to straw poll this as Crispness seems to think their is no consensuses. For Irish (ROI) people born between December 1922 and April 1949 should their place of birth be listed as Irish Free State, Republic of Ireland or county but no country such as [4]. Please indicate your support below and reasoning belowGnevin (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing in that sentence to say which articles it refers to. To simplify matters, perhaps you could answer this question with a simple Yes/No answer. "Is it intended that this poll only refers to articles which include {{Infobox GAA player}}?" Crispness (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, all Irish people from the dates above Gnevin (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I understand the all, but my question refers to the context. Are we only talking about the countryofbirth field in an infobox? Or are we talking about inline text? For me I have no problem saying "Phil Grimes was born in Waterford, in what was then the Irish Free State, ..." or something like that, but only where such a reference has some bearing on the subject of the article. My problem lies solely with putting it in an infobox.
- Just to clarify then, that I'm not sure what context we are supposed to be discussing here. Crispness (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, all Irish people from the dates above Gnevin (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing in that sentence to say which articles it refers to. To simplify matters, perhaps you could answer this question with a simple Yes/No answer. "Is it intended that this poll only refers to articles which include {{Infobox GAA player}}?" Crispness (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe you should look then as above I'm going to straw poll this as Crispness seems to think their is no consensuses. For Irish (ROI) people born between December 1922 and April 1949 should their place of birth be listed as Irish Free State, Republic of Ireland or county but no country such as [4]. Please indicate your support below and reasoning belowGnevin (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see where there is any outline, list or category of article above. The straw poll doesn't say which articles would be covered. And I cannot understand why you want to limit the discussion/ruling to articles whose subjects were born between those dates. Surely the question that should be considered is "Should we include in the countryofbirth field the country which the placeofbirth was part of at the time of the article subject's birth." If you ask the wrong question you are bound to get the wrong answer. Crispness (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Places of Birth should not refer to political entities at the time, they should refer to geographic places. Winston Churchill has England as his place of birth not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. If you all could take a break from political point scoring and try to remember that you are contributing to an encyclopedia. Also if you follow the convoluted logic that all person between 1920 and 1949 should have Irish Free State as birth place then Patrick Pearse should have United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as birth place with a lovely Union Jack beside it to boot! Snappy56 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Gaelic_Athletic_Association :Good article drive
Can one who who is good with pose have a look at Gaelic_Athletic_Association#Failed_GA and maybe help get Gaelic_Athletic_Association up to Good article standard Gnevin (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Moving articles from RoI to Ireland
***Sigh!*** -- More articles have been renamed:
- Civil service of the Republic of Ireland -> Civil service of Ireland
- Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland -> Foreign relations of Ireland
- Public service of the Republic of Ireland - > Public service of Ireland
I know the background on the name of the state and don't need a tututorial on it, but this moving is just plainly leading to a confused encyclopedia, where was the approval for these moves? Djegan (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- If people want to move articles en masse then they should first discuss the issue and gain a broad consensus and agreement - and finally, if broadly agreed, have articles moved by an administrator. Not piecemeal moving one, or two, or three at a time. Djegan (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well spotted - moved them back. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I moved these pages. BaTsun has pointed me to this forum. Thank you for that. I think the above pages should be moved. I take it that every one here knows the name of the Irish state is Ireland not Republic of Ireland. This is discussed at length at: Names of the Irish state. Sometimes people say that confusion can be caused by using "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland" because it is the same name as the island of Ireland. Sometimes, that argument is genuine and makes sense. Other times it stems from a POV where people do not accept the name of the Irish state or simply regard the name used as unimportant.
- These particular articles concern the civil service, the public service and foreign relations. Islands do not have civil services, public services or foreign relations so, in my view, there is no potential for any confusion. Not to use the correct name of the state would in my view be highly POV. There really needs to be good grounds before an inorrect name for a country should be used. Is there any support (or further objections) to these moves?Redking7 (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, only earlier today someone was claiming that the island had a flag... :-) Yes, I object to the moves. As discussed at length and ad infinitum on Talk:Republic of Ireland, WP uses the official description of the state (RoI) for its article names on Ireland, rather than the official name - and there is no consensus for a move. While these are different articles, they should remain at their RoI names for consistency and to avoid confusion - because while you, I, and probably most others reading this page know the difference between Ireland and Ireland, general readers of WP may or may not. As an aside, while an island can't have a public or civil service (or a flag), there are civil and public servants working for north-south bodies... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Re Bastun's comments above: "they should remain at their RoI names for consistency and to avoid confusion" [There are numerous articles concerning the state that use the name "Ireland", not "RoI" so consistency point is a red herring. Each proposed move should be looked at on its individual merits]; "no consensus for a move" [I am not proposing a move for the "Republic of Ireland" article]; "WP uses the official description of the state (RoI) for its article names on Ireland" [No. Numerous articles refer to Ireland, not RoI. The main article is "Republic of Ireland" because the island of Ireland article already has the name "Ireland" - not because WP will not allow the correct name of the state to be used]; "and to avoid confusion" [This is the nub of the question, what confusion? Please elaborate on how confusion could be cause by the three proposed moves? "general readers of WP may or may not" [Given the context of the three articles readers could not possibly think they refer to the island. Also, readers should not be misled into thinking "RoI" is the name of the state - that is not what encyclopedias should be about. "civil and public servants working for north-south bodies" [Yes indeed but there is no island civil or public service, just as representatives of many states work in the UN but there is no 'earth civil service'.]
