Talk:Counties of Ireland/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Counties of Ireland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Current counties

Latest comment: 12 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion

I must say I started out being a bit confused about the counties of Ireland, but I think after a good bit of digging around I am getting clearer. On that point, I think any other reader would be just as confused or still believe the current counties of Ireland are the older referred to 32 counties, or 26 ROI, and walk away not digging any further.

I'll start by asking you, what is the definition of a county? Perhaps take an understanding from here County.

So then on that note, the current view of counties should be aligned to this http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/ . But there is reference to Cities also, so we will need bring that distinction in here somehow.

I was also looking at the CSO website and I see that a listing for counties shows a similar break out http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/populationofeachprovincecountyandcity2006/

Fingal County Council gave a view of the counties of Ireland on their website here http://www.fingalcoco.ie/YourLocalCouncil/AboutFingal/Maps/WhereisFingal/ . Look under 'Fingal in relation to Ireland'.

So the confusion side I believe relates to the way geographically we try to interpret the above. Plus when we think about postal addresses they tend to group everything in that way, which adds to the confusion. But note the South Tipp Co Co website doesn't give their postal address as county anything. http://www.southtippcoco.ie/en/aboutus/contactus/

It can also be confusing to interpret car regs in this country too, as you see with Vehicle registration plates of Ireland. It splits out the counties and cities except for Dublin.

Also when you look at the article County we mention the old way first and the new way second. If you look at the other countries, they tend to say the new way first and the old way second.

So for the reader, I propose that we clear this up to be clear what the counties are today, and what is was in ROI. Plus all the other fascination history of counties in Ireland.

I see that there was a discussion in July 2011 that went into this, but I don't think it was wholly agreed.

DubhEire (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the suggestion put forward to have a DAB page for Counties of Ireland by jnestorius is a good one.

This article sets out to explain the governing counties of Ireland. It should be clear on the current standing of that. We know the 'Traditional counties' are in use today, but more for geographical and postal use. Hard to find current official references for that usage. But it is clear from an official point of view that the counties were brought in to govern from the very beginning. It has changed over the years until more recently, the change actually broke away from counties covering all geographic areas. So counties doesn't sum it up anymore, it is actually more correct to refer to councils. The sum of all counties and cities is the complete geographic representation of ROI in this context. Look at how Dublin City Council shows it's geographic position in Ireland www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/LocalAreaServices/Pages/LocalCouncilOfficesa.aspx

So counties need to be set out as.

Counties for Government
Counties for GAA
Counties for Postal / Geographic
We also have to clearly show pre and post 1921 Ireland.
And we have Northern Ireland in the mix there too
I'm unsure how to show the change over to the new way of governing in this article

I did find a reference that shows the link between the current councils to the older councils. http://statoids.com/uie.html But I would prefer to find an official one. There might be one already on the article, but I'm not sure. But it at least takes any question of OR out of the equation.

So I think trying to use the counties interchanged with geographic counties is confusing. They are two seperate things. It is easy to factually say that counties are different today and should be called 'Local Government Administration' or some other term. There are 29 county councils and 5 city councils.

Then harder to find is a clear reference for the 'Traditional Counties' that are in existence today which have use for postal and geographic reference. But I can see why they would overlap as above, but there is no proof that they completely fit together. So they have to be represented differently.

DubhEire (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah! There is distinct difference between Geography and the Adminstrative County, which is here http://www.logainm.ie/eolas/Data/Brainse/struchtur-riarachain-na-tire-en.jpg . This shows that the adminstrative county is a sub of a geographic county. The website http://www.logainm.ie/ which is an official government website. The structure is listed under publications at the bottom of this page http://www.logainm.ie/eolas/?uiLang=en .

On http://www.logainm.ie/ you make a search for any area and it will tell you where it is, for example Blackrock http://www.logainm.ie/1412096.aspx is listed as falling within County Dublin. Look up Rathmines http://www.logainm.ie/57184.aspx and it is listed as falling within County Dublin. Look up Tralee http://www.logainm.ie/24803.aspx and it is County Kerry. So to me that demonstrates geographic counties quite well. Then if you look at County Dublin http://www.logainm.ie/Viewer.aspx?text=rathmines&streets=yes, it shows all the sub units there in which are 3 admin counties and 1 city, 10 baronies, 23 towns, and lots more. I also notice that Tallaght http://www.logainm.ie/17457.aspx is listed as a town under County Dublin. This differs from its post code of Dublin 24, this showing a subtle distinction between Geographic and Postal. I'm sure postal addresses are Main Street, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland with no mention of county. More scope for confusion.

