Talk:Outline of the Republic of Ireland

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

Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines"[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines".

The Transhumanist 00:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal for this page and all the pages of the set this page belongs to[edit]

See the proposal at the Village pump

The Transhumanist 09:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland/Republic of Ireland naming issues[edit]

Just to note, I believe this article comes under the remit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, one of the central issues of which is how to name articles related to Ireland (a task delegated to it by Arbcom), given that name Ireland can refer both to the state and to the entire island. Editors here will need to be aware that that process exists and that it may require a change in the name of this article. Constitutionally, the name of the Irish state is "Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland" as I have cited in the article, so I have changed the "official name" field to that. Pfainuk talk 23:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for developing country outlines[edit]

Instructions for developing country outlines is located at Wikipedia:Outlines (while that section is complete, the page is a draft, and will be moved to the Wikipedia namespace when completed). The Transhumanist    21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note concerning redlinks...[edit]

Many of the entries (and their links) are standard across all of the country outlines, to aid readers, especially young readers, in comparing countries to each other.

So if this country doesn't have any of a particular entry, like navies, please don't delete the entry. Instead, complete it with "none" (and a brief explanation as to why, for example, "- x is a landlocked country with no ports"). If the explanation exists in an article on Wikipedia, then click on the redlink and create a redirect to that location. See Wikipedia:Redirect, WP:Section linking, and Help:Section#Section_linking.

Standard redlinks (article names) were also chosen based on how country coverage tipically expands. This makes the standard names for these subtopics widely available and easily accessible. So please do not remove those redlinks, for they will turn blue eventually. In the meantime, they can be redirected to the section of whatever article has the relevant information, if any. See Wikipedia:Redirect, WP:Section linking, and Help:Section#Section_linking.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: To discuss the standard design of the country outlines, or of outlines in general, do so on the Outline of knowledge WikiProject talk page.

Guidelines for outlines[edit]

Guidelines for the development of outlines are being drafted at Wikipedia:Outlines.

Your input and feedback is welcomed and encouraged.

The Transhumanist    21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check and fix the government section[edit]

The government section needs to be checked for accuracy. The initial data placed in the government branches sections was generated by template, and the data didn't fit all countries.

So those sections need to be looked over, and fixed if needed.

Please help.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: If you'd like to help out with other tasks concerning Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, please drop me a note on my talk page.

Name is wrong[edit]

I have not seen this article before but I must point out that the state this article is about is "Ireland" not "the RoI". Before we create another mess on Wiki we should move this article to "Outline of Ireland", now. Sarah777 (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an uncontroversial move. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you think so then move it! Otherwise please replace my tag.....Sarah777 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking an IPuser to move a page? However, I have listed it in the uncontroversial section of WP:RM. If you can move it feel free to do so. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently mixes up Ireland the island and Ireland the state. I think it should focus on the state. The island stuff can go into another outline - or not. If we have articles for both, then the names should be determined by the ongoing arbcom-mandated process. If we just have one for the state, then I have no objection to calling it Outline of Ireland. Pfainuk talk 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly includes both, and is clearly misnamed. After it is moved you can certainly create a new one calling it Outline of the republic of Ireland (note that republic is not capitalized, as it is not a part of the name of the country). 199.125.109.102 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of the republic of Ireland would be as controversial as Outline of the Republic of Ireland. We have the arbcom process precisely because the names "Republic of Ireland" and "Ireland" are controversial. Note that there is an Arbcom restriction against moving Ireland-related articles until that process is finished.
As I say, this article should not include both island and state as though they were the same. It should not confuse Ireland the state and Ireland the island. This is misleading, awkward, unhelpful and potentially POV. Some links reference the island, despite the flag and map of the state at the top of the article.
Now, I don't object to using "Ireland" in this article's name, subject to the Arbcom process, but I do think we should ensure it's clear exactly what this article is outlining. Pfainuk talk 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As if Wiki isn't bad enough - who decided that an "Outline of RoI" would actually be an outline of the island of Ireland? Also as RoI isn't a name then would it be uncontroversial to move the Republic of Ireland to The republic of Ireland? Who could argue with that? Sarah777 (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on your first point - it is daft and it needs changing. I'll have a go at it at some point, probably on the weekend, if no-one beats me to it. On your second, I'm afraid WP:THE would be an issue...
FWIW I do not have any particularly strong position on the wider Ireland naming dispute. I'm happy with whatever the result of the Arbcom process is, though my personal preference would be Ireland (state) and Ireland (island). Pfainuk talk 20:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mine too. And I suspected someone would find a flaw in my "republic of Ireland" suggestion:) Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at this. Trouble is, looking in more detail, many of the topics that are done on an all-Ireland basis have no equivalent for the Irish state. You wouldn't want to remove them because that would leave readers without relevant information. I can understand why these articles were done in this way - there's no good reason to separate the fauna of five sixths of the island from the fauna of the island as a whole - but it doesn't help with this kind of sovereign state-by-sovereign state series.
I've noted below the table of contents that some articles noted on the list do include Northern Ireland (and that NI is part of the United Kingdom) in the hope that people will not be overly surprised to find Northern Ireland included in some articles. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

