Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Irish Rail

Is the Irish Rail example really appropriate these days? Media almost invariably refer to it as Irish Rail, as does their own website. It certainly was a case until recently that IÉ was the more common name even in English, but I really don't think that's the case anymore, and general policy on naming would therefore dictate using IR as the name. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Irish Bus, maybe? 89.204.190.231 (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
As Mo Ainm reasonably asked, what's Irish Bus??? I am replacing the example with Gaelic League/Conradh na Gaeilge. --Scolaire (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can see, their website still refers to them as Iarnród Éireann, even though it uses the English name as a primary web address for obvious reasons: see [1] ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming of articles and categories notification - also affects IMoS Londonderry/Derry section

A discussion is underway in regards to the naming of GAA articles and categories - it can be found here.

Proposal 6 is an issue that relates to the Londonderry/Derry IMoS section that personally I wouldn't have included in this discussion as it focuses solely on the IMoS.

Mabuska (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Any proposed change to the IMOS should probably be discussed here, not on another page. Probably fine to have a discussion elsewhere to see if they should bring it here, but a decision on changes should be made here not there. My opinion, but the people interested in changes to the IMOS look at this page, not another Wikiproject. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Relax, it isn't anything to do with a proposed change to the IMoS. It is a discussion about GAA articles and categories that is being conducted entirely within the current IMoS strictures. If you care about how GAA articles and categories work, please join in. If you don't, relax a bit more. And, although Mabuska says he/she "wouldn't have included" Derry/Londonderry in that discussion, it is being discussed there solely and entirely because Mabuska brought it up in that discussion. No, I don't quite understand that either. Brocach (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
*face palm* Well obviously it had to be included there as the results of that discussion would affect that issue as well and in technicality it does affect IMoS. Mabuska (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Results of WT:GAA poll

As suggested above, I am now bringing the results of this discussion here for review. I think most of the proposals reached clear consensus, and those that did were uncontroversial. The one proposal I was not happy about calling was #6, that a special case should be made for Derry GAA. There was a majority (6:11) against the idea of a special case and personally I was persuaded by the arguments against. But as it touches on the Derry/Londonderry debate I don't think the GAA project provides a wide enough editorship to take such a potentially contentious decision.

If IMOS participants could indicate whether they are happy to accept the consensus decisions, that would be very helpful. Discussion and a decision on the proposal for a special case for Derry GAA would also be welcome. The original discussion on this particular proposal at WikiProject Gaelic Games can be found here.

Agreed proposals

  • Titles of articles on intra-county GAA competitions should not have "GAA" inserted after the county name, i.e. "X Intermediate Football Championship", not ""X GAA Intermediate Football Championship", unless cases emerge where there is a real possibility of confusion with another sporting competition.
  • Titles of articles on intra-county GAA competitions should not include the (transient) sponsor name, unless cases emerge where there is a real possibility of confusion with another sporting competition.
  • Titles of categories of people who have played on inter-county GAA teams should not have "GAA" inserted after the county name, i.e. "X hurlers", not "X GAA hurlers"; "X Gaelic footballers", not "X GAA Gaelic footballers".
  • Articles on people who have played on inter-county GAA teams should be categorised according to the county for which the player played, i.e. "Category: X GAA hurlers" or "Category: X hurlers" should include people who have hurled for X, regardless of their place of birth or residence. Players who have played for more than one county should be included in both county categories. Articles on people who have played on inter-county GAA teams should not be categorised according to the county in which the player was born or the county or counties in which they resided during their playing career.
  • In any of the above cases, the county in question should be the GAA county, not the "current administrative" county, i.e. "Tipperary", not "South Tipperary"; "Dublin", not "Fingal".

Defeated proposal

  • The scope of the category structure "Sportspeople from County Foo" (e.g. Category:Sportspeople from County Galway) should be defined as "Notable sportspeople who were born in the Irish county of Foo". This structure to be independent of the GAA county structure. So a person can be born in one county but may play for a different (or multiple) GAA county (e.g. Tony Reddin). Furthermore, the structure to permit the creation of categories for all modern administrative counties (e.g. Fingal, South Dublin and North Tipperary) as well as the "traditional" counties.

No-consensus proposal

  • Derry GAA should be exempted from all the above proposals, and IMoS should be amended to clarify as such.

Thank you in advance for your advice. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as regards the allegedly "no-consensus" proposal, that in WT:GAA had 64.7% opposing, which it seems is insufficient for Kim Dent-Brown. I invite expert views on how much more than an overwhelming majority is required to establish "consensus" against changing a long-established convention based on uniform treatment of GAA counties in favour of a wholly novel proposal to treat one differently. This proposal would treat Derry GAA differently from every other GAA county, breaking the uniformity of long-established article and category titles, and would imply that there was something wrong with Derry GAA using the one and only county name that it has used for 125 years, without any risk of ambiguity. Derry is the only name that this county has ever had in the GAA and this county should always be referred to as Derry in GAA contexts because no other county name is applicable. There is not, never has been and IMHO never will be a Londonderry GAA, and Derry in GAA articles will easily be understood as referring to the GAA county by the sort of people who look up GAA information on Wikipedia. Brocach (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Broseph, wise up! seriously! You are constantly trying to bypass IMOS, and on a number of occassions replace Londonderry with Derry. This is just another case where you are trying to mislead readers into thinking the county is called Derry. Please stop!Factocop (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This proposal was defeated in WT:GAA why we are rehashing this debate when WP:IMOS was informed of the discussion at WT:GAA is beyond me Gnevin (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I'd have to agree that the GAA project is the right one to deal with this, I can't see the point of going on about it here unless someone can point out a very strong reason otherwise an even then it should just go back to that project or to the Wikipedia community in general. 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear to both the above: this isn't a rehash of the discussion at GAA. It's an opportunity for IMoS to have a say about the proposal; as it affects both GAA topics in general, but has implications for the Derry/Londonderry issue it seemed sensible to consult as widely as possible to ensure that the decision, obnce made, can stick. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
To be fair Kim Dent-Brown - I did notify this WikiProject of the discussion and I think that most of the editors who voiced an opinion in the form of a vote arrived at that discussion via the notification on this page.
Having said that, I think the Proprosal 6 discussion should continue and conclude here, and I think we may be close to a resolution seeing as it is now an amicable discussion. Mabuska (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per my arguments at WT:GAA. Also, per Mabuska above, it looks as though we will be able to get agreement on the use of "Derry" without the neceesity of making an exception of it. Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment/Quote on Proposal To explain why this is being debate here, I have quote Kim Dent-Brown, with emphasis added: "[..] The one proposal I was not happy about calling was #6, that a special case should be made for Derry GAA. There was a majority (6:11) against the idea of a special case and personally I was persuaded by the arguments against. But as it touches on the Derry/Londonderry debate I don't think the GAA project provides a wide enough editorship to take such a potentially contentious decision." --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I hate when people use the term constructive discussion. Some would say that this is a constructive discussion, when really all that means is that people are not insulting each other. Could those opposed outline why they think using Derry as the GAA County name could not be confused with the POV name County Derry(actually County Londonderry) to an uninvolved reader? Then we really would have a constructive discussion.Obviously those opposed are very keen to promote the county name as 'Derry' via a back door edit, so not surprising that there is a 11 pov vs 6 editors vote. Factocop (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, when I call this discussion constructive I do mean in comparison to how it was being carried out before - so we are starting from a pretty low benchmark. However it is good to see that opposing sides with strongly held views can disagree without name-calling. I would however suggest that calling someone a "pov editor" simply because their point of view is opposite to your own is not only a bit naive but not terribly constructive. The 6 had their pov just as the 11 had theirs. And this lengthy discussion at more than one page is designed precisely so that the back door is NOT being used. On the contrary, I've rarely been involved in a discussion that's been so extensively trailed and advertised. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Kim, I gave up assuming good faith on this topic a long time ago. Its obviously a case of ambiguity. Calling Derry GAA Derry is going to lead people down the thought that the county is called 'Derry'. And I've even seen those opposed agree that there is ambiguity but still oppose the change. Explain that if you can? Its POV, pure and simple. At least were not slappin' each other round the bake. Low bar indeed. Kim, I'm particularly looking forward to hearing from those opposed and why they think using 'Derry' is not confusing. Factocop (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Factocop, I'm one of those that Opposed while acknowledging there is some ambiguity and there may be possible grounds to confuse casual readers. I get all that. I've thought about it quite a bit. I believe nobody is trying to use Londonderry as the GAA county, so the argument is condensing around a form of terminology, using "Derry", that clarifies it is a GAA administrative area and not the county. My preference is to use standard naming for all those administrative areas rather than making an exception for one area - but I'm not 100% against an exception either. I just can't think of anything that works well, and I haven't seen any sensible suggestions to date. My decision was based on a number of factors, but mainly on the fact that the GAA are the authority in question and they can name their admin areas however they like, and that there's no commonly used alternative. So until I see something I can agree to, I still Oppose this proposal as before. --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Derry and Londonderry are equally "confusing". It is obviously a case of ambiguity. The ambiguity is inherent in the fact that the county has two names. The idea of this discussion, which is indeed constructive most of the time, is to have a system to deal with it so that the system, not the editor's POV, decides which name is used in a given context. Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
1 official name and 1 nickname adopted based on an anti-british POV. As for this 'system' it would only work if all those who watched each particular page were of neutral POV which is not the case when the same pack go page to page with a collective POV blocking any attempts to instate fact into an encyclopedia.Factocop (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Support having Derry GAA used because, as Factocop points out, just using derry would mislead the casual reader into thinking that that was the county name. Wikipedia is meant for everyone, not just GAA fans who would most likely know about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is the county name, C of E. There just happens to be a convention – which nearly all nationalist editors uphold as zealously as unionist editors – to use the other county name, Londonderry, in all contexts except Gaelic football, hurling, camogie etc. The casual reader is just as likely to be misled into thinking that Londonderry was the only name for the county, but we do it that way because nobody has yet found a better way of doing it. Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Just because nationalists wish it so, doesn't mean it is. Londonderry is the only name of the county – Derry is an unofficial nickname. Support per nom. — Jon C.ॐ 11:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Nickname? You can't possibly think anybody is going to swallow that! Scolaire (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Scolaire, your name in french means 'School', yet you never studied history. The history books tell us that there was never a County Derry in the history of Ireland and that prior to the name change to County Londonderry it was part County Coleraine. I'm not the first to point this out, yet it still seems to be stuck in your throat. I think Nickname or pet-name is the only way to describe using 'Derry' in reference to the county or anything really. Get over it! The convention is there to use Derry for the City and Londonderry for the County. This obviously an attempt to bypass IMOS and mislead a reader into thinking the county is called Derry. Its a real shame and bad form that IMOS isnt worth the mb's its printed on.Factocop (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we need to engage in an extended back-and-forth. Ideally we need any new observations from people who did not comments at WT:GAA; I'm pretty clear about who expressed what opinion there, so if we could leave the field clear for new contributors or new arguments (ie, not the same arguments repeated by the same editors!) that would be great. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Scolaire, what is it otherwise? It is a nickname. It's only Derry in the Republic, but what relevance is that? London is Londres in France. — Jon C.ॐ 12:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Please give an example of where this so called confusion occurs? Gnevin (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There has only been one contribution from an editor who did not contribute to the previous discussion at WT:GAA - a note from Super Goku V which did not express a view one way or the other on the question at issue. So I propose to close this discussion tonight, not less that 48 hours after the datestamp from when I opened it. If you have any new comments or anyone new wishes to make themselves heard please comment in the next few hours. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Dmcq !voted here. He didn't participate at WT:GAA. Just saying... Scolaire (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I was mainly saying that WT:GAA was the right forum and I'd need better reasons to disagree with it here. I've never been a sports fan myself and in fact think that many sports fans here misuse Wikipedia by putting in loads of undigested facts and trying to turn it into a primary source. Personally I'd like to see a differently organised site for that purpose where contributors could gain credit as sources - and Wikipedia articles would only talk about things in the games which had made the news. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose There is no confusion. In the context of GAA sports, the Derry team is referred to as Derry. When sporting commentary refers to the Derry team in the real world, no 'clarification' is deemed necessary - same should equally apply here. If Derry beat Monaghan 3:2 to four points, we should not report it as Derry GAA beat Monaghan 3:2 to four points, because that is not how it is expressed in the media and elsewhere. RashersTierney (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And if Derry City beat Monagahn Utd 3:2, in the real world and in sporting commentary we should report it as....? And given that Derry is not a county, how would Derry beat Monaghan in the County Championships? I'm confused here...ohh well lets not add clarity, lets just pretend that everyone knows about the segregated sport of GAA. good one.Factocop (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Eh what ? Gnevin (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
For one that has taken such an interest in WT:GAA discussions recently, Facto, you don't seem to know a lot about Gaelic games. Derry couldn't "beat Monaghan in the County Championships" because neither team plays in any County Championship. If they met in some other competition, it would be reported as Derry beating Monaghan (though sadly, the other way around is more likely at present) simply because the Derry team is called "Derry" and the Monaghan team is called "Monaghan". Likewise in your example from some other sport, those clubs, if they exist, would be reported as "Derry City" beating "Monaghan Utd" if those were in fact the names of the teams concerned. It's not very complicated. Brocach (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
In fact, it is valid to say that "Derry" met "Monaghan" in either Gaelic football or soccer, just as it is valid to say that "Newcastle" met "Leicester" in either rugby union or soccer, or "Wigan" met "Hull" in either rugby league or soccer. The context makes everything clear. Scolaire (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose again!Per Gnevin Finnegas (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per Gnevin et al. --Eamonnca1 TALK 00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Question for the people voting "oppose" above: Given that this poll opened with the comment "If IMOS participants could indicate whether they are happy to accept the consensus decisions, that would be very helpful", are you expressing your opposition to adopting the proposals Kim listed as agreed-upon? (If that's the case, it would seem that adoption of these proposals has been roundly rejected.) Or are you expressing opposition only to the "No-consensus proposal" to exempt Derry from the other guidelines? (If that's the case, it looks like the "exempt Derry" proposal is overwhelmingly opposed.) -sche (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Having read your question, and then re-read the original post, I have to agree that there is a certain ambiguity there. However, Kim Dent-Brown was ubambiguous when he closed the previous discussion. He said, "I will post a request at the IMOS talk page summarising the agreed results and asking for a decision about the Derry/Derry GAA problem." I think you can take it that both "supports" and "opposes" read the request in that way (the great majority of us took part in that discussion), and that the !voting was on the "no-consensus proposal" only. Scolaire (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing decision