- RoI is not the correct name of the state so, in my view, the burden should be on those opposed to the move to show good reasons. It is a serious matter to deliberately use the wrong name of the state. So far, I see no reasons why the three proposed moves should not be supported. Redking7 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please remain civil, Sarah. Ireland is also the island that contains Belfast. RoI serves as an accurate disambiguation for the articles in question. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate every one's views. However, this discussion only concerns three proposed moves: Articles which concern the civil service; public service and foreign relations. Lets focus only on the three moves proposed. I do not want this proposal to become the victim of a much wider point of contention. Does any one have any genuine reasons why these articles should not be moved? If you support the three moves, please also note your views. Thanks. Redking7 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I personally can't support the moves. If I take just one example. The proposed title "Foreign relations of Ireland" is ambiguous. It's unclear from the title whether the article covers the relations between Ireland (IE) and Northern Ireland (NI), between IE, NI and the rest of the world, or some complicated combination of both. The existing title doesn't suffer from those issues, as it's clear which state's relations are in question, it meets COMMONNAME, and is consistent with the other titles. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- The kernel of the problem here regarding Ireland V Republic of Ireland V Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland is a mere statelet that was created as a result of Ireland leaving the United Kingdom. Ireland is the state, and it covers 85% of the Island of Ireland. Northern Ireland shouldn't have any weight in the encyclopaedia regarding the title of the Ireland(state) article, and should be merely referred to as Northern Ireland. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guliolopez is right. Moving around articles in this piecemeal fashion is nothing short of a fiasco and invites outright confusion and opportunism - we should focus on content not nit-picking titles. Concurrent votes and discussions have indicated that "Republic of Ireland" is the agreed name for the article that deals with the state, notwithstanding the constitution and thus articles should primarily flow from that.
- Their is no need to deliberately confuse generic articles (education in, foreign relations of, public service of, etc - note the use of lowercase) that should be "of the Republic of Ireland" with specific articles (Constitution of Ireland, President of Ireland, etc - note the use of uppercase) that should be at "of Ireland".Djegan (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- It really is a very silly situation where a mere 15% of an Island is skewing up the Ireland article. This is second rate stuff, and we are talking about an encyclopaedia that is supposedly geared toward the future. Ireland is the name of the country and state, and should be called by its proper name. Forget about changes being a bit troublesome, everything of value can be troublesome at times. Northern Ireland should carry little weight as per naming, it's merely called Northern Ireland. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:COMMONAME, which incidentally allows Londonderry (official name of city) to be located at Derry (common name of city). Personally whilst I agree that the current naming compromise is not ideal none-the-less it has wide consensus and disambiguates easily. Article names like Ireland (state) would be oka on their own but usage in other articles (for instance Education in Ireland (state)) or categories and templates would be messy and amaturish at best. Djegan (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, no quite. You'd have Education in Ireland. The state would be presumed, as naturally it would be. A disambiguation notice at the top of key pages can easily deal any doubts. I think some of us are assuming that readers are easily confused. But that is what's exactly happening. WP is confusing the reader with wrong names etc. If the reader is truly interested, they'll grasp the concept of Ireland the state, and Ireland the island, very easily. 78.19.65.254 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nortern Ireland is a red herring. Its the fact the both the state and the island are called Ireland. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Same with Iceland, then why all the discussion? 78.19.65.254 (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- No one has shown how the name change of the civil service; public service; or foreign relations articles would cause any confusion. One user above said "The proposed title 'Foreign relations of Ireland' is ambiguous". [It clearly is not. "Ireland" in this context could not possibly refer to an island]. Other users just relied on rhetoric not reason: e.g "a fiasco"; "opportunism". Other have confused the question, e.g by bringing up unrelated topics such as the Derry article; or proposals to rename the RoI article. Another user tried to make a distinction between articles beginning with capital letters and lowercase letters which made no sense to me.
- One user even said this was "nitpicking". Can any one imagine the reaction there would be if I tried to move the article "foreign relations of the United Kingdom" to say "foreign relations of the British Kingdom"? There would be uproar. These moves are clearly not nitpicking. My point is that unless there is a genuine and important need to use the "RoI" descriprion, the correct name of the state should be used in these three articles.
- Some good points in favour of the move were made. Please support these three moves. Redking7 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- ""Ireland" in this context could not possibly refer to an island" -- tell that to someone reading outside Ireland, or who comes from a country where their is not a large Irish community. Simply stated Ireland is a small country (however you define it) in a large world.