Article is an outline of all aspects of Ireland - any countries therein, any geography thereof, etc. — 199.125.109.102 (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly kind of you old chap. That's where I started - but I think you did it better:) Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be odd to keep outlines of the two "Irelands" separate. In outline form there is no need to disambiguate Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island, the distinction can be handled within the text. An outline of knowledge about Ireland should be a merger of both current state and the island - much like the current primary Ireland article does. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. There is nothing to suggest this is exempt from ArbCom's remedy prohibiting the moving of ROI/Ireland article. I understand why this could be deemed the one article that should be uncontroversial, but seriously, when is nothing uncontroversial in this area? This is simply going to lead to more drama and a block for the person who decides to move the page. Lets get the meta-issue resolved and then this can be moved to the appropriate title. Rockpocket 23:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That, however is being silly. This is clearly an uncontroversial move - and if you think it can not be moved because of the ban on moves, then there is no reason to discuss the move - hence the catch 22 situation. Wait, I know what to do, lets ask Jimbo to move it (not). 199.125.109.102 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can be moved. However, recent experience suggests doing so as a result of a !vote here will lead to a block and a whole load of pointless drama. Its entirely up to you whether you want to precipitate that. Th alternative, of course, is to make your proposal at WP:IECOLL, if it is deemed uncontroversial by consensus there, then it probably can be moved without fear of ArbCom violation. Rockpocket 23:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created section there - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Requested move - Outline of Ireland to see if there are any objections. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the move for the reasons given on WT:IECOLL. The page should only deal with the state and the page title should reflect whatever title is given for the sovereign state after the process.MITH 00:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not give names to states (see Federal Africa). It does give names to articles. The name of the state is Ireland. The name of the island is Ireland. Why shouldn't an article about topics about Ireland be named Outline of Ireland? 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that is the best title, but that argument could be applied to many articles, so I think we should respect the process. However the content should not be about the island only the 26 counties in order to match the categories and other article out there.MITH 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that Northern Ireland should kick the brits out and make life a lot easier for us. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Rockpocket, WP:IECOLL is going nowhere. If there is a consensus to move this page then there is a consensus - and that's all that matters.
"Wikipedia does not give names to states..." And we didn't give the name Republic of Ireland to the Irish state either. See common usage. In the same way, we didn't give the name Australia to the Commonwealth of Australia or the name Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany. We follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and bite our tongues when we don't agree with it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once of the reasons it is "going nowhere" is because some editors have decided on a strategy of tackling the naming issue piecemeal, article by article, rather than deal with the underlying dispute in a central forum. If half the effort put in to subvert the process was focused on engaging in it, we would be done by now.
Look, you are entirely free to generate a consensus here and use that to justify a move - but be aware that is exactly what Domer tried to do at Republic of Ireland and he ended up blocked. I don't see why this would turn out any different. For any move to be ArbCom compliant, it requires a consensus there (or, at least, have the blessing of a moderator). Therefore my !vote is simply to avoid another round of inevitable drama; it is not any reflection of my opinion on the article title. If you want to completely ignore such a procedural oppose I will not object or complain, but on your head be it - you cannot say you were not warned and I will say "I told you so". Rockpocket 02:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that "some editors" is not aimed at me? Right now, I'm trying to get a collaborate summary of our arguments put together over on that page so that we can move on. I also took a proposal for how to deal with IRE/ROI in articles to WP:IECOLL rather than having that warred over it piecemeal, if you recall? Meanwhile, you were quite happy to feed Domer48 ahead of his/her disruption last Monday contrary to my advice.
My point here is that "procedure" or otherwise, if we have a consensus on something then that a good thing. And where is exits we shouldn't be trying to quash it with "procedure". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that "some editors" is not aimed at you. I appreciate your efforts to keep this discussion focused and I'm sorry if I gave an alternative impression. A consensus anywhere is a good thing, unless it is a false consensus, then it is a bad thing. Thats my only concern. Given the events of this week, this much should be obvious. Rockpocket 01:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucracy/process is beside the point now. Transhumanist has demonstrated that a consensus doesn't exist. So let's hold on for the ArbCom. The article's been here for over a year (and most people didn't know it existed!). It can wait for another few months. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing, are there other Outline of... articles? GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen one before either but there are plenty out there.MITH 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wowsers, I've been a registered user for over 3-yrs & still I'm discovering new things. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've made my position on the move known above: I don't have any substantial objection to the move, but feel that we should respect the ongoing arbcom-mandated process. If that means we can't move this until that process is finished, then we can't move until that process is finished.
As I noted above, a fairly large number of articles on Ireland quite rightly deal with the island without any equivalent article for the state, and this means that quite a few of the articles listed here are bound to be island-focussed as opposed to state-focussed. I can't think of a good way of resolving this inherent conflict in purpose. We could make this an outline of the island of Ireland, but then Ireland would be the only sovereign state on the planet not to have an outline. We could create a new outline of the island of Ireland, or simply remove the all-Ireland links from this list, but that would mean that this article would be missing quite a bit of useful geographical and cultural information and so would be less useful as a practical reference.
I mention this because I feel it is inherent in the question of the move. There is some inconsistency in whether the article is dealing with the state or the island. The article title clearly deals with the state, but not all the links do. I've made some changes that hopefully make it clearer that some of the links deal with the island, and I hope this is reasonably acceptable to all. Pfainuk talk 20:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is solved[edit]