Nobody has commented adversely on the agreed consensus points described above. On the debated point, the only new voices here have added their weight to opposition for a special case for Derry GAA. I judge the consensus is that Derry GAA should be treated in the same way as Galway GAA and any other association when it comes to titling and categorising pages. When it comes to making reference in body text of articles, from what I can see there will be little or no changes needed. Typically a piece of text might say "Tippereray beat Dublin..." and the effect of defeating the proposal for a special case for Derry GAA is that text involving a Derry GAA team would also say ""Derry beat Galway..." rather than, uniquely, "Derry GAA beat Galway..."

The consensus arrived at here is clear and has been throughly discussed and may now be implemented. Please however do not regard this as a battle in which one side has emerged victorious. In particular, it would be odious if any kind of celebration or victory dancing took lace. I'm thinking particular;y of the obscure conflict that seems to be in place over Tipp vs North Tipp and South Tipp. This seems to have nothing to do with WP:TROUBLES but has some more personal root. Please edit like collegial collaborators, not roleplaying gamers. Over to you. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tipperary issue is one explicitly covered in the points agreed above: In any of the above cases, the county in question should be the GAA county, not the "current administrative" county, i.e. "Tipperary", not "South Tipperary"; "Dublin", not "Fingal". I presume that means that anyone is entitled to revert to Tipperary (etc.) where the name of a modern administrative county has been inserted, and that anyone inserting the name of a modern administrative county in place of the traditional county will know that they are editing against consensus. Brocach (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Only in a GAA context. The discussion at WT:GAA was quite explicitly limited to the GAA. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarity on use of Ireland and ROI

This is just in response to a number of article title changes from 'UK and ROI' to 'UK and Ireland'. These changes have been made apparently in relation to IMOS. For me personally common usage would be either to use Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. This makes sense to me as their is no ambiguity and no cross over of entities. Obviously Artcile titles are not to be pipelinked so it is confusing to say United Kingdom and Ireland when United Kingdom includes NI as does Ireland. This doesnt make sense. I think an amendment needs to be made to IMOS in this case.Factocop (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ireland is the name of a political entity as well as the name of a geographic feature and cultural "home land". This is not really a big deal. To a certain extent, Great Britain is equivocal as well: it refers to an island, "England, Wales and Scotlandconsidered as a unit", and is a synonym for the United Kingdom. See OED. To some degree it is a "home land" as well.
To me, "UK and Ireland" refers to politics (e.g. agricultural subsidies in the United Kingdom and Ireland) and "Great Britain and Ireland" refers to geography and/or culture (e.g. native trees of Great Britain and Ireland; or e.g. sport in Great Britain and Ireland).
I have never been convinced by arguments that "Republic of Ireland" is in some way clearer to the uninitiated. There is nothing to suggest that "Republic of Ireland" is any different to "Ireland". After all, "Kingdom of Sweden" is no different to "Sweden". "Republic of Poland" is no different to "Poland". So why would someone unfamiliar with the subject think "Republic of Ireland" is any different from "Ireland"? It only gets confusing when talking about Northern Ireland in the same breath (e.g. when Belfast is a city in Ireland but not in Ireland). --RA (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
RA, I think your examples are only valid if Sweden and Poland were separated into 2 political entities, which they are not. I'm assuming from personal experience that I turn to wiki on occasions when I am not familiar with a topic so I would imagine must people would think that Ireland and Republic would refer to 2 different entities, which they do/and don't, if you know what I mean. I think mentioning UK is to indirectly discuss or mention NI as UK is just acronym for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But I'm not against your suggestion of different titles for geographical and political pages.Factocop (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I picked this one up from my watch list: List of coastal weather stations of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Have there been any others?. The user who made this change only seems to have done this one. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I certainly think 'British Isles' or 'Great Britain and Ireland' is normally better in such circumstances as the two are being put together as a geographical area. Otherwise one deals with some thing like treaties between the United Kingdom and Ireland where they are considered as two separate political entities. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I originally moved the article from "List of coastal weather stations of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland" to "United Kingdom and Ireland". Moving it to "British Isles" is actually more correct and better, and I've no problem with that move at all. --HighKing (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, for the one I mentioned above, British Isles is exactly right, given that it talks about a weather station in the Isle of Man, which is not part of the UK anyway. I'll move the article when I've got a bit of time. The Roman Candle (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
RomanCandle, thats the page that got me curious. Highking made the page move. And from recent ANI, Highking has a habit of removing 'British Isles' from what I can tell, almost any page where it is mentioned. And for me, I'm still not convinced that IMOS explicitly suggests to change every instance of 'UK and ROI' to 'UK and Ireland'.Factocop (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I was about to do it ... someone's beaten me to it. The Roman Candle (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I found these two: List of marquesses in the peerages of Britain and Ireland and Marquesses in the United Kingdom, both changed today. I'm not sure of the validity of these changes. They could both be okay. Maybe someone else could comment. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
There's something else going on here. The user is changing the alphabetic sequence of Ireland and the UK when both these countries appear together. That's fine, generally. But in articles about a British subject I would disagree. In these cases the UK should be listed first. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll tell you straight away Roman, There is no such thing as the "Peerage of Britain and Ireland". There is a Peerage of the United Kingdom, Peerage of Ireland and Peerage of Great Britain but not of "Britain and Ireland" so that move is completely misleading. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking again at this, they weren't page moves, rather, it was swapping out British Isles for other terms. This seems reasonable, since I doubt there are peerages of the British Isles, but I defer to you on this one. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
And...it's now back again to British Isles. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I altered the section title, but I'm not sure what could be done about the article title. However, to get back to the original point of this discussion, I agree with Factocop, there's an obvious need to clarify the IMOS. I might add that the document is far too prescriptive in some areas as well. It merely gives ammunition to users pushing a pov if they can refer content disputes to a manual of style. The clue is in the the name - "style". The Roman Candle (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think putting the names in alphabetical order is always justified. It strikes me like listing the 1% of fruit first and the 20% of sugar afterwards. If the article is principally about something with an Irish connection then putting Ireland first is reasonable but otherwise I think it is misleading. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Factocop

I've asked that this editors previous restrictions be re applied as there is an obvious determination to misinterpret IMOS in such a way as to be contrary to its quite straightforward intention. RashersTierney (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Of what use is this post to the discussion on WP:IMOS? OK lets do this here as well. I noticed these edits and thought that despite claims they are pro IMOS, don't appear to do so........I thought that when NI is being discussed Republic of Ireland is used over Ireland to remove confusion. Are these edits correct...[2],