- My usage of the Derry article is to demonstrate that the "official name" is not always used, its a fact that the city is actually called "Londonderry", not "Derry", per the legally recognised royal charter.
- Consistancy in naming is not nit-picking -- its good policy and practice - the usage of lowercase (whilst you might have missed a very obvious point) is that the three articles do not require capitals by way of proper noun.
- If you want to move articles where the move is a contentious move you need consensus. Djegan (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
All of this infighting over names is the realisation that wikipedia is really just a total failure and a total waste of time. Instead of improving articles by content, images, grammer and spelling theirs a ongoing discussion every three months on where to locate the articles. As if moving some articles piecemeal is going to solve anything (well maybe at least for another three months). Djegan (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes it feels like that but 99.9% of WP gets on with buliding content - keep the faith! --Red King (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
We have Roads in Ireland which is about roads in the island. I would like to think that an Education in Ireland would take a similar all-island perspective: the south and the north have far more in common that either have with Great Britain, in terms of educational values and segregated schools, for example. --Red King (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Education in Ireland would take a similar all-island perspective" - we need to face the fact that the partition of Ireland is a reality - trying to merge two articles will not neccessarily result in overall improvement. Their is actually quite a difference between education in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What next - legal system of Ireland? Lets get back to reality no matter how sobering it is. Sticking your head in the sand is not a solution. Djegan (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sobering fact is people that if we move these three articles this week then next week it will be another three and the week after another three, then followed by a similar run on categories and templates over an extended time.
This is just piecemeal moving just because a minority cannot get a consensus on moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland - which is their real prize. The proposed solution is the "runner up" prize. Djegan (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to stop this run say "no" now - otherwise be prepaired for an extended run on the system over the next few months. Djegan (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- What's wrong with callingl them Education in Ireland, and Education in Northern Ireland respectively. Ireland should refer to Ireland the state, (except for the island article). And Northern Ireland should quite simply refer to Northern Ireland. There aren't any problems involved that I can see, it seems to be crystal clear and simple. Or am I missing something? 78.19.216.211 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Still no genuine reasons have been given why these three articles should not be moved. Every proposed article move should be judged on its merits. Others articles may well be moved in the future but not if the moves would cause confusion. These moves will create no confusion. What is the problem with these moves? None. Say yes. Redking7 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redking7: With respect you need to take a step back and actually read other users comments and not just ignore them off hand just because you don't like what you see. Stop continously asking for "genuine reasons" as if the people who said "no" or "oppose" only said "no" or "oppose" - everyone has elaborated, on both sides and all views are valid as such. Stop your selective viewing. Djegan (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- In my comment above, I failed to say explicitly that I oppose the proposal. I am concerned that the consequence will be that most if not all of the existing XXXXXX in [the island of] Ireland will be split into south and north making the situation worse rather than better. Sometimes it best to concede the trivia from a position of self confidence rather than try to take a sledge hammer to the smallest slight. Leave it alone, it doesn't matter. --Red King (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redking7: With respect you need to take a step back and actually read other users comments and not just ignore them off hand just because you don't like what you see. Stop continously asking for "genuine reasons" as if the people who said "no" or "oppose" only said "no" or "oppose" - everyone has elaborated, on both sides and all views are valid as such. Stop your selective viewing. Djegan (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You can hardly argue with the Irish Constitution, can you? Ireland is the correct and official name. The only worthwhile point being made against the renaming is that people would confuse the island with the state. A counter argument is that perhaps if encyclopedia's were accurate, less people would be confused... Bardcom (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hear hear! Totally agree. It's Wikipedia that is making people confused. For some reason some editors believe that the readers cannot grasp the concept of "Ireland the island" V "Ireland the state". The encyclopedia will just have to use the proper terms, or else it's failing to do what it is supposed to do, like educate. 78.19.108.110 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This following a very long (possibly dull and unavoidably repetitious) comment. As is apparent from the above, I have proposed the three moves under discussion. This is a serious response to a comment that I needed to “step back and actually read other users comments [rejecting the three moves] and not just ignore them””. It is an attempt to build consensus.
Overview: The name of the Irish State is Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. This is discussed at length at: Names of the Irish state. Sometimes people say that confusion can be caused by using "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland" because it is the same name as the island of Ireland – what I will call the “Confusion Argument”. Sometimes, that argument is genuine and makes sense. Other times it stems from a POV where people do not accept the name of the State; do not regard the name used as important; and/or are not concerned that use of other names are inaccurate and misleading.
Several attempts to use the Confusion Argument against the moves have been made. The central response to each is that these particular articles concern the civil service, the public service and foreign relations. Islands do not have civil services, public services or foreign relations. If a reader comes to the article, the reader could not possibly think that these were institution or foreign relations of a geographical entity. They necessarily have to be institutions of a political entity, i.e. the State. There is no potential for any confusion. Rather than repeating this point over and over, I will call this counter-argument the “Islands Are Not States Response".