Also, if you look up Derry http://www.logainm.ie/100011.aspx you will see that is is a county in Northern Ireland.

Under their educational resources http://www.logainm.ie/scoil/?uiLang=en there is a listing of all the geographic counties http://www.logainm.ie/scoil/pdf/logainm.ie-scoil2-02-aonaid-gheografacha-agus-riarachain-na-tire.pdf

So, there is a difference between Geographic counties and Adminstrative counties. The obejctive of this article appears to explain adminstrative counties so it should be altered to avoid the confusion with 'Tradtional Counties'. I cannot find that classification 'Traditional Counties' anywhere in offical documentation, so perhaps 'Geographic Counties' is a better term to use. This is tackled in the first line of the lead, but a seperate article is needed to cover off the geographic counties.

Perhaps this structure is a good way to show the differences http://www.logainm.ie/eolas/Data/Brainse/struchtur-riarachain-na-tire-en.jpg .

DubhEire (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And a reference from OSI.ie http://www.osi.ie/en/faq/faq3.aspx#faq5 that shows a list of the geographic counties, which just after this table summarises into 26 and 6 and Ireland. It is unfortunate that they did not list the 6 in the table above.

So my feeling is that when people talk about Counties of Ireland, they mean the geographic counties of Ireland. Then there are the local government counties. That distinction needs to be clear. Also the table that lists the table in this current article that lists the traditional counties and their coats of arms is wrong? Is this the actual list of the older government counties. Is this why we see a new coat of arms created for County DLR http://www.dlrcoco.ie/library/coatofarms.htm .

DubhEire (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many coats of arms listed here http://www.heraldry.ws/regional/index.html and it shows the newer ones for the councils and cities. There is a small difference for some GAA counties too. This source helps point in the right direction, but wary as a reference. Clare GAA give a small account of the difference of GAA coat of arms and county coat of arms http://www.clare.gaa.ie/about .

But the Tipperary coat of arms shown on the article is from a period up to 1838 (date typo in the next source) and was made obsolete when the county was divided into ridings. The coats of arms is now associated with South Tipp only, leaving North Tipp with no coat of arms. See page 14 here http://www.southtippcoco.ie/en/media/Guide%20to%20Community%20Life%20WEB.pdf . However, North Tipp has a new logo http://www.tipperarynorth.ie/council/yourcouncil_abo_our.html but it is not called a coat of arms. So what does it mean in terms of representation?

DubhEire (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to focus on this list of 'Traditional Counties' and chose to look at the point when Tipperary was split and understand why we would still refer to it as a whole County Tipperary, but yet it is split into two parts, North and South. Considering there has been no other changes to the names since that time. But at that time of 1898 when this happened, County Laois was called Queens County and County Offaly was called Kings County. So then this collection of names was established at a later date.

King and Queen's county changed name to Offaly and Laois with the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. It is worth noting that these counties had their old name from 1556 to 1922, therefore begs the question what is the criteria to be called a 'Traditional County'. It is also worth flagging that in the County Laois article it says that title deeds are still registered as Queens County today, but there is no reference for that statement in the article. However it does say it here http://www.myhome.ie/laois . But that source may have got it from here, so official reference only. I went looking for an offical reference I find it interesting to look at the landregistry.ie and it shows this map http://www.landregistry.ie/eng/About_Us/Land_Registry/Land_Registration_in_Ireland/ . Note the names of the counties. They even call it South Tipp and North Tipp, but on their map it is just Tipp. Also, they have no reference to Queen's County. Would have to keep digging on that one. Also, I'm unclear of the names of the counties prior to 1556. Perhaps the first time these counties ever had these names was from 1922. But Laois County Council sets that straight http://www.laois.ie/LeisureandCulture/Heritage/HistoryofLaois/ . They mention Laois all the way up to 1556 and mention that in 1922 the county gets the old name back. The actual name as far as I can make out was the Kingdom of Ossory, which itself was divided into the Seven Septs of Laois. Therefore we now have a link to Laois prior to 1556. No reference in the County Laois article for the Seven Septs.

So, the establishment of the free state may show where this listing comes from in 1922. Looks like it was the hierarchy of the new government that gave these county names. Can't find that simply listed just now. So this is probably what we are calling 'Traditional Counties' which is in fact the list of counties at the establishment of the Irish Free State. Proof needed.

Back to County Tipperary and why it is also called North and South. Well it's because it is a Riding or in other words a sub division of government of the county. That was admitedly under the nose. Even so see Local Government Act 2001 and look at page 24 for riding rename and 195 for a listing of the current counties in http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2001/a3701.pdf .