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Can someone explain to me for example this edit [10], [11] and how despite Northern Ireland being mentioned 21 times in the article, that it is IMOS to use Ireland, then ask why Highking made this edit and why Rashers restored it.Factocop (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland" (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland"). This has been clarified for you on several occasions. RashersTierney (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well in all of those edits NI is being discussed, so my edits were correct then. thanks for clearing that up.Factocop (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It does not say 'in the same article', quite deliberately. RashersTierney (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
yeah Gotcha, I still think my edits are correct. And lets be honest, saying Republic of Ireland doesn't detract from the article.Factocop (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We do seem to have some problem users operating at the moment in the Ireland/UK sphere. However, this is not the forum to talk about them - where is best? Without getting into details I will just say that HighKing appears to be a difficult case, imposing a pov in three different areas. The user who I just reverted, Brocach is also causing concern, as are others who, when you check their history, seem intent on hounding and harassing other users. I'm not sure what can be done, since this has been going on for a while and no one has addressed it. The Roman Candle (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh we *definitely* have some problem users all right. The problem with making the statement the way you did makes it seem that anyone who disagrees with you or your POV gets labelled. You've not shown any diffs, and as far as I know I haven't "run into" you before and yet you single my edits out. Perhaps if you'd bothered to discuss anything you see as "problematic", you might be in a position to actually make a point. This sort of combative passive-aggression might be normal on many articles, but I'd hoped by now that the grown-ups would know to avoid immature name-calling. --HighKing (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If I am causing you concern, The Roman Candle, the forum you are looking for is my talk page. The discussion here is about Factocop, and this is indeed the place to talk about "the Ireland/UK sphere". Brocach (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the place to talk about the MOS, not about an individual. I picked up on you because of the revert to this thread title (maybe I shouldn't have singled you out), and I then found this [12]. You will, I hope, acknowledge that Factocop is not the only problem here. The Roman Candle (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't get your point, Roman. The link you provided above is to three editors' complaining about Factocop, all related to her/his abuse of or incomprehension of IMOS. I don't see any complaint there against any other editor. Who is "the other problem" and (precisely, please) why? Brocach (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Every edit should be made to improve an article. Removing every reference to british isles or moving a page to remove the term as Highking has done here [13] and also changing every reference of Republic of Ireland to Ireland is unnecessary and as I presented above 8 out of 30 edits he has made have been against IMOS, eg. [14], even though Northern Ireland is referenced in the exact same paragraph is not IMOS, no way. IMOS is a guideline, not a license to pillage every page.Factocop (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved. Factocop banned as a self-confessed serial sockpuppet. Brocach (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"I tried everything I could do continue editing. You would do the same.."? I'll just muse to myself about solved and serial! Dmcq (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland, UK"

Recently, this IP has been going thru dozens of Northern Ireland articles changing "...Northern Ireland" to "...Northern Ireland, UK". This has been done before by others, and it's always reverted. It seems there's a consensus that, in the vast majority of cases, "Northern Ireland" by itself is all that's needed. Thus, I suggest we add something to the IMOS to acknowledge this. ~Asarlaí 19:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, IMOS is not for legislating against trolls. Trolls do not read IMOS anyway. There is no need to add anything. Scolaire (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I had a fleeting thought it might be someone from the US, they do this sort of thing with their names, but no it is some home grown twit. IMOS isn't for micromanaging but for recording decisions or usages which are more generally applicable or needed. Dmcq (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as an extra defence against trolls, it should be added to IMoS. Brocach (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
But as I just said, IMOS is no defence against trolls. They love you quoting IMOS at them, and keep on trolling. Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
But it offers a defence for those of us who routinely revert anti-IMoS edits. Brocach (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a Northern Ireland thing, it's a long standing consensus regarding the constituents of the UK (though where it's written I couldn't tell you.) It's the same with England, Scotland and Wales. So as a result it probably shouldn't be in the IMOS but at a level for the UK. Canterbury Tail talk 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The IP resolved to Belfast so they should have known better anyway, so as said above standards aren't going to mean much to them. Dmcq (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I found a guideline about this at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation 'Also the United Kingdom does not use the country as a tag for localities.'. It also has sections on Ireland and the UK. Um, I think I just lost part of my life. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added to this MOS, though a wider UK (or UK-IE MOS) would be good IMO for these things. Doing so on this occaions would only befood for trolls. --RA (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Rethink on the Derry / Londonderry section

moved to WT:IECOLL#Rethink on the Derry / Londonderry section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think it is about time to rethink the 2004 compromise on this. I think overall the decision was right but that it needs a bit of tweaking. The cases I'm especially concerned about are where the subject is fairly unambiguously linked to the city being called Londonderry rather than Derry, for instance those on unionist politicians. It would save a lot of trouble if this business of insisting on Derry was relaxed in such circumstances and I think this leads to such articles being more stubby and less well looked after than corresponding nationalist ones, so I think it is impacting negatively on developing the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The last re-think was July-August 2012. It ran to over 50,000 bytes and covered the ground pretty comprehensively. What has happened in eight months to make you think it is time for another one? Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
A lot of that was about where the actual consensus was done since that was the original question. Lets just jump over whether and where there was a consensus then and what it said then and just go forward from what's there now. Then it digressed into the Ireland / Republic of Ireland issue. That's well settled now. Then it seemed to get onto Londondonderry/Derry city of culture and whether that was yet the official title or were we supposed to ignore the Londonderry bit until it actually started and was the actual official title. I'm sure there was some useful stuff there somewhere but it was buried under a lot of fairly irrelevant stuff. Perhaps we can avoid having people drag up lots of not very relevant stuff this time round. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you said a number of times there that any discussion about the future of this should be at WP:IECOLL. I'll start this up there instead in that case. Dmcq (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to change the current guideline about when to use something other than "Derry"/"County "Londonderry" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Your input there would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Flagicons revisited

After a lot of argument, an interim version was agreed for the Flag icons section pending a proper discussion of the individual icons. That discussion began on 11 January 2013 and ended on 12 January 2013 in the case of the 19th-century flag, and 25 January 2013 (due to a couple of late additions) in the case of the Northern Ireland flag, without any kind of agreement being reached or seriously attempted. The remaining icons, all of which were disputed at some point, were never touched on in this discussion. Not only that, but at the end of a whopping 175,000 bytes of debate, nobody had come up with a single instance, never mind an exhaustive list, of where these icons were supposed to be used to represent the states as states (or political entities), as opposed to representing them "in sporting and other contexts." The use of the Flag of Ireland is obvious, but uncontentious. The use, or usefulness, of the others has not been demonstrated, and none of them have consensus. I propose that that bulleted list of icons be removed from the section as it serves no function and is misleading. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No response. I am re-opening the discussion below and removing. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Placenames

The IMoS guidance on placenames is a bit outdated. It differentiates between the two jurisdictions in relation to how Irish, Scots or other versions or derivations of placenames are shown, as follows:

For articles on places on the island of Ireland, show the modern name in English, Irish and, if appropriate, Scots in the infobox if the article has one.

For places in the Republic of Ireland, other names should be shown in parentheses immediately after the common name in the lead. For places in Northern Ireland, only show non-English-language names in parentheses after the bolded name if the name in that language demonstrates the origin of the common name. Other names and etymologies can be described in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

The meaning of non-English place names should be given if known. All such meanings should be fully cited. For names that appear in the lead, provide the meaning in parenthesis immediately after the common name. Otherwise, provide the meaning in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

Examples:

  • For places in the Republic of Ireland:
Drogheda (Irish: Droichead Átha)[1] ...
Wexford (from Old Norse Veisafjǫrðr 'inlet of the mud flat';[1] Irish: Loch Garman, meaning "lake of Garman")[2]...
  • For places in Northern Ireland whose names are not derived from English:
Dungannon (from Irish Dún Geanainn, meaning "Geanann's stronghold")[1]...
Strangford (from Old Norse Strangr-fjǫrðr 'strong fjord')[1]...
  • For places in Northern Ireland whose names are derived from English, the other names should only appear in the infobox along with a source.

This may have been premised on the Irish versions (but not other derivations) of placenames having legal status in the Republic. However, nowadays, due not only to the post-GFA regime of parity of esteem but also to the deepening impact of human rights instruments such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ratified by the UK) and the Framework Convention on National Minorities (ratified by both states), the state is obliged to respect the original and authentic version of placenames. I therefore propose to condense the quoted section to provide for one main template for use in the lede, based on the one shown above for Dungannon for Irish place names, and that for Strangford for other derivations. Thus, for most placenames on the island the default template would expect modern name as used in English|Irish version|translation of Irish version. The current provision for annotation only in the infobox of other versions of the (very few) English-derived Northern placenames would also go, so that they would be treated equally with names not derived from English.

I realise that this will require a lot of re-editing, but I expect that others will help and even if not, I am happy to see that through. Brocach (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You've written a lot above and I'm not sure I follow entirely.
One things your proposing is that where, for example, we currently have:
Cork (Irish: Corcaigh, meaning "marsh") ...
... we would have:
Cork (from Irish Corcaigh, meaning "marsh") ...
Is that correct? --RA (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, the whole aim is to make the IMoS guidance simpler, while encouraging the addition of the meaning of the placename to the lede. Thus (using the examples above) in the Republic, rather than the current lede wording:
Drogheda (Irish: Droichead Átha)
...we would have the more informative
Drogheda (Irish: Droichead Átha, meaning "bridge of the ford");
...while in the North, the current
Dungannon (from Irish Dún Geanainn, meaning "Geanann's stronghold")
...is shortened to
Dungannon (Irish: Dún Geanainn, meaning "Geanann's stronghold").
(The difference might be clearer when you view in edit mode.) The present guidance treats Anglicised placenames as "Irish" if they are on one side of the border and "Irish-derived" if they are on the other, a distinction I can't grasp. My proposal is only that we have succinct and uniform guidance, and one main template for Irish placenames. It would take a while to work this through; not a bot job as the meanings of many placenames are contested or lost, but we can keep the additional text and practice that deals with such cases. Brocach (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's more complicated in Ulster in that Irish Gaelic and Ulster-Scots are both recognised minority languages, so your proposal would look something more like this:
Dungannon (Irish: Dún Geanainn, meaning "Geanann's stronghold"; Ulster-Scots: Rathgannon)
I think it looks messy, personally. I'd prefer to keep the derivation in the lead and other names in the infobox. — Jon C.ॐ 15:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose everything except for adding the meaning of places in the Republic. Other than that if it's not broke, don't fix it. As far as I have seen Brocach has never ever had the slightest interest in this field until now and I highly doubt their reasonings in regards to this issue.
The present arrangement was reached after quite a lengthy debate and works extremely well resulting in only one argument (totally devoid of logic and by Factocop no-less) in the entire time it has been around. It is not confusing or outdated or complicated. In fact the section in the IMoS is only there to enshrine what was agreed for the sake of posterity - all articles that are affected as far as we know comply with it. So what exactly does anyone else need to do to be confused by it? Me and Asarlai have done our best to ensure that is especially the case for Northern Ireland articles - and I'd bet I've added more Irish to this Wikipedia than almost all nationalist editors here other than Asarlai. Jon C. has also done his best to add Ulster-Scots to infobox's where there are sourced versions.
Derivation of the name in the lede and the modern minority language versions in the infobox. What's confusing? Also keeps clutter in the lede down, though I've always preferred the idea of the derivation to be in an "etmyology" section to further de-clutter the lede.
I say leave this issue to the editors who actually care about it. Though I must also comment:
  1. "However, nowadays, due not only to the post-GFA regime of parity of esteem but also to the deepening impact of human rights instruments such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ratified by the UK) and the Framework Convention on National Minorities (ratified by both states), the state is obliged to respect the original and authentic version of placenames." - Unless I missed it, Wikipedia did not sign up to and so is not bound by the GFA or the European Charter or any other such things. It is also not bound by government control otherwise you'd have to back the usage of Londonderry for the city as that is it's official name in it's state (the UK).
  2. Also you argument is contradictory: "the state is obliged to respect the original and authentic version of placenames." and "Thus, for most placenames on the island the default template would expect modern name as used in English|Irish version|translation of Irish version." - Many places "original and authentic" Irish names are not the same as the modern Irish. Also how do we not already in the place of the state, respect the original and authentic name of a place? Do the derivations not do that?
  3. Also what about places that orignally had an Irish name however where renamed with a completely different English name which has a modern Irish version that doesn't equate to the original and authentic Irish name of the place? One example being Randalstown named after the townland of same name which beforehand was known in Irish as Dún Mór, but in modern Irish is known as Baile Raghnail, a Gaelicisation of Randalstown?
As I've said if it's not broke, don't fix it, and leave this issue to the people who actually care about it. Mabuska (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I am bemused by the idea that if I hadn't edited about placenames before (which I have, many, many times), I should "leave this issue to the people who actually care about it". We are equals here. Those who actually care about it (including those of us who have been active on such matters for more than 40 years, Mabuska) know that the huge majority of placenames in all of Ireland are derived from the Irish language. It would then be necessary to construct an argument, which I have yet to see, for treating differently for Wikipedia purposes Irish placenames in 26 of the counties and Irish placenames in the other six counties.
Nothing that I said implies that Wikipedia must slavishly follow government usage. Specifically, I am not suggesting that Wikipedia is bound by international treaties to which it cannot accede. In referring to the treaty obligations voluntarily undertaken by the UK, I am only saying that the UK has formally and irrevocably given up the notion of insisting that only the Anglicised official version of any placename in Ireland had legitimacy. The state agreed to, and so as a matter of international law must, acknowledge the right of people in Derry to use Derry, recognise Ard Mhacha as the original version of Armagh, allow people to correspond with government using the Irish placename if that is favoured in their locality, etc.
Changes in Irish orthography mean that the "original and authentic" version of the placename may not be spelt the same way in 2013 as in 336 CE. Is that confusing for you? We go with the modern spelling of the original and authentic placename.
Unless someone can explain why the two jurisdictions need separate coding for Irish derivations, yes Mabuska, the current anomalous practice is "broke". My proposal is to fix it by applying a single template. Brocach (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagicons revisited 2