CONFUSION ARGUMENT
The following is a response to each particular Confusion Argument raised:
- “ [the moves will] plainly [lead] to a confused encyclopedia (sic)” – No they will not. See: Islands Are Not States Response; in addition, use of the “RoI” is inaccurate, misleading and itself causes confusion about the name of the State.
- There are “civil and public servants working for north-south bodies" - Yes there are but there is no island civil or public service, just as representatives of many states work in the UN but there is no 'earth civil service'.
- “RoI serves as an accurate disambiguation for the articles in question” – There is no need for a disambiguation. See Islands Are Not States Response above. If notwithstanding this, something to address disambiguation is required, there could be a disambiguation notice at the top of three pages. As I don’t know what ambiguity there would be, I don’t know what would go in the notice – possibly a message directing the readers to Foreign relations of the United Kingdom if they wish to read about the foreign relations of Northern Ireland.
- ”The proposed title "Foreign relations of Ireland" is ambiguous. It's unclear from the title whether the article covers the relations between Ireland (IE) and Northern Ireland (NI), between IE, NI and the rest of the world, or some complicated combination of both.” Firstly, see Islands Are Not States Response above; Secondly, the ‘complicated combination’ you refer to is not even a possibility: The island of Ireland (that is IE and NI) could not possibly have a “foreign relations” policy with other countries because IE is a state and the other is a part of another state. This argument is exactly akin to saying that the title “foreign relations of Luxembourg” is confusing. After all there is also a region in Belgium called Luxembourg: (See: Luxembourg (Belgium)), indeed that region is much larger than the Luxembourg state. Nobody seriously thinks that the Luxembourg article causes confusion just as the “foreign relations of Ireland” article would not cause confusion.
- “The existing title doesn't suffer from [problems of ambiguity], as its clear which state's relations are in question”. See the response immediately above. The existing title suffers from the serious problem that it uses the wrong name for the State (For brevity, I will not rehash the arguments for the moves but summarise them below).
CONSISTENCY AND OTHER ARGUMENTS
- “[the articles] should remain at their RoI names for consistency " and [the existing names] are consistent with the other titles”. -There are numerous articles concerning the state that use the name "Ireland", not "RoI" so consistency point is a red herring. Each proposed move should be looked at on its individual merits.
- WP uses the official description of the state (RoI) for its article names on Ireland" - No. Numerous articles refer to Ireland, not RoI. The main article is "Republic of Ireland" because the island of Ireland article already has the name "Ireland" - not because WP will not allow the correct name of the state to be used.
- "Republic of Ireland" is the agreed name for the article that deals with the state, notwithstanding the constitution and thus articles should primarily flow from that.” – No this in no way reflects WP philosophy or rules. Lots and lots or articles cannot be given their “correct” names because another article is located under that name. There is absolutely no rule (or in the case of these three moves) against using the name Ireland for the state.
- "There should not be any “piecemeal moving” of articles concerning the state one, or two, or three at a time." - No. Every article move should be considered on its individual merits. Moving individual articles is an ordinary part of editing. These particular three moves are appropriate. Others may not be. I would not support moves if they would cause confusion.
- “[the current article names] meet COMMONNAME”. In fact, this is not correct. I do not know how one measures use of the RoI v Ireland names but, I think most people would agree simply Ireland is used more often. Perhaps more importantly, in official contexts such as at the UN or EU, only Ireland is used for the state.
- ”Their (sic) is no need to deliberately confuse generic articles”...e.g. President of Ireland... "lowercase" letters etc. "Consistancy (sic) in naming is not nit-picking -- its good policy and practice” - Republic of Ireland is uppercase. Ireland is uppercase. President of Ireland would hardly be lowercase just as Monarchy of the United Kingdom is uppercase. Whatever argument underlies this upper-case/lower-case point, it does not undermine the strong arguments in favour of the three moves. It appears to be a consistency argument but it is more important that the name of the articles concerned are consistent with the name of the State.
- The moves would be “messy and amaturish (sic) at best”. No, there are a range of important reasons why these moves should be made.
- “we need to face the fact that the partition of Ireland is a reality”....and discussion re all-island movements etc. - Three article moves are proposed so that they accord with the name of the state as no confusion will be caused by the moves – nothing more. It is unfortunate these moves may be the victims of much broader issues to which they have nothing to do with.
- The ”[s]obering fact is people that if we move these three articles this week then next week it will be another three and the week after another three, then followed by a similar run on categories and templates over an extended time.” – Three articles are proposed to be moved. If other articles in the future are to be moved, they too will need to be discussed just as things always are on Wikipedia. Every move must be assessed on a case by case basis.
SHORT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE MOVES
- RoI is not the correct name of the state, Ireland is. WP should be accurate.
- The moves will not cause any confusion.