So to me a county is still a county meaning an adminstrative county. So you may ask what happened to County Dublin? Well it was a county and a city. Dublin city was basically a Borough or County borough, and was made cleary distinct from a county as per the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. They are at on the same level as counties. Then the Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993 see section 9 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1993/en/act/pub/0031/sec0009.html#sec9 abolished County Dublin and formed the 3 new counties DLR, South Dublin and Fingal.

So it would appear that the 'Traditional Counties' we refer to are a view of counties in 1922, and in our minds we exclude the boroughs of Dublin, etc. I need to get that listing from 1922 as I'm sure it will list the boroughs seperate to the counties.

Actually, it is the Government of Ireland Act 1920 that should bring to the actual document that lists these counties. There are so many places that refer to 1922, but I think that is the year of the agreement to partition the country and establish the Free State, thus bringing into law.

Does leave the fact that things are confusing for everyone in the country as it would appear like that in so many places, the counties are not represented correctly. I suppose the need to territorially or geographically group something is what the problem is here?

DubhEire (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There are also electorial counties. They appear to be bedded into the county itself. But worth explaining at some point too.

Really liking the reference to Laois as LAOIGHISE. Listing of counties in Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act 1923 in here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1923/en/act/pub/0009/sched2.html#sched2 .

I'm sure you are wondering when is this going to stop, if you are even reading it. Well so am I. Hopefully soon. In the meantime, still digging. I'm hoping that this will allow us to complete out the articles involved and reference them so we can push them to Good Article status.

DubhEire (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to find a copy of Local Government (Ireland) Act 1919. I also found this book which could be useful for many references. "Local government in Ireland: inside out" by Mark Callanan and Justin F. Keogan. http://books.google.ie/books/about/Local_government_in_Ireland.html?id=P6OdT7MIflgC

DubhEire (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeking views on whether the 'Current counties' list should be confined to the Republic, as one editor desires, or should include the counties in the north-east which are still widely used for sporting, cultural and other purposes. The article, as has been discussed above, is not about 'counties of the Republic' but about the whole island. Brocach (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The "list of current counties" should really hav been named "list of administrative counties". The word "current" is misleading, as the traditional 32 counties of Ireland and the 29 administrative counties of the Republic could all be called "current". ~Asarlaí 03:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Have the above two editors not even read user DubhEire's contributions above? Your comments would suggest not. For shame. He has undertaken a Hero's journey, delving into the arcane myths and Stygian depths of the history of the counties of Ireland. Nearing the end of his journey of discovery, the only thing that is known for certain is that there are few certainties. It belittles his efforts to trot our simplistic claims that 32 counties could be current. It would be better by far to engage constructively with DubhEire's labours in a more constructive fashion. For the moment, let the current division of section 2 - traditional and section 3 - current stand. Each section contains its own list. Antrim has not been forgotten and neither has Fingal in the current arrangement. It will suffice until DubhEire and others agree something better here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The 32 traditional counties ar still widely recognized, especially by sporting and cultural organizations. That makes them "current". However, the 29 administrativ counties of the Republic ar also "current". Thus, to forgo confusion, the "Alphabetical list of current counties" should be renamed "Alphabetical list of administrative counties". In the list itself, the first colum is named "Administrative county" not "Current county". ~Asarlaí 22:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I had of course read the vast and rambling post of DubhEire, which was accurate as far as it went but entirely based on the premise that counties exist only in the Republic. They still have a very real presence in the north-east and the concept of county is "current" throughout the island. In over 2,000 words of text DubhEire relies wholly on sources from what s/he calls ROI and does not show any understanding of the reality that the north-eastern counties still mean something. I repeat, this article is about the whole of Ireland. Brocach (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. This article is about the whole of Ireland and the 32 "traditional" counties. Because of the duplicate meanings of the words "county" and "Ireland", it is easy to make shallow arguments that the article should be about part of the local government divisions of the Republic of Ireland. However, that does not follow common name.

There are currently 32 counties in Ireland. These are related but different to "counties" used for local government in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, I think the article would benefit from a split entirely between the "traditional" counties (where Galway is in County Galway and where County Dublin and County Armagh are real places where people live and work) and remove parts relating to the current "administrative" counties (i.e. where Galway is not in County Galway and where there is no such division as County Dublin or County Armagh).