I opened a discussion on 23 April, explaining why I was proposing to remove the list of icons from the "Flag icon" section. Nobody disagreed with me. I am removing them now. If anybody suddenly decides they do not agree after all, they are welcome to discuss it here, but please do not revert "per BRD". The edit is not bold, and there has already been extensive discussion, and an invitation to further discussion that was not taken up. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 for 'do not revert "per BRD"'. That is probably the most misused phrase on the wiki.
Would you be OK with me adding the historical set of those templates, e.g.:

Similar templates exist for historical contexts:

I may prod Template:Country data Southern Ireland. It existed only in legal theory. --RA (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Those templates are at Template:Country data Ireland#Related templates, and the Free State one is also at Template:Country data Republic of Ireland#Related templates, so they're indirectly linked to from here. We discovered that the Lordship and the Kingdom icons, at least, are hardly used on WP at all, so I don't see very much point in including them in the MOS. The Free State one has a bit more usage for lists of states, lists of state leaders, Olympic Games and such, so there might conceivably be a case for adding it. If you did – and I'm not seeing a lot of enthusiasm for adding anything more – you need only change the wording to "...templates have been developed to represent Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland..."
I concur re "Southern Ireland". I would also like to see the creation of a Green Flag icon to repesent 19th-century nationalist Ireland, and the "1783" icon renamed as "saltire". Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
"Nationalist Ireland"? That wasn't ever a state. In the 19th Century, Ireland was part of the UK so the saltire or union flag should be used for that instead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
We're no longer talking about states. We have established that flagicons are not needed for Ireland as a "state" in that period. This is about "sporting and other contexts". Peter O'Connor was represented by the Green Flag when he was entered for the 1904 Olympics for Ireland (he ended up having to compete under the British flag, but that's another story). There'll be other instances where Irish people or organisations could usefully be represented by the Green Flag. Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm assuming you mean this green flag? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
@Scolaire, I've updated Template:Country data Ireland per the previous discussion. I'd support changing the "1783" alias to "saltire" also. However, that is a big piece of work. First a duplicate alias ("saltire") would need to be created. Then a bot process would need to change all uses of the "1783" alias to point to the "saltire" alias. Only when that bot process completes could the 1783 alias be removed. I don't know if it's worth it.
@CoE, the previous discussion was around the traditional green flag of Ireland. The green ensign you link to above was used by merchant vessels. However, it was classified as incorrect in 1872 by the Viceroy of Ireland and were confiscated if discovered by the admiralty. The correct ensigns for Ireland while it was part of the United Kingdom is the white ensign, blue ensign or red ensign. --RA (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. No, I agree it's not worth all that trouble just to change an alias when the label isn't visible anyway. Scolaire (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Are GAA biography articles violating Wikipedia policies?

Brocach again seems to be going around imposing their rules on Wikipedia regardless of the actual rules. This time in regards to Gaelic player articles which seem to bypass the need for reliable and verifiable sources, being backed up by what I can only assume is original research. For example the Gabriel Bradley article:

  • Gaelic name in infobox with no verifiable source, with no results for a GAA player called "Gabriel Ó Brolcháin" on Google. Is this a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Naming_people, which whilst applies to the lede, also in affect should cover the infobox as for all we know it's a made-up name. Brocach claimed at Patsy Bradley it is their registered GAA name, yet if so where is the source? In the Patsy Bradley example does this still not violate "Naming people" as it is not his everyday used name? If the GAA does work with registered Gaelic names then fine enough I'll accept that for the infobox, but not in the lede.
  • Gabriel, Patsy and others are listed, without any sources, as being "Irish" in the opening sentence of the lede. Is the protocol we use for nationality not based on sourced information where they have declared their nationality or such, or in the case of football etc. by the team they select? In regards to Gaelic sports this protocol must be an exception as there is no Northern Irish or British Gaelic football team. It is based on an all-Ireland basis here and so we can't easily deduce a nationality. Whilst the GAA is a nationalist organisation with nationalist ideals at its core, that doesn't mean that everyone who plays it is identifying as being of Irish nationality, as it is also just a sport despite its background, and to assume so is original research.

Whilst Brocach removed "County Londonderry" from the ledes of several of these articles citing it wasn't sourced, he has insisted that the above non sourced information must remain in the article due to it being "long-established", and in one case "suggest you try telling Gabriel that you don't know his nationality", which is really the best argument I've ever read on Wikipedia :-$ It also means that thanks to Brocach's selective use of Wikipedia rules that we have articles on people that doesn't state what country they are from, but states an assumed nationality.

As we all know, being bold is pointless where Brocach is concerned, so I propose that Gaelic player articles are brought into line with the rules and protocols, with a possible exception for the Irish name in the lede if the GAA do work in that way. That does leave the problem of stating where the player is actually from.

Mabuska (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

PMSL ...Atlas-maker (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Material added to Wikipedia needs to attributable to a verifiable source. But, I'm sorry Mabuska, after seeing this diff I can only think: Pot. Kettle. Black.
You say Brocach provided no source to say Bradley is Irish. Well, you provided no source to say he's from Northern Ireland. The example just looks like two people warring over "Irish" vs. "from Northern Ireland" when we all know there's no contradiction in both. --RA (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
There are a few things here that I would like to discuss.
Firstly, nationality/citizenship as per WP:MOSBIO, should only go in the lead Irish is an ethinic group and shouldnt go there.
Secondly, some one from NI maybe Irish or British, or both- by choice, a source is good. If not a neutral stance is better.
Thirdly, GAA clubs and counties require you registrar with your Irish name, so it is indeed correct to use the Irish name in the article, I dont use mine in everyday usage, but am still on a list somewhere with only my Irish nameand address.
Finally, there is a British GAA Mabuska. Murry1975 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
"Irish" is both a citizenship (like British) and a nationality (like English, Welsh and Scottish). Both are fine by WP:MOSBIO. There is no problem stating in the lead of an article that the subject is "Irish". That said, there is little to be gained by saying "Irish" vs. to "from Ireland" or "from Northern Ireland" ("location" per WP:OPENPARA). I also agree that it can be helpful with respect to Northern Ireland.
I am cautious though about the "source warring" that goes on over issues like this. For example, deferring to source means an ardent editor has to only find a single source supporting either "British" or "Irish" to push a POV on a subject. --RA (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Linking Irish to Irish People, which is an ethinic group (according to the opening line- while the note above the lead states both) is not to be done WP:MOSBIO Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability,
It descibes citizenship/nationality as In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident
In either case someone from NI shouldnt have Irish people linked after their name. Murry1975 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
So de-link it or update the Irish people article, whichever floats you boat, if that is causing you brain ache. But including "Irish" is no different from including "German", "French", "Scottish", "Austrian", "Dutch", or anything else. "...country of which the person is a citizen, national..." Irish citizenship/nationality includes Northern Ireland, it is not RoI specific.
Whether someone from Northern Ireland is "Irish" is subject to WP:V, no less than whether someone from the RoI is "Irish". Of course, stating that someone is "from Northern Ireland" is equally subject to WP:V (no less than any other statement). Verifiability issues exist equally in either case.
"In either case someone from NI shouldnt have Irish people linked after their name." Why not? --RA (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"Irish citizenship/nationality includes Northern Ireland", with criteria. Also British includes NI, so as you qoute PW:V. As for "stating that someone is "from Northern Ireland" is equally subject to WP:V" while, er they are from NI, now I agree with the above PMSL. Murry1975 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
"'Irish citizenship/nationality includes Northern Ireland', with criteria." Nope. There's no 'criteria'. Irish nationality law makes no distinction between either jurisdiction on the island of Ireland. It is applied to the island-of-Ireland.
In any case, irrespective of laws of citizenship, "Irish" is a valid description for anyone from the island of Ireland. No more or less than someone from England is called English (e.g. Andre Wisdom). Individual people may have their preferences as to what to be called. Sources may be requested to satisfy WP:V, etc. Or there may be other considerations. But broadly speaking, there's nothing wrong with describing an Irishman as "Irish" any more than there is describing an Englishman as "English".
"...er they are from NI..." Wonderful. So a source can be provided for that, if necessary? Great. That will suffice so. --RA (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Irish nationality law does have criteria, for both jurisdictions. I will try to phrase this as best I can. Saying somebody from the island is Irish, is basing it on ethnicity, or histortic nationality. But if I have indeed missed that please point to the guideline, otherwise as the WP:MOSBIO guideline states, as above :In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident. Murry1975 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Irish citizenship law applies without distinction to any person born on the island of Ireland. A number of acts of the Oireathas apply. But the most relevant is (still) the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 2001. Different people's individual circumstances may vary, but the law itself makes no distinction between any part of the island of Ireland.
But anyway, with regard to WP:MOSBIO, you have missed a point. First is that it is a guideline: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Second is that the part you are quoting says:
  • "In most modern-day cases..."
  • "In most modern-day..."
  • "In most..."
  • "...most..."
Nationalities of people on these islands is an obvious exception where consensus is otherwise. People here are described as being "English", "Scottish", "Welsh", "Manx", etc. when there are in fact only two "nationalities" (of the kind you refer to): British or Irish. And so, just as there is nothing wrong with describing Andre Wisdom as "English" (or "from England"), there's nothing wrong with describing Gabriel Bradley as being "Irish" (or "from Northern Ireland"). So long, of course, as those statements are verifiable.
I personally think it is better to avoid statements of nationality for people from Northern Ireland in general (and prefer use of "from Northern Ireland"). I've been shot down in the past in proposing/supporting guidelines to that effect. How would you feel about one? --RA (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I was just typing a From NI comment when conflict of edit came up when I entered it.
If there is proof that a person identifies as I/B-ish we should use it. But the less politically charge From NI is far better and more nuetral.
I dont know why you have been shot down over that, its straight down the middle. Murry1975 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Like I wrote above, I'm cautious about deferring to RS. Sources should be used as a way to verify content, not determine it. --RA (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, though, do we need to say that Gaelic players are Irish at all? It's a sport that's based primarily in (the island of) Ireland, so surely Irish is the default and we should only need to give nationality for a British, American or Australian player? We don't say that somebody is an American American Football player or an Australian Australian Rules player, nor do we say American Football player from California or Australian Rules player from Victoria, so why do we need to say Irish Gaelic Football player or Gaelic Football player from Northern Ireland? Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Where people were born or from is often given e.g. Joe Auer. But, at the same, the approach like on that article is far more focused in the way it provides location information. --RA (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually RA, Gabriel Bradley's article states in it that he is from Glenullin, and well it is in County Lononderry, Northern Ireland. Not sourced, but he is from the Bradley GAA family of Glenullin. Far less controversial to state that than stating an unsourced nationality. As there are few sources for many of these Gaelic player articles we need to have some lee-way in being able to roughly state where they are from. Are Gaelic players tied down to their local club when they start off due to the parish-based lower level of the game or can they play for any team? Mabuska (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Implementation of WP:IRE-IRL

