Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements

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

My gods, Rannṗáirtí, we have consensus for THAT? -- Evertype·✆ 00:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please add the list of options at the top of the page? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill[edit]

I really think everything after the list of names is complete overkill. It's also appalling that you've got "Pro/Anti" where "Pro/Con" is common, and "For/Against" is real English. It's far too complicated and the design is, to me, offputting. In particular it is populated by nothing. I think it should be removed as superfluous. -- Evertype·✆ 07:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave out the Pro/Anti section and stick with comments. The page is looking like a Ballot itself. It could be kept simpler like this: Coll Mac (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


poll on Ireland article names. The page has two main sections:

The order of the statements in each section has been randomised.

==General position statements ==

==Comments on Ballot options==

Well, that is at least "better". -- Evertype·✆ 11:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is overkill so long as there are only clutch of statements. It could be simplified definitely. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket's statement[edit]

Rock - should your statement also be linked from the bottom section, "Statements on the name of the Irish state"? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments section[edit]

Do we really want people making comments on the main position statements page? wouldnt it be better if all comments where here on the talk page? What exactly are people meant to be commenting on in that section? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BritishWatcher. That's what a talk page is for. Scolaire (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What is this page trying to achieve?[edit]

I fail to see the point of this page as it stands today. We can see on the poll how people have voted. All I see now is a list of people who have publically nailed their colours to a particular mast. What is the slighest use of that? I can only see disavantages, I can see no advantages. It reduces the debate to a playground/House of Commons yah booh sucks to you. It is entirely useless to the general voting 'public'. A useful page would have been links to the personal statements (essays). I'm astonished that the lede of the main poll has a featured link to this terrible page as it stands. I urge stongly that it be changed to a list of actual statements, which is what its title suggests. --Red King (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A useful page would have been links to the personal statements (essays)." Maybe the links aren't clear enough - if you click them you go to personal statements (not to the user's own page?). In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about it: 90% of people don't even look at this page. (Compare this to this.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a quick addition to the intro on the position statements page saying click names to read their statements, would ensure no one misses them. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A far more obvious thing to do would be to delete how people have voted (which is available elsewhere where it belongs), and replace them with direct links to their position statements. Why is this article called "Position statements" if it contains neither position statements nor gives direct links to them? --Red King (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does link to the position statements, people have to click the username. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RedKings statement[edit]

RedKings statement is from the original statements written over 4 months ago and contain endorsements / opposes from back then. I have changed my vote on there, i think those old endorsements / opposes should be removed from the statement so its up to date. comment pls BritishWatcher (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it too much, but by all means feel free to remove your endorsement and/or link to your alternative one. I've put a "disclaimer" on the project page, and I'll add the same templates the rest of them have tomorrow as I did with RTG's if someone else doesn't do it first. (I also think one of his endorsers is a blocked sockpuppet?) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think endorsements from over 4 months ago should be removed completly. Those endorsements are used to justify a vote for C. RTG has voted for F first, RedKing7 has voted for BE first. MITH has been banned. Things change, a large list of endorsements from 4 months ago cant be used to aid a certain vote for an option now.
Although i must confess, its rather amusing to see just how reasonable i was 4 months ago agreeing with all that. Total proof back then i was prepared to compromise, but 4 months has certainly changed my opinion strongly on this matter lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them, the struck out old proposal and added the standard formatting. I've made Red King aware of what I have done and don't anticipate any drama over it. Rockpocket 01:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rockpocket BritishWatcher (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still see D as the good option (moving Republic to Ireland (State)) based on the fact that the state calls itself Ireland but I am voting F for things to stay the same. It is the republic. I can't see beyond that but I conceed that its chosen title is Ireland. Option D is the idea that I felt was the only acceptable change but I am still happier to see the country as the republic that it is so I must vote accordingly. I don't think those who vote F, republic it is, rqeuire much canvassing. ~ R.T.G

Failing to have put a watch on this article (!), I've only just seen this. Had I seen it earlier, I would have signified my acceptance of the arguments and deleted the endorsements myself. I was content when other people removed them. --Red King (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol sorry, was my fault i should have mentioned it on your talk page first rather than posting here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History is condemned ever to repeat itself![edit]

I invite the usual suspects to read (U Chicago) Journal of British Studies: The Irish Free State/Éire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”?. You may be as surprised as I was to see how closely our debate has mirrored those of the 1950s! Or perhaps not. --Red King (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article has been cited many, many times in our discussions. I would hope the "usual suspects" have already read that article (that is assuming they entered these discussions with the intention of resolving the issues, rather then simply arguing for the sake of it). Rockpocket 21:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements&oldid=1211784545"