This is a country outline. It shares the standard format of all the country outlines. A non-country outline about an island would be organized substantially differently.

Many of the links were to the island's subtopics, because those were the most relevant pages on Wikipedia that existed.

However, due to the bickering above, I've corrected the links.

There are now a lot of redlinks indicating articles that need to be created for this country.

I suggest you get busy and create them!  :)

The Transhumanist 00:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your knowledge of the issue is lacking. Most of the links are correct as the name of the country is Ireland. Hence articles such as Flag of Ireland exist. I've reverted your changes as they don't accomplish anything and are against the Arbcom agreement of moving pages regarding the Ireland naming issue.MITH 00:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge is not lacking. I created the outline in the first place, and I'm the one who gathered and placed the links. But the links are misnamed, as they do not match the title of the outline. They need to be corrected, and redirects created pointing to wherever the material is. The Transhumanist 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? You don't own the article. The links are not meant to match the title. The title could be changed. Almost certainly none of the other article titles are meant to be change as creating or changing articles regarding the name of the Irish state is prohibted by Arbcom until WP:IECOLL is sorted out. I'm telling you now, changing lots of articles could get you ban due to the rules set by Arbcom.MITH 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The links are intended to match the title. That's the way these pages were designed. Having them match the title helps the reader tell what country he's looking at - the country outlines are all very similar and present information in the same order. Without the country names in the links, it is easy to get these outlines confused.
I'm not changing any article names - and I have no intention of doing so. I'm only changing the links on this page, making sure they lead to the articles about this country. The Transhumanist 00:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are overlooking the fact that this articles title is under review of the WP:IECOLL process and changing links is disruptive. The article title of this page is going to change. Their is no policy behind your edits and it flies in the face of what Arbcom asked editors not to do. Please leave everything alone until the titles of all related articles are sorted out. It is not your right to say 'I want them to look the same.'MITH 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is it disruptive? As long as the links still work, functionality is not damaged. The Transhumanist 00:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are meddling with the Ireland naming issue. You are just ignoring the whole WP:IECOLL process and the issue behind it all.MITH 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

The use of redirects on outlines is standard. It keeps the link names standardized across all the outlines. For example "Military of x" is on all the country outlines, and in most cases is a redirect leading to wherever the information is. The Transhumanist 00:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where does Wiki policy state this? Arbcom have instructed editors not to edit regarding the naming issue while its being sorted out. Again please revert your last edit and wait until the process of WP:IECOLL is sorted out and a consensus has been formed.MITH 00:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transhumanist, I agree that it would be best not to mess with article titles at the moment, even by just creating redirects. The ArbCom has directed that articles not be moved pending the results of the discussion required at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Back-up procedure, and a case could be made that creating redirects, even for the purposes of standardization, would violate this. While I am not going to act on this, I'd have no problem finding an uninvolved admin to make the call. Also, this isn't a case of vandalism, so WP:3RR is in effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Due to the IP NPOV dispute, and the volitile nature of the topic, I have requested that the page be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Highfields (talk, contribs) 12:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of the recent stream of reverts is not the content being changed but a banned editor editing as an IP, no? (Or at least the edits themselves don't look too out of the way to me.) If that's the case semi-protecting for a while would take care of that but I wouldn't like to see any page semi-protected indefinately owing to one bad egg. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 day semi-protect. Hopefully the user in question should get bored of waiting and move on. Highfields (talk, contribs) 12:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines[edit]

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outline_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=1208054340"