Hi, can someone take a look at Fifth year wrt WP:IRE-IRL. My edit was reverted without explanation, but perhaps someone can figure out what the problem is. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mindless application of IMOS without even reading the article or consuming its content. Did your edit improve the article? No. And that is the question every editor should ask themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That just looks a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. You're essentially saying that WP:IRE-IRL doesn't improve articles - I'm sure a lot of editors will disagree with you on that. Or have you an actual reason (based on sources, logic, whatever) as that guideline was applied to Fifth year? --HighKing (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the article should be deleted. It just sticks together two similar things with the same name. It is like a dictionary entry. I don't believe there is any reliable source that talks about these two together as a single topic. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:IRE-IRL being applied as per commonname, I reverted it. WP:POINTY by the IP. Murry1975 (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
ps agree with Dmcq, should be deleted, poor topic. Murry1975 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That may be so, but that's not what's being discussed in fairness. --HighKing (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
And I now also note our anon IP friend has reverted another editor (Murry1975) at Series A Banknotes. At least they're now putting a reason in their edit summary, although their reason is incorrect. The country didn't "become" Ireland in the 90's, it has always been called "Ireland" in the constitution. --HighKing (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
This is now at ANI due to my being hounded by the IP on three articles today. Murry1975 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Very bad form! The edits at Series A banknotes are IMOS applicable. You have also quoted WP:IRE-IRL, to 3 edits where Ireland wasnt even the recognised name of the state. Shambles and bananas. If you wish to apply these guidelines I should think reading the article would help though I doubt you found the time to do so if you are making 3 edits in 3 minutes to 3 pages. IMOS warriors indeed. Highking and M1975 seem to be the same user, either that or they are spit roasting wikipedia together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I see you are editing from a corporate ip. Do you really want to be responsible for everyone from there being banned from editing Wikipedia? Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
In fact I see it is annotated 'In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.' Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The second corporate banker who has had problems with IMOS too. Murry1975 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

OK Dmcq, Ill setup an account but I don't think i'm going to get blocked for a few reverts of questionable edits and encouraging talkpage discussion. I'm sure M1975 and Popaice will continue in the same vane of behavour regardless of what sanctions are placed on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your new account should be linked to your old ones. Murry1975 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
So should your's, but here is my old account for the record [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The explicit mention of ROI as opposed to Ireland is there for when there may be contextual confusion. No contextual confusion there. Also the claims that Ireland wasn't the name of the state until the GFA is amusing, it's been the official name of the state in the English language for a long long time. Claims that it can't be used before the 1990s is absolute nonsense, pardon my French. Canterbury Tail talk 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Canters, in your edit summary here [16] are you implying that M1975 had applied IMOS incorrectly? As I had made no ref. to IMOS. I do believe that the name of ROI was a bone of contentious between the UK and ROI up until the GFA. But if you have a reference to support it then Ill accept that, otherwise your revert was not welcome given that I had requested discussion and this was again ignored. Message received loud and clear. Discussion as a last resort. Edit war be the first port of call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
No idea who this Canters fellow is, but anyway. What another country calls your country is completely irrelevant to everything. Should we rename the United States because some in the UK refer to it as That Breakaway Troublesome Colony That We're Glad To Be Rid Of? How the UK refers to Ireland has no relevance to what Ireland calls itself. I refer you to the constitution of Ireland, that's all that matters. As for discussion it should be noted you asked for discussion, didn't initiate any in the appropriate place and then continued to revert, so pot, kettle, black and all that. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That Britain disputed the name in the past is immaterial to anything to do with the name used to refer to the state in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way no-one asked you to shorten the name other editors give themselves. Try and learn to use cut and paste if you can't be bothered to type out a name. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Dmcq, Royal mail currently refers to ROI as Irish Republic. We'll just that source. As for names, I was simply saving myself time and effort, something Ill continue to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Just stop making up fatuous reasons. Wikipedia doesn't need more eejits. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You forgot to include a source! And please refrain from being civil, wikipedia has enough tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That last IPs comment says it all: "please refrain from being civil". *rolls eyes* Mabuska (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Can someone clarify this for me?

[17]. Thanks. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

your edit looks cottect to me. Dubs boy (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's "Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county". If the birthplace is referring to the city, then your edit is correct. --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Ya it is, thanks. I don't want to revert again so... I'll leave it for anyone else who's not been involved. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It might be better to simply ask at the Talk page for his reasoning. He seems to be saying that it used to be called Londonderry in the past, but it's not anymore (probably since the council changed their name). He also might not be aware of IMOS at all, so this may be a completely new area for him. --HighKing (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Having read IMOS, I have reverted my edit, although I still thinks it's nonsense. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I created this thread to clarify the guidelines on this encase I was wrong. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

In infoboxes and bios. What is the protocol for place of birth, death, etc when dealing with those who are from Ireland? Are they pipelinked to say Ireland? ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Biographical articles for information. Martinvl (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That whole guideline needs looked at again. It's very odd to just give the link as the island. Other former states have articles that people are linked too and this should be the case here also.
For example it's good enough in the infobox to state and link to the Orange Free State for J. R. R. Tolkien's birth place. Piet Cronjé is stated and linked to the British Cape Colony. Caspar David Friedrich is stated and is linked to the article for Swedish Pomerania in his "Life" section. So why can we not link to Kingdom of Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Mabuska (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I see no issue with linking to Kingdom of Ireland or Lordship of Ireland as appropriate (and pipe link as normal). However, practice for people from other parts of the United Kingdom is to link to simply England, Scotland or Wales, rather than to United Kingdom. Folk from Ireland should be treated no differently. So, after 1801, link to Ireland. After 1921, link to Northern Ireland. --RA (✍) 10:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I've added a start date (1 January 1801) to provide a range to the page. --RA (✍) 10:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well then we should create an appropriate article of at least link it to a disambig page stating the different Irish states. Mabuska (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Another alternative would be to link to something like History of Ireland (1801–1923). Dmcq (talk)

That seems like quite a good article to link too. Would it be sensible to rename it something like "Ireland (1801-1923)" to make it seem more like a state/region article? Mabuska (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the rename if we're going down that route. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I, personally, think anything would be better than Ireland being linked, and do quite like the specific link element of the proposal. Murry1975 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the proposed rename, but that's a matter for Talk:History of Ireland (1801–1923) if it comes to it. jnestorius(talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So I propose changing: "For people born between 1 January 1801 and 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or Ireland, and do not describe them as Northern Irish. Similarly, for people born anywhere else in Ireland between 1 January 1801 and 6 December 1922, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland (not Ireland)."

Too: "For people born between 1 January 1801 and 3 May 1921 in what is now Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland pipe-linked to History of Ireland as such: [[History of Ireland (1801–1923)|Ireland]]."

No-one has objected to using Lordship of Ireland or Kingdom of Ireland for the preceding times, with accommodation for Gaelic Ireland for those outside the Lordship? Though IMOS doesn't state we can or can't, so maybe we should add it in as well for clarity? Mabuska (talk)

Just on a note [[Ireland (1801-1923]] is a redirect to the history artcile of the period. Could we use that some how? Murry1975 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Somebody would just come along and remove the in between link. I think there may be some way of marking the redirect page to tell bots they shouldn't do that but I'm not certain about that. Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Have asked another editor,outside this project to have a look at this as they are fimilaar with overlinking and will proably have a more rounded approach. Murry1975 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the rename sounds okay which would solve any problem. How about just putting a note on the talk page and if no-one complains within a day just try doing it? Dmcq (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment. It's important to avoid anachronism, but it's also important to avoid diluting articles with low-value links. I would say, for example, that we should almost never link to [[Ireland]] or [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. There will of course be isolated exceptions to this where the country or the island is especially important to the reader's understanding. It's also important to remember that a local consensus agreed here cannot override a project-wide consensus like OVERLINK. --John (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What about in regards to linking to a former state or region of a state? Also when did overlinking become the topic issue here? Mabuska (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mabuska, overlinking is a problem, in general, on the encyclopedia. Our efforts here on making guidelines should conform to what is accept project wise, if we create problems they can creep. I asked John because I have came across his edits, and he across mine. As a neutral to this he can see if we, in our efforts to provide linking would actually help or hinder our IMOS project or wikipedia itself. Murry1975 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Overlinking was briefly (and uncontroversially) discussed in December last year in relation to the preceding section, "Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland". I edited that section at the time to say that linking should be avoided if not absolutely necessary, and that version has remained stable ever since. The same should be done in this section. While we're at it, we should remove those specific dates – 1 January, 3 May and 6 December – which to my mind create confusion rather than help editors. In fact, with no linking we don't need 1801 or 1922 at all, just "Ireland before 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland; Ireland in all cases in the rest of the country, except where disambiguation is necessary." The guideline should also be more general than just place of birth, since biographies deal with place of death and place of residence as well. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is overlinking as the article it will be linked too is not what the vast majority of people will consider Ireland as meaning: 1, the island; 2, the Republic of. Giving the user a link to the appropriate state/territory is quite useful.