- The concerted practice of using the RoI description rather than the name, Ireland, even where there is no possibility of confusion is offensive.
- Ireland is accepted as the name of the State by every country and international body. Where no confusion will be caused, WP should reflect this.
- The moves will mean that the articles will be consistent with the name of the state concerned and with other articles on the foreign relations of other states (where descriptions such as "Republic of" or "Kingdom of" etc. are generally not used - even where those descriptive terms are parts of the official name of the states concerned).
- The concerted practice of using the RoI description rather than the name causes confusion about what is the name of the State.
- The burden should be on those opposed to using the correct name of the State to show good reasons whay it shuold not be used - not the other way around.
In conclusion, please Support these three article moves. Redking7 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant summary! Support, of course. Sarah777 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This user (Sarah777) has already voted. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll and additional discussion
Another rehash from Redking7.
Moving these three articles would go totally against the spirit of talk:Republic of Ireland that has endorsed a "Republic of Ireland" as the name in wikipedia for the state time and time again (indeed so often one wonders why it reappears every three months a move is proposed only to be defeated). In any case moving these three articles would invariable lead to another (failed?) heave against Republic of Ireland.
Here is the stated positions (feel free to correct me - or add yourself to the respective list if you "vote"):
Oppose: (7): Bastun, BrownHairedGirl, Djegan, Guliolopez, Red King, Ww2censor, User:Traditional unionist
Support: (6†): 78.19.65.254†, Bardcom, Redking7, Sarah777, Wikipéire, Melvo
Neutral: (1): GoodDay
†Generally anonymous votes are not considered.
Regards Djegan (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- The comment "Another rehash" is not appropriate, and is disdainful and dismissive. I for one thought that it was a very good summary, and a lot of work went into the post. A little respect for his effort should be the minimum reaction, whether you agree with this position or not. It's also very disingenious that whenever this topic is raised here, somebody always says "Oh, this is an old discussion that has already been dealt with on the Republic of Ireland Talk page". Yet, on that talk page, people are directed back here - as a discussion that has already been dealt with. I've looked back, and there has never been a consensus on this topic. I for one applaud the geniune AFG efforts so far on this page. For the record, I do not support using the term "Republic of Ireland" under circumstances dealing with the state. Use of this term encourages and propagates use of alternative terms, and is simply wrong. It's wrong. What else is there to discuss? It's wrong. Bardcom (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ireland is the major state in Ireland, 85% of the island, and should be referred to as "Ireland". Northern Ireland, is just another statelet, and should be referred to as simply "Northern Ireland". In my experience, the people who don't want to use the proper name "Ireland", are usually British, Unionist, or extreme Republicans. Are we satisfying all 3 at Wikipedia for some silly "balanced article". It reminds me of the joke about the well balanced guy who had a chip on each shoulder. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- "practicality and consensus", yes, and I hope it's not political. I just cannot see the "problems". Quite simply, Ireland is the name of the state, and a tiny 15% stayed in the UK. Is the tail not wagging the dog? -78.19.77.76 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Repeating yourself ad infinitum isn't going to win you any arguments. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Percentages of area are not really relevant, we could also quote population figures Northern Ireland:Republic of Ireland is 1,710,300:4,339,000 which is approximately 1.0:2.5 which makes your arguement a lot less impressive if it were a numbers game. But its not. Its a discussion and consensus. Djegan (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- "40% of the population of NI have no wish for that state to exist" -- what utter nonsense. At a time when "free" Ireland's health service is falling apart and a subject of daily scandal theirs not too many in Northern Ireland that would give up the National Health Service funded from Westminister. And thats only one example of why most right minded Northerns would stay in a United Kingdom - theirs many more reasons why they want to stay out of a "united" Ireland, and their certainly not going to be forced into one. This is no place for anti-British sentenment. Djegan (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Talk not to me about anti-British vitriol, what about your anti-Irish vitriol DJ. Beginning to get into the realms of Godwin's Law here. Ireland is committed by international treaty to allow US planes landing rights, +UN res. Irish fingers did not press those buttons that killed so many. No point pretending either. Have you got a grudge against Ireland DJ. Well, I think you should recuse yourself from the issue at hand. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anti-Irish vitriol, it rampant, even here. Infiltration? ;~) -78.19.77.76 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Leaving aside Iraq (what's that got to do with this page?!) - 43% of NI voters appear to vote for nationalist and republican parties who support the Good Friday agreement and who recognise and support the NI state. Remind me, what proportion voted in favour of the referendum again? Now - can we please stay on topic. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of course not. That's an entirely different question. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, Djegan, I hope you are not revealing a political hand here. What I said about British, Unionist, and extreme Republicanism, is in fact quite true, and is not a political bias. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, what are you incinuating? Can someone not speak their mind when presented with utterly fantasy figures. Theirs no censorship in wikipedia. Thanks. Djegan (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a Non sequitur argument that you propose. I don't think Irish people should run down their own country in presenting a case. And it certainly is not Argumentum ad logicam in this particular instance. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me, what are you incinuating? Can someone not speak their mind when presented with utterly fantasy figures. Theirs no censorship in wikipedia. Thanks. Djegan (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, Djegan, I hope you are not revealing a political hand here. What I said about British, Unionist, and extreme Republicanism, is in fact quite true, and is not a political bias. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- And its not "British, Unionist, or extreme Republican" to say the truth either. 40% - utter nonsense. Were did you come up with that figure. On the back of a Sinn Fein publication (no double subsidised by the British taxpayer) at the last election. Utter nonsense. Djegan (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly hope other opinions are welcome, and that's my opinion, and actually haven't repeated myself. I'll add no more to this topic for the moment. User:Bastun, I warned you before about "ad hominin" attacks, this one concerning your "ad infinitum" remark. I am well able to absorb your attacks, but that's no excuse to continue. Please read WP:NPA, and please argue your case, and not attack the other editors. Thank you. -78.19.77.76 (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- The phrase is ad hominem - and stating that repeating an argument an argument ad infintum won't it for you is in no way a personal attack. Now, Sarah, care to show me where I've attacked you, or withdraw your allegation. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Add me to the list of opponents of the move. "Civil service of Ireland" is ambiguous (does it cover the north, the republic, or both?) whereas "Civil service of the Republic of Ireland" is unambiguous.