A new article dealing with the Administrative geography of the Republic of Ireland, could be created and linked by a hat note. However, for the most part, I think this is already covered in Local government in the Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is encouraging that user Brocach has come to the talk page. This usually means that he has accepted that there is resistance to his bold edits and that he is prepared to talkt through the issues, get some concensus for the bold moves and refrain from further devisiive reversions. However, this is not the case. He has, yet again, reverted the status quo. I would ask him to leave it along until a consensus emerges here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The weight of comments to date favours expanding the Current section to cover the whole island, rather than duplicating the purpose of the Local government in the Republic of Ireland article. Adding six items to a list of 29 is not a radical or, as Laurel Lodged would have it, "bold" or "devisiive" (wjhatever that is) edit. It is a sensible improvement. Brocach (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a pity that user Brocach has not entered into the spirit of a discussion. Instead, he has continued his disruptive editing and has now set himself up as a judge in his own case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By all means discuss - but Laurel Lodged, you have not given a single coherent reason for excluding six counties from this section, you merely revert rational edits that, incidentally, include improvements to other sections. Please either give a reason why the six north-eastern counties should not be regarded as "current" or leave the page as it is. Brocach (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for my reversion has been provided on all my reversions. That you choose to ignore or misrepresent them is not my fault. For the reason for the reversions see WP:BRD. You introduced a novelty to the article, I reverted it. If you still want a make a case for the new thing, open a proper discussion here. Once again, Northern Ireland is not excluded. The article is not confined to the Republic. The article is organised into chronological sections. To talk about things out of chronological sequence would be silly and tedious. The article reflects a sequence of evolution in the creation and dissolution of counties. Counties were not created permanently for all time. Former and historical counties are recorded in their proper places. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No reasoning has ever been provided to justify the uncontroversial edits I made that do not affect the exclusion of the six north-eastern counties from the 'current' section - Laurel Lodged simply reverts everything I do, whther or not he/she has read or genuinely objects to it. As for the reversions relating to those six counties, Laurel Lodged has never once advanced a single reason for restricting this section of the article to the current administrative divisions of the Republic of Ireland, a matter already adequately explained in the Local government in the Republic of Ireland article. In the north-east, counties still exist as current entities, so their inclusion here is not as "former" or "historical" counties nor is it "out of chronological sequence", "silly" or "tedious". This section deals with the current usage of "counties" in Ireland and it is absurd and unjustifiable to restrict this section to one of the two political jurisdictions on the island. Others please comment now, we need a better view of the weight of opinion here and I don't want to be trapped in an edit war with an editor who seems determined to exclude one fifth of Ireland from an article oistensibly about the whole of Ireland. Brocach (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged has made a series of further edits, ignoring the talk page, with the principal aim of removing the six north-eastern counties from the section on current usage. Trying to be patient and reasonable, I am working through every change made and, where any appear to disimprove the text, will revert or give an alternative. Brocach (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have completed that work-through and think that the page as it now stands is satisfactory. Could anyone who thinks that the 'current usage' section ought to relate only to the Republic please bring suggestions to this page, rather than just making unexplained reversions? Brocach (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If section 3 of this article is about "current counties" then it should include the 29 administrativ counties of the ROI and the 32 traditional counties. All of theze ar "current" in one way or another. However, as we alredy hav a section devoted to the traditional counties, I suggest that section 3 be devoted to the administrativ counties. ~Asarlaí 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I can support a name change for section 3 per above or to "Current administrative counties". As all current counties are administrative counties or not current counties at all, then "administrative counties" is a tautology, but what the heck. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I once again suggest my above proposal for splitting out separate pages. Grouping the NI 6 and the ROI 29 in a single list of 35 makes no sense. apples and oranges. jnestorius^(talk) 18:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged errs in insisting that a county cannot be "current" if it is not currently an official administrative division. "Current counties" in the Republic includes the recent administrative creations such as Fingal, while in the north-east the only current counties are the traditional ones. There is a case for including in the "current" table table those traditional southern counties that are no longer administrative divisions, since they remain current for many other purposes - the "new" counties could be shown as subdivisions, as in Jnestorius orginally proposed; or more radically, doing away with this separate list and merging into a single table. Brocach (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your first point Brocach. If a county is uzed for any sake then it exists. However, like Jnestorius and RA, I think the 32 traditional counties and the 29 administrativ counties should be kept apart. The two ar different 'sets' with different borders – putting them all in one list would mislead the readers. ~Asarlaí 19:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

If the counties of Northern Ireland are to be removed from an article about the entire island of Ireland, and I see no reason for them to be, then please get consensus on this talk page before removing them again. More importantly stop these edit wars. This article could get locked down and protected from editing if the current disruption continues. Some discussion seems to be happening, but editors are continuing the edit wars while these discussions are happening which isn't something to be encouraged. While people aren't breaking 3RR in letter