Your suggestion also conveniently avoids linking to an article in the lede that would explicitly show Ireland as being part of the UK of GB and I. Having said that though looking at the examples I quoted above: J. R. R. Tolkien, Piet Cronjé and Caspar David Friedrich only make mention of the country they where from in the infobox. The lede just states a nationality. Several Irish biography articles where Kingdom of Ireland would be required I notice already have it pipelinked to "Kingdom of Ireland" in the infobox.

Having said that, looking at other Irish examples of people who were born or died in the UK of GB and I: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington states death place as UK, not England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales. Arthur Guinness doesn't state a death place. Robert Emmet just states and links to Ireland the island and no link for the death place which would be UK.

So how do we deal with those articles? Obviously pipe-link birthplace to Kingdom of Ireland, but what should the death pipe be for those that died after 1801? Mabuska (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Look to what is common practice for England, Scotland and Wales. If they give the country as "United Kingdom" then do that. If they give the country as England, Scotland or Wales then do that. It's a mixed bag but, from my experience, practice is to link to England, Scotland, Wales. Examples: George Stephenson, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, John Hutton Balfour, George Everest, Robert Owen.
We should not rename an article just so we can link to it for this purpose. That article title should be what ever that article is about and per policy on article titles. Neither should we editors rely on links to explain what is meant by terms. That's terrible practice and they don't work in print or audio format.
I also agree that linking words like "England", "Ireland", "Scotland", "Wales" and "United Kingdom" is over linking. --RA (✍) 09:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, the idea that a mention of Ireland should be linked to an article such as Kingdom of Ireland has never been properly rationalised or justified, in my opinion. Those who read an article on Turlough O'Carolan or Mícheál Ó Cléirigh, for instance, want to know what part of the world they came from. They don't need to be told that Henry VIII made himself king of Ireland in 1542, or that there was a viceroy, a parliament, an established church etc. etc., which is all that that article has to say. If there has to be a link – and I agree with MOS that there doesn't – at least Ireland will tell the reader that Ireland is an island to the north-west of continental Europe, which is the only thing that matters. Even if the reader becomes curious about what was going on politically during these men's lives, there is a Kingdom of Ireland section in that article, just as there are sections on the Lordship, the Union, partition etc. Scolaire (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
PS Please try to avoid snide comments like "Your suggestion also conveniently avoids..." Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Elaborating on one of RA's points: a corollary of overlinking in the Irish context is that [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] is often a violation of WP:EASTEREGG. If it is not obvious that the state rather than the island is in question, then it needs to be made clear in the text of the article, not via a link that is invisible unless you hover or clickthrough. I think WP:IRE-IRL already handles all of that. jnestorius(talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is to inform the reader of the state they are from, regardless of Henry VIII or the viceroy etc., though all those thingd are relevant to the Kingdom. The fact the two articles don't even mention Ireland in any sense of where they are from speaks volumes of avoidance of mentioning an Ireland that is not Irish/Gaelic. Side-stepping reality is what that seems like to me.

"PS Please try to avoid snide comments like "Your suggestion also conveniently avoids..." - that was an homage to the "friendly antagonistic" attitude you said we have for each other :-D It has been well noticeable from the project for a good while. Mabuska (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is to inform the reader of the state they are from, says who? I can only think of a handful of people who are obsessed with states; the rest of us are interested in places. Omar Khayyám, for instance, links to Iran. That's fine! I know where Iran is on the globe. I don't care to be told what regime ruled the area in 1100, or how it was administered. It's a longish article, and I don't see any sense in which it "side-steps reality" by not trying to foist those details on me. What goes for Persians goes for Irish too. There's nothing unique about Ireland, that we have to introduce the Tudor conquest, the Act of Union, Catholics, Protestants, Dissenters and all the rest into every article relating to the country.
And when did you stop indenting? Scolaire (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
"...avoidance of mentioning an Ireland that is not Irish/Gaelic." - I think you're reading too much into this. If an articles links (or doesn't link) Scotland in the same way is further sign of the Jacobite cabal we all know runs Wikipedia? (Joking.)
Really, if someone was born prior to 1801, link to [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]], just as other articles link to [[Kingdom of England|England]], for example. If someone was born after then, we do what is common practice is for elsewhere in the United Kingdom (yes, United Kingdom): That is to give [[England]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]], [[Northern Ireland]] or ... shock of shocks! ... prior to 1922 ... [[Ireland]]. --RA (✍) 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
But you haven't answered my question either. Why link to [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]] or [[Kingdom of England|England]]? The Kingdom of Ireland was coterminous with Ireland; there is no benefit to the reader that I can see from linking to an article about the creation, administration and dissolution of the polity instead of an article about the place, which includes history. And what about the Welsh? Do all biographies of pre-eighteenth-century Welsh people link to Kingdom of England? If not, why should biographies of pre-eighteenth-century English people? And what about the English, for that matter? Is there really a rule that it's England up to the seventeenth century, Great Britain for the eighteenth and England thereafter? That would be one of the silliest rules I've come across. Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think either need to be linked (as overlinking). I also agree with you in a general sense that there is a preponderance on states as opposed to places. The United Kingdom is an exception to that, where typically the emphasis is places within the state (such as for Ireland in this case).
I don't see the issue here. Because (a) I don't think the MOS as it stands mandates linking; but (b) neither do I think it precludes examples like, "Ireland, United Kingdom" (without wanting to encourage anyone to play with beans). But without precedence from other parts of the United Kingdom linking to, for example, [[United Kingdom|England]] or [[History of England|England]], I cannot see why it would be neutral to link Ireland in a similar way. It would also strike me as an example of an Easter egg link. --RA (✍) 10:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Since all the objections to my proposal to reword this paragraph seem to have been dealt with, and there have been no further objections, I have reworded it appropriately. --Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That section is still biased towards simply stating Ireland and nothing else that gives out its British past, I.e. UK of GB and I and KoI. Then again I made a proprosal above that several seemed to agree with on tackling that problem. Interesting you statenin your rewrite "Should pipelinking be considered necessary" - so why not pipe to Kingdom of Ireland or the like? Mabuska (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought that linking to [[Ireland]] would be the same as linking to [[England]], [[Scotland]] or [[Wales]] (or [[Northern Irealnd]] today) as with the rest of the UK. I think there's a bigger question of how to refer to constituent parts of the UK. I don't really mind how that question is answered so long as we doesn't discriminate against against any part. --RA (✍) 19:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
For that reason and for other reasons given above, I think that this edit is wrong. "England", "Scotland", "Wales" and "Northern Ireland" are comprehensive articles about places, of which history and politics are a minor part. "Republic of Ireland" is the corresponding article for the post-1922 Irish state, and the Free State has an appropriate part in that article, both in the History section and in the lead. Irish Free State is a history article, no less and no more than "Kingdom of Ireland" or "History of Ireland (1801–1923)". Where pipelinks are deemed necessary – if ever they are – they should pipe to a single article on the place i.e. the modern Irish state. Scolaire (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Biographies needed a little adjustment for clarity as I came across this edit. I hope to have made a couple of things clearer, and in the essence of WP:BRD if I havent just help! Murry1975 (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted on the need for clarification! I adjusted your adjustment, (1) to keep NI in the NI paragraph, (2) because there is no need to illustrate a simple wikilink, as opposed to a pipelink, and (3) to give section headings to all three sub-sections, instead of just the second and third. Hopefully that is agreeable to you. Scolaire (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for the help, team-work is the only way, so yes everything is agreeable. Admitedly it was only the edit on Liam Neeson that drew my attention to it. Murry1975 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Irish names

User:Snappy is claiming "Irish name only used for placenames, institutions, organisation, agencies and some people but not [article about an Oireachtas bill]". Now, I don't have any strong feelings about whether it ought to apply to government bills, but Snappy's claim seems a lot more restrictive than WP:IMOS#Irish-language conventions:

Where a subject has both an English and an Irish version of their name, use the English version if it is more common among English speakers, but mention the Irish name in the first line of the article. Create a redirect page at the Irish version of the name as appropriate.