Whether or not anyone likes the situation, the fact is that the sate called Ireland dies not cover the whole island: when referring to the state we therefore need to use an article name which makes it clear to the reader what the article is about. "Republic of Ireland" is a description of the state which has been enshrined in law for nearly 60 years, and the alternatives are clumsy artifacts such as Civil service of Ireland (state). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- But the most pertinent fact is, the name of the state is Ireland, and the civil service is an instrument of the state, not the island. The Irish government refers to it as the Civil Service of Ireland. This is the correct name. I agree with you that like it or not, Ireland does not cover the whole island, but who said it was trying to? This is a simple naming issue. Your point on being unambiguous assumes that there is confusion in the first place - please see comment above by Redking as the "confused argument" was dealt with very clearly. Are you suggesting that the Irish government should also change the names of the various organizations too? The only reason people are confused is because clumsy alternatives for the real name are being placed in articles because otherwise people will get confused. It's a self-propagating truth... Bardcom (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Closure of poll - we should consider a definite cutoff point - perhaps a week from the 17th (the original opening of this discussion thread), or a week from the 23rd (the original opening of the straw poll). Djegan (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yet elsewhere you're giving users 24 hours - in the middle of an ongoing AfD - before you threaten a "speedy move"? A week is more than adequate for a straw poll. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I an also for the move. The official name of the country should take precendence. In this case the description is irrelevant and any arguments against this move are irrelevant. Denying this move would be a complete rejection of the state's constitutional official name.Melvo (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also opposed to the move. I would tell you why myself - but BHG seems to be of like mind - what she said. "Ireland" tells an abigious story and not the while story. Republic of is required for clarity.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Would support moving to Civil Service of Ireland (state), otherwise oppose per BHG. Valenciano (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - we all know about the states name - but we can only have either a) the island, or b) the state located at Ireland - not both of them. And by mixing and matching (which is essentially what is been proposed) we will confuse the situation. Articles that deal with topics on countries/islands/states should flow directly from the article on the country/island/state. "Ireland" for "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" for "Republic of Ireland" NOT "Ireland" for "Republic of Ireland".
- X of Ireland should be reserved for topic "X" of the article Ireland not topic "X" of the article Republic of Ireland. What is been proposed is pure confusion masked as clarity. Djegan (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- So because one article has one title then 20~ others have to have incorrect titles? These three title changes are justified as they are matters refering to the state and not the island. Anyway people don't go around saying ' the wikipedia article called Ireland is about the island so any other article with that name must be reffering to the island too.' Ireland is the common and official name of the state. I think official names give more clarity than descriptions in an encyclopedia such as wikipedia. You are making judgements on behalf of readers which in reality wouldn't happen. The term Republic Of Ireland has been agreed to use only in cases of ambiguity to distinguish between the state and constitute part of the UK that is on this island. Northern Ireland isn't mentioned so the term ROI is not needed.Wikipéire (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No need for straw poll
Looking at the discussion above, it seems odd that those who are arguing to oppose the move have not addressed any of the arguments put forward by Redking7. A straw poll just seems to encourage a simple vote without addressing any of the issues. There's no harm in getting more people involved, but there is harm if they just drop a vote and run.
In an attempt to keep this focussed, there are two main arguments as I see them:
- Ireland is the correct name - An article should be named according to the correct name. No other article uses the proposed term, which is the correct term. No disambiguation. No argument over common name. For me, it's cut and dried that the article should refer to the 'Civil Service of Ireland'.