I can sort of get the conceptual jump from "a subject" to "institutions, organisation, agencies", but (a) a less vague term than"subject" might be helpful and (b) I'm not sure Snappy's list is exhaustive. Any comments or suggestions? jnestorius(talk) 20:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If the subject of the article, which in this case is "Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012", has an official Irish name then it should go into the article in the way it was put, in brackets after the English name. Mabuska (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Why do we need an Irish language version of a bill name? How does it improve the article? If this were the case, then every single article on an Irish topic would also have to have an Irish version in the lead. I'm not against the Irish language, I speak it reasonably well, and like using it, but this tokenism is just abusing it, like official Ireland has done for decades. WP:Common applies here too, is it also known by this name in the English language or it is as I suspect just some form of tokenism? Until we discussed the issue at length in IMOS, editors were adding Irish names for politicians even though they were not known as such and never used them, but because some civil servant somewhere translated their name then this made it somehow official. I think we will have to have a new discussion on this topic as well because to me, this is exactly the same kind of thinking. The adding of the Irish name because an "official" translation exists but nobody uses it in the English language. Furthermore this is one editors opinion, none of the previous Irish constitutional amendments articles have Irish language versions in the title, until jnestorius started editing the more recent ones. Snappy (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Going over the segment of the IMOS above with a fine-tooth comb, I would have to admit that Snappy is correct. There might be an Irish name for the bill if one invents one for whatever reason, say an Irish language paper, however if it is not used in the English language then it shouldn't be added. If the Irish name is used in the English language, but not as commonly as the English name then it goes into brackets after the English name. If the Irish name is more common in the English language, then the article will be spelt in the Irish form. So Snappy is correct. Mabuska (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
But WP:COMMON and WP:USEENGLISH apply to places just as much as to bills. The reason why we include the Irish name of towns and villages is obviously not that some English speakers use the Irish name when speaking English; they don't. I believe the reason is the same as why we give both the French and German names of towns in Switzerland: because both are official languages of the state, whichever happens to be spoken in the town itself. IMOS now has well-developed policies for people and places, but the policy for Everything Else is underspecified and vague. Mabuska needs a fine-tooth comb to understand it; I still don't understand it. I'm not saying it's wrong; but I don't see how Snappy's comment applies to bills but not to "institutions, organisation, agencies". If we can establish a clearer wording that makes the exclusion of bills obvious, I will be quite content. jnestorius(talk) 10:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I welcome the inclusion of Irish versions of place names because they provide valuable insight into the etymology of the English derivatives (e.g. Mallaranny, an Mhala Raithní, meaning "the hill-brow of the ferns"), but there is no point in including "Parthalán Ó hEachthairn" in the Bertie Ahern article; that belongs only in Vicipéid. The Irish version of the title of a constitutional amendment does not belong in English Wikipedia, either. — O'Dea (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions like this should be decided by consensus, not by adding extra bits to IMOS. Jnestorius wants to put an Irish translation in an article; Snappy disagrees with it. But Snappy states his disagreement as though it was policy, and that's wrong. It's only his opinion, which he expresses eloquently above, but should have expressed on the article talk page instead. As far as the wording of this manual is concerned, Jnestorius is correct: "subject" means "subject", and nobody can arbitrarily restrict that meaning. For the record, 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State has "French: loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Églises et de l'État" in brackets after it. Therefore (a) it's not just Gaelic Leagueism gone crazy, and (b) if it is to be specifically banned it needs to be done at MOS, not IMOS. Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions like this should be decided by consensus, not by adding extra bits to IMOS. -- I think that's a false opposition. I would have thought consensus emerged on this Talk page and then IMOS was updated to reflect that. I agree that it is wrong to have a MOS that goes into excruciating detail about every case and subcase, if that's what you mean. jnestorius(talk) 11:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. Yes, that's what I meant. The question of whether a translation should appear in a given article should be thrashed out on the talk page of that article, not taken straight to IMOS. It's like amending the consitution every time a case comes before the District Court. And you know how we feel about constituional amendments right now ;-) Scolaire (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Scolaire, your French example is incorrect or at least inexact, as French is spoken by 99% of people there and that's what they call it. No-one refers to a bill by its Irish name while speaking English in Ireland. I grant you that some people might want to know the name of a bill in Irish but they can look up the Oireachtas website for that. Also, its not my opinion, its my interpretation of IMOS, it may be incorrect but it my reasoning; and O'Dea and Mabuska agree with it. Snappy (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Your interpretation of IMOS is still only your opinion. It's not up to any editor to "interpret" a manual of style so as to say it mandates or forbids individual edits, nor should a MOS be endlessly expanded to cover individual edits. O'Dea and Mabuska may agree with your opinion, but I can't see where either of them says their opinion, or their agreement with yours, is based on IMOS. Your opinions ought to be expressed on the article talk page, where they are relevant. Scolaire (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not my opinion. Since you seem to disagree with the word interpretation then let me put it like this. On reading IMOS, I edited the article accordingly. Its what editors do. Obviously, one persons edits in accordance with MOS/IMOS may not be in agreement with another editor. This is why we have these discussions here. Btw, I didn't start the discussion here but I will contribute to it. Snappy (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree the IMOS should normally only include things which are reasonably common and the question has been thrashed out elsewhere to form a consensus and it then looks like sticking it into IMOS would be a good idea. We don't prepare for problems in advance, it may sound a good idea but basically that is a route to excessive bureaucracy.
Anyway I though the general rule except for sapecified exceptions was to only put in an Irish name if it is referred to that way in some English sources, not just because it appears in an official website along with other translations. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am still not seeing how the current IMOS wording mandates Irish names at Leaving Certificate (Ireland), Department of Justice and Equality, Electricity Supply Board, University College Cork but not at Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012. I am not suggesting that the policy must be all or nothing; I am saying the wording should explain the policy. jnestorius(talk) 20:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, the wording does not mandate anything or forbid anything. And it's not a policy. And it's not supposed to be referred to whenever editors disagree on an edit. You're quite right in saying that Scrúduithe na hArdteistiméireachta, Roinn Dlí agus Cirt agus Comhionannais, Bord Soláthair an Leictreachais and Coláiste na hOllscoile Corcaigh are not in general use among English speakers, any more than An Bille um an Aonú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht is, but all of these are matters of convention, not of policy, and the convention to be adopted on any article should be discussed and agreed on that article talk page. IMOS was never intended as a court of appeal; it's a general guideline and in general the guideline works. Scolaire (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
jnestorius, your contributions on Referendum articles (and elsewhere) are high quality edits, but no-one else who had previously edited these articles saw fit to add an Irish name to them. So who then is correct? What does the addition of the Irish name add to the article? The current IMOS is not some legal text covering all possibilities, common sense applies too. I am applying the same criteria as applies to peoples names, that is, unless they are also known by the Irish name in the English language then the Irish name is left out. Snappy (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem, User:ScolaireSnappy, seems to be that your common sense does not agree with my common sense. You are applying the same criteria as apply to people's names, I am applying the same criteria as apply to organisations and institutions. My thinking is that anything produced officially by the state should give both official names, as for placenames; anything private, unofficial, or not state-related generally should not, as for personal names. So bills, state agencies, etc, should have the official Irish form; whereas Great Famine (Ireland) or Irish War of Independence should not have Irish names in the lede (though if the naming is notable in its own right it can be discussed later on). The Gaelic Athletic Association should have its Irish name, since it promotes Irish and often uses snippets of Irish in English-language contexts; the Football Association of Ireland and Irish Rugby Football Union should not, since they don't. jnestorius(talk) 11:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you meant to say, "The problem, User:Snappy..." I have not applied any criteria, and my common sense has to do with keeping IMOS sensible and readable. I actually don't care what anybody does in article edits as long as we don't keep tampering with IMOS. Scolaire (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I did of course mean Snappy. Apparently I only notice the first letter of usernames. jnestorius(talk) 10:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The primary name in law for the subject, which incidentally was a proposed law, is the Irish-language name. Of all things, laws should have their Irish-language name given even if most people call them by the second official language (under law).
I think, jnestorius has a point. Though I think he/she goes too far. The FAI have an official Irish-language name (see), for example. If so, then give it IMO.
Other things often tend to have Irish-language for no good reason. For many things, as a rule of thumb, if the ga.wiki wouldn't give English-language name in parenthesis then we shouldn't give the Irish name. And if it would, then we should give the Irish name (e.g. Great Famine (Ireland)/An Gorta Mór vs. Football Association of Ireland/Cumann Peile na hÉireann). --Tóraí (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's true in general that the primary language of laws is Irish. That's required to be true of the Constitution itself, but Acts (even constitutional amendments) can be passed in either language and translated into the other. In practice most are passed in English, but Constitutional amendments are passed in both (Irish taking precedence) and laws relating the the Gaeltacht or Irish language are passed in Irish. In any case, the point is tangential to the issue at hand. jnestorius(talk) 12:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You're right it's more complicated than that. Article 25.4.3–6: the President signs the version or versions (English or Irish) of a Bill deemed passed by the Houses. That may be in either or both of the official languages. This is then recorded as law in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. If the Bill was deemed passed in only one language then an official translation will be made ASAP. However, only the version or versions recorded with the Registrar of the Supreme Court counts as law. If that is in both languages then the Irish language version takes precedence. --Tóraí (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL and piped links

Moved here from my talk page -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure if you are aware, but recent "script assisted" edits have resulted in some issues relative to the consensus for handling the name of the Irish state. See WP:IRE-IRL for details. But - in short - we use the following form: "[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" where DAB (with the island name) isn't a direct issue. I have addressed some examples, but I wonder whether something in the script could be updated to address this. (I am not sure why the script seems to have "taken against" either piped links or high-level article titles, but an exception/fix would avoid a lot of rework/noise) Thanks Guliolopez (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've (also) noticed your script changed [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to Republic of Ireland here. Unknowingly, this can be a contentious issue. THe manual of style for these changes is to ordinarily pipe link Republic of Ireland as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] or simply refer to the sate as Republic of Ireland. --Tóraí (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I notice it's done this across many articles. Could you please amend the script before doing any more action with it? --Tóraí (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is so much a problem with the way I am unlinking. I know that Ireland and Republic of Ireland are separate entities and the former is often used to mean the latter, thus it can be confusing. I set up the script to follow WP:IRE-IRL, to unlink without ambiguity – "[[Ireland]]" is unlinked to "Ireland" and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] is unlinked to "Republic of Ireland". You may be justified to complain if I had unlinked [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to "Ireland", but I have not.