- Republic of needed for clarity. Redking7 does a great job of settling this argument. In a nutshell, Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) are the correct ways to disambiguate terms if they are confusing, and follows good wikipedia practice. Bardcom (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We all know the states name, but WP:COMMONAME is a fundemental guideline and the article Ireland already deals with the island and not the state.
Moving the three articles proposed would be confusion. The article on the state is at Republic of Ireland and the vast majority of articles about the Republic of Ireland follow that scheme - for instance (but not just) - Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland | Coins of the Republic of Ireland | Communications in the Republic of Ireland | Courts of the Republic of Ireland | Economic history of the Republic of Ireland | Economy of the Republic of Ireland | Education in the Republic of Ireland | Geography of the Republic of Ireland | Health care in the Republic of Ireland | History of the Republic of Ireland | Languages of the Republic of Ireland | Law of the Republic of Ireland | List of flags of the Republic of Ireland | List of universities in the Republic of Ireland | Local government in the Republic of Ireland | Politics of the Republic of Ireland | Regions of the Republic of Ireland | State-sponsored bodies of the Republic of Ireland.
People just need to accept that discussion and discussion and vote after vote has resulted in keep Republic of Ireland. Theirs a small hardcore majority who push the issue every three months (in one form or another) in the hope that they will get a majority to move.
If we start moving articles in a piecemeal fashion - and it is piecemeal - then the cleanup will still be in operation in twelve months.
Sorry -- this arguement has been discussed time and time again as referenced by talk:Republic of Ireland. Djegan (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Djegan, I'll answer your points one by one
- WP:COMMONAME - Ireland is still the correct term (a point I made in my first point above). That's a reason for renaming, not a reason for keeping the awkward "republic of".
- Other articles are not part of this discussion for now, but let's for the purpose of seeing where this would go, assume that other articles need to be discussed. Why would we discuss these now? Let's not distract this argument. Let's keep this tightly focussed. We can examine the impact of this discussion at a later stage.
- You say this argument has been discussed time and again in talk:Republic of Ireland. But when I visit that page, I get directed back here. And the discussion doesn't appear to be continuing there. And nobody appears to have considered the argument that the correct term is not being used. There needs to be recognition that "Ireland" is the legal correct term, and that the argument should be the other way around - Why are we using the "Republic of" - it's just wrong. Bardcom (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really, it has (over a dozen times!) Check the archives there. It's not being discussed there now because it was discussed there (again!) quite recently. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh c'mon. Would you argue the point instead of moaning? The Roi title wasn't moved because even though everyone accepted Ireland was the common and official name of the state, the island article had the exact same title. However in this case the proposed move is going to bring the common and official name into place because the island aritcle has nothing to do with these other articles so the inclusion of Roi is not necessary. How can you say it will cause confusion. People use the term to refer to the state more than the island. THE island article is hardly referred to in any other pages it is always the country so the move makes perfect sense. I think it is you refusing to budge because you want what you want rather than the factually better article titles for these three pages.Wikipéire (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- the issue has been discussed, rediscussed, voted and revoted again and again. Relashing the same arguement is not going to change things. On with the straw poll. Djegan (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- No sorry but to correct you there - this has not been discussed before. These three articles have nothing to do with any other page. You really need to take your blinkers off. You are bringing some other agenda into this other than picking the best and most informative titles for these pages.Wikipéire (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is it just me or are the losing side complaining about the system rather than trying to play the game? We're told that voting has castrated the argument by disincentivising people from knocking down the argument for moving the articles. This somewhat misses the point. This is not a democracy, so even if there were a simple majority for moving (which it doesn't look like there will be) it wouldn't happen, because there is no consensus amongst editors. So maybe I haven't systematically deconstructed the arguments, but conversely, you haven't convinced me that the move is a good idea.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "These three articles have nothing to do with any other page..." -- what is this Alice in Wonderland? - all of these pages are related and the title of the state should be reflected in the title of related articles that discuss various topics -- consistancy is a requirement of a good encyclopedia and wikipedia has a detailed manual of style enforcing consistancy -- education, foreign relations, civil service, public service, television, radio, geography, etc, etc, etc should reflect the name used for the state in the encyclopedia.
- "You are bringing some other agenda..." -- sorry I will not be silenced, I am acting in good faith (notwithstanding the fact that this has become a flame war at times). Djegan (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- No sorry but to correct you there - this has not been discussed before. These three articles have nothing to do with any other page. You really need to take your blinkers off. You are bringing some other agenda into this other than picking the best and most informative titles for these pages.Wikipéire (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The point is that the Republic of Ireland is not an acceptable term. Especially when dealing with instruments of the state, we must use the correct names. As per the case (Ellis v O’Dea [1989] I.R. 530), the name Republic of Ireland has been ruled unconstitutional. This also gives a lot of weight to the reasons for renaming. I enclose the ruling below:
- ‘In the English language the name of this State is ‘Ireland’ and is so prescribed by Article 4 of the Constitution. Of course if the courts of the United Kingdom or of other States choose to issue warrants in the Irish language then they are quite at liberty to use the Irish language name of the State as prescribed in the Constitution. However they are not at liberty to attribute to this State a name which is not its correct name. It is quite clear from various warrants which have come before this Court from time to time that this is a conscious and deliberate practice. In effect it is a refusal to recognise a provision of the Constitution of Ireland. Every court in this State, and every member of the Garda Síochána is duty bound to uphold the Constitution and not to condone or acquiesce in any refusal to recognise the Constitution or any part thereof. If the courts of other countries seeking the assistance of this courts of this country are unwilling to give this State its constitutionally correct and internationally recognised name then, in my view, the warrants should be returned to such countries until they have been rectified. Henceforth it should be the care and concern of the requesting prosecuting and judicial authorities of another State not to ignore or brush aside the fundamental law of this State. It should be the concern and care of the Irish authorities not to permit the existence of any such a situation.’ (Ellis v O’Dea [1989] I.R. 530)'
- This proposal is about 3 articles, and is not part of the "bigger" question of Ireland vs ROI. It's pretty clear that these articles should use the correct name. Bardcom (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- The point is that the Republic of Ireland is not an acceptable term. Especially when dealing with instruments of the state, we must use the correct names. As per the case (Ellis v O’Dea [1989] I.R. 530), the name Republic of Ireland has been ruled unconstitutional. This also gives a lot of weight to the reasons for renaming. I enclose the ruling below:
- If you think "the Republic of Ireland is not an acceptable term" then you need to refer back to talk:Republic of Ireland -- you must have a larger agenda than three "minor" articles with a statement like that? Djegan (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Bardcom - no disrespect to the courts or yourself but this is not a Court of Law, nor is it the press office of the state - it's an encyclopedia with an international input and output. Maybe if you read WP:COMMONAME then you would realise the "official name" (or indeed the "constitutional" one) is not always used in wikipedia. Djegan (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Its an inconsistant and muddled up style as you well know -- it will be on the road to a new heave Republic of Ireland -> Ireland. Its a piecemeal approach to gradually moving around Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles in a confused mix and match. Djegan (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
But that shouldn't be what's discussed on this page. I acknowledge the ROI page cannot move directly to Ireland as the island has that title. I am discussing these three pages which can be moved as there are many reasons for moving them and not many against. Your main argument of confusion amongst the reader doesn't really hold through as the term Ireland refers to the state more than the island around the world.Wikipéire (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing by Redking7
See here. Five messages have been left on talk pages of editors who supported the renaming of Republic of Ireland in the recent discussion ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). No attempt was made to inform any editors who were against the proposal. One Night In Hackney303 11:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because partisan canvassing is against policy? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking these discussions should be on the talk pages of the three articles concerned though I don't think thats necessary. I did not know about this forum until Bastun told me about it. Others may not know as well. The quality of argument against the moves has been really poor - no rational arguments in reponse to the above arguments for the move - just an attempt to guillotine the discussions by starting a "straw poll" and calling for it to end very soon. Thats not what consensus is about. Consensus is about setting out good rational arguments. Its a good thing if more people get involved. The quality of debate might improve. Redking7 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with inviting other editors, so long as you either advertise in a "neutral" place in a neutral way, and/or invite ppl from both "sides". As to "The quality of argument against the moves has been really poor - no rational arguments in reponse to the above arguments for the move" - that's your opinion. Many of us expressed ours, and I stand by mine and other comments. You don't have to accept them, of course, but you can't just dismiss them as irrelevant - we (and anyone else coming to the debate) can make our own minds up. Straw polls are a long-accepted methodof determining consensus, and a week-long debate is more than enough time. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Afd of List of monarchs in the British Isles
A notice to anybody that may be interested in an AfD of the list of monarchs in the British Isles [7] The proponents of the term "British Isles" argue that the term is purely geographical... Bardcom (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- WOW!! Umm, yes a political term indeed, List of monarchs in the British Isles, some of these editors want it both ways!! -78.19.108.110 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Rename article
- I think that the article North Channel (British Isles) should be renamed to North Channel (Britain and Ireland). I've never renamed an article before - can anyone point me as to what is the procedure, or would anyone just like to rename it? Bardcom (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) --Bardcom (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's unlikely to be a controversial move. Now you've posted there, I'd leave it for a couple of days to make sure. Then just move it. First, click 'What links here' to see what pages carry links to the article. Then just click on 'Move' and enter the new title. Then you can manually fix the links on other articles. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
2nd opinion with this article
I found an essay on WP:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom and I found that the essay duplicated many parts of other articles, and also veered into dealing with the nationality of people from Ireland. I removed the duplicated parts. Now two editors have reverted the edits, and are talking about expanding the article from United Kingdom to British Isles. I don't believe articles like this are being created in good faith. I'd like a 2nd opinion on the matter, and I don't want to start an edit war. Can you take a look and tell me if I'm over-reacting or being too sensitive. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)