    I would contend that there may be a problem of deceptive piping of Ireland into the ROI ([[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]) in the first place. Relying on the links to do the disambiguating for you, seems just plain wrong, even if WP:IRE-IRL says so. It's not intuitive for the reader to need to hover over the link to find out what the writer meant, and what's more the displayed text may surprise. Why the article should display (in read mode) 'Ireland' when you mean 'Republic of Ireland' is completely beyond me, as it perpetuates the misuse and thus confusion. And this is something the collective editors of Ireland articles should first address. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: believe it or not, this is an issue covered by an Arbitration Committee motion, so tread very carefully if you want to continue using your script.
In this case, your script unlinked text (no problem) but changed text from reading "Ireland" to read "Republic of Ireland" (problem). I suggest you follow the MOS otherwise the community may decide that you cannot use your script per Wikipedia:Bot policy (see specifically WP:CONTEXTBOT). I would strongly advice against using a script to change the text used to indicate Ireland/Republic of Ireland in an article. --Tóraí (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If I were indeed to have changed "Ireland" to read "Republic of Ireland", I agree there is a problem. But I did not. I changed [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to "Republic of Ireland", but you implied that I changed "Ireland" to read "Republic of Ireland", and that is wholly misleading. About the same order of magnitude as the piped link you had there. The difference of that to what I did is not at all subtle. Call me pedantic, the form of "Ireland" the page may have changed, but the substance is not only unchanged, but rendered more clear due to the removal of a totally misleading Easter egg. WP:IRE-IRL says: "If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]." So it's clear that if we were to reversing the process and unlink the state, one would be obliged to take away the reductive "Ireland" to replace it with "Republic of Ireland", which is exactly what I have done. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "I changed [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to "Republic of Ireland"..." Yes. The text previously read "Ireland" and you changed it to read "Republic of Ireland".
  • "...but you implied that I changed "Ireland" to read "Republic of Ireland"..." No, I said it explicitly. The text previously read "Ireland" and you changed it to "Republic of Ireland".
Take this article: Before your script, it read, "...the county town of County Mayo, Ireland." After your script, it read, "the county town of County Mayo, Republic of Ireland."
Now, there are two ways we can address your wayward script. You change it voluntarily to be compliant with the MOS. Or I can take an enforcement against it. What way to do you want to roll? --Tóraí (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's just your opinion that I have erred. Luckily for you, in that example, County Mayo, ROI also happens to be on the main island of Ireland, so "County Mayo, Ireland" and "County Mayo, Republic of Ireland" are the same, to all intents and purposes. But otherwise, you are WRONG. Stop threatening me. If your beef is with me unlinking, that's one thing, but if you are griping that I changed the face of the text, misleading stating "Ireland" when the true underlying meaning is the ROI, that's quite another. It seems to me that you are objecting to the latter, but I could be wrong. If you want to take action about me removing misleading piped links, there is nothing to stop you. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The issue is with your script changing the "face of the text". Possibly you aren't aware of this, but the name of the state (officially and commonly) is Ireland. The article on the subject is at Republic of Ireland for disambiguation reasons. However, that is a source of contention.
In an overall settlement of involving ArbCom, a style manual was developed. The state is ordinarily referred to as "Ireland" in text (whether linked or otherwise). There are some cases where Republic of Ireland is preferable, however. The choice of when to use "Ireland" and when to use "Republic of Ireland" is one that is context sensitive, involves human attention and is not suitable for an automated process (see WP:CONTEXTBOT).
Now, no-one is threatening you. You were approached very amicably by myself and two other editors (independently of each other) advising you that your script had stepped into a hornets nest and advising you to alter it. However, your response has been bullish and obtuse.
Will you alter your script so that it does not change the wording (linked or otherwise) used to indicate Ireland/Republic of Ireland in articles? --Tóraí (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the piping optimal under the circumstances? Maybe. It's a piece of cake change how it unlinks. But if I unlink to the text displayed when removing the links, I am pretty sure that would be met with even louder howls of protest. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I have raised a section at WP:ANI#User:Ohconfucius editing Ireland related artices against consensus about editing a load of articles like this with a bot without checking or thinking they're better than the people who set up WP:IMOS. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
As to Sligo, it should be Sligo, Ireland. Republic of Ireland is used as the title because there can't be two articles with the title Ireland. That is all clearly explained in the IMOS. If you want to complain about it raise an RfC about it. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No one has ever given me a faintly good reason to make some kind of exception to the principle of not linking commonly known country-names. Tony (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
See, that's your problem right there. What do you think is the commonly known country name for the 26-county Irish state???? (Hint: It's not Republic of Ireland). --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want to raise a WP:RfC on WP:IMOS then go ahead. Otherwise follow WP:CONSENSUS. Is that a good enough reason? What people here are saying is that if somebody does think an instance of '[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]' should be unlinked than it should be changed to 'Ireland', not to 'Republic of Ireland'. Editors should not change the text that is read without some proper though about what they are doing. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus was established community-wide. The case is yours to make if you want some kind of exception to be made for one anglophone country-name. Could I know what compelling reasons there are? Tony (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The most compelling reason I can think of, is that the actual official/common name of the state is "Ireland". Under British legislation, the name of the state is "Republic of Ireland". Irish legislation mentions "Republic of Ireland" as a description of the state. Some people believe that's enough for the article on the state to be named "Republic of Ireland", thus misinforming lazy readers/editors on what the actual name of the state is, leading to discussions like this, and bots that misbehave. --HighKing (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The UK Parliament has stopped that business since the Good Friday Agreement. That was years ago now. They call it Ireland like everybody else now in anything official. Sometimes Republic of Ireland is used but so does the Dáil when talking about Northern Ireland for obvious reasons. Dmcq (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
British legislation hasn't changed... --HighKing (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The law has gone into disuse. It would be better to remove it but I think there are a few more important things for the UK to do - avoiding falling into a pit of debt like Ireland for instance would be good if they were able to do it. I don't think parliament is about to take itself to court over breaking its own law. Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If Ireland is considered to be so well-known that it doesn't normally need a link (I would agree with that assessment and I don't think others in this discussion are substantially disagreeing) then the question is simply over whether it's better to show 'Ireland' or 'Republic of Ireland' after removing the link. As we're all agreed that no link is usually necessary to clarify exactly is meant by 'Ireland', I see no need to spell out 'Republic of Ireland', even if the original unnecessary link pointed there. This seems to be the same conclusion that WP:IMOS comes to. There may be cases where the full name is necessary, but once the delink script is modified, they can be dealt with individually as they arise, since OhC is running a script, not operating a bot as some contributors seem to think. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Bot policy applies to editor assisted scripts as well. In particular, the section on assisted editing states, "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." Whatever the exact mechanism for these edits, they fit the description of the kind that require consensus. --Tóraí (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What Toraí, HighKing and Dmcq have said. We have a long-established consensus at WP:IMOS, which follows Wiki policies, Arbcom resolutions, WP:IECOLL and all the talking that went on here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Errr ... which policy? Which resolution? No. We're not about to make an exception to the site-wide rules because some group of editors got together and decided to persist with gratuitous links to a certain item. Sorry, you can't just declare your own little kingdom and ignore the rest of the project. Tony (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Tony, de-linking is a not a problem (see the last bullet point of WP:IRE-IRL). Nobody has raised an issue with that. The problem is changing the text. --Tóraí (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Tony, again, what Tóraí said. De-linking is fine, changing the text isn't. The resolutions I referred to are mainly outlined here, especially the first remedy, which effectively contributed to the development of a stable WP:IMOS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Errr ... what "site-wide rules"? The state has been referred to in articles as "Ireland" for many years now. That's because its name is "Ireland". There is a long-standing consensus for that, in fact nobody has ever complained about it, that I can recall. So which "site-wide rule" precisely is it breaking? I didn't even know there were such things; I've only ever heard of policies and guidelines. And who's the "we" who aren't going to "make an exception"? The mandarins who make these rules, perhaps? Scolaire (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Why can't this project to the same as New York and New York City? It seems that most people here refer to the state as "Ireland" but we are obliged to disambiguate in this wholly inadequate way that causes frequent uses of an Easter egg. I think it would make sense to move Ireland to Ireland (island), then Republic of Ireland should be moved to Ireland. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 17:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Just do what the wP:IMOS says and if you want it changed raise a RfC. That point has been raised a number of times and the consensus is that article about the island have the title Ireland and the article about the state have the title Republic of Ireland. It is practically certain the titles would stay as they are but anything else is just a waste of time and disruption on your part. Dmcq (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If you do want to raise yet another RfC please note that discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration,see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FIreland_article_names_2 Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, the issue is more complex than that. Most people here also refer to Ireland-the-island as "Ireland" (what else would you call it?). And for most matters the Ireland-the-island is the primary topic (e.g. sport, history, geography, religion, art, culture, people, music, etc.).
In any case, your script removes the link (and no-one objects to that) so the location of the Ireland-the-state article is of no relevance to this discussion. The issue is that your script changes the text of the article in a manner that is inappropriate for a script to do and contrary to the MOS. Will you amend your script? --Tóraí (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Usually, Easter eggs are fairly simple to deal with. This issue is difficult because two subjects have the same common name. But with most use, there still seems to be an element of ambiguity between both. You guys thought it best to move one to its formal name leaving the other at the common name. The current namespaces may seem like an elegant solution and it's one I probably would have supported at the time, but it's likely to have been another one of those delicate fudges that have practical difficulties. The namespace occupation and specifically the Easter egg links are storing up problems. My usual tactic is to unlink to what's on the face of the link, but I changed tack being I mindful of not changing the underlying meaning, to avoid create ambiguities when unlinking. Ironically, it's that thoughtfulness that seems to be causing the problem. Based on the kilobytes of discussion in the last couple of days, it seems clear that I need not have bothered.

    Of course, the location of the Ireland-the-state article is of every relevance to this discussion. The whole thing is complicated because the current location of the articles actually blurs the distinction between the island and the republic, and people end up piping a link from "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland". It's a problem that people beat around the bush and don't say what they mean; it's a problem that you people can't say "Ireland" and mean "Ireland" and ROI when you mean ROI. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 00:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you seem to have accepted the situation, but you might be a bit more gracious about it. "Ironically, it's that thoughtfulness that seems to be causing the problem. Based on the kilobytes of discussion in the last couple of days, it seems clear that I need not have bothered." Your thoughtfulness was not the problem here, but your failure to respond in a positive way when a number of editors explained the situation to you and politely asked you to stop. "It's likely to have been another one of those delicate fudges that have practical difficulties." It wasn't a delicate fudge, it was the only realistic solution, and this difficulty of yours – what should have been a minor hiccup if you had just listened to people instead of preaching at them – is the first difficulty, practical or philosophical, that it has had since 2009. "It's a problem that people beat around the bush and don't say what they mean". No, it's a problem when people try to foist their world view on everybody else instead of accepting a long-standing and effective convention. A simple apology for causing needless disruption would have been more appropriate than the above rant. Scolaire (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Amen to that. And I don't think they've quite got it yet saying 'and ROI when you mean ROI'. We say ROI or the island of Ireland when we mean Ireland but need to disambiguate. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Defence Forces article

An RfC is open at Talk:Defence Forces (Ireland) on the question of whether "Fórsaí Cosanta" should be included (along with Óglaigh na hÉireann) in brackets in the first sentence of the article. I am giving notice of it here because the issues are similar to the earlier Irish names discussion on this page, and because it might have implications for IMOS down the line. Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Firstly, is there a problem with piping Ireland to the article about the country of the time (UK of GB & I), for the period 1801 to 1920? For example: [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]?

Secondly, while reading this style guide, I noticed it suggests, "and they should not be described as "Northern Irish". Why on Earth not?! Leaving the self-identification options of 'Irish' and 'British' out of the equation, those who self-identify as 'Northern Irish' as a first preference, according to a well-regarded poll carried out by the two universities of Northern Ireland, is a significant proportion of the population. Moreover, it is defined in Wikionary; is used throughout hundreds of other publications, including being used as the title in many; is a term peppered in all the major government publications, including the NIDIRECT, NI executive and NI government websites, and is recorded in Hansard; the term is used personally when referring to the people as a moderate alternative to a perception of picking political sides; and has been a term used countless times in the news media for decades. --24.168.199.211 (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]] violates WP:EASTEREGG and probably violates WP:OVERLINK.
  2. I think that the reasoning is that the description "Northern Irish" is more contentious than "from Northern Ireland". In any case, I agree that a reason should be given rather than a bald regulation. Relatedly, I see that Ian Paisley is described as "from Northern Ireland" whereas Martin McGuinness is described as "Irish", which may indicate unresolved issues. jnestorius(talk) 18:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that it violates WP:EASTEREGG as the subject article title does include Ireland and the Ireland that it was at that time. I wouldn't call it overlinking as it is not linking to something that someone will know that it is - an island or the state.
"Northern Irish" is not as contentious as some editors here would like to make out especially seeing as in the 2011 census it came second as to how people identified as, ahead of Irish. It is only controversial to those who would deny Northern Ireland's existence.
Paisley and McGuinness are most likely stated that without any opposition to obvious political leanings.
Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles/Archive_8&oldid=1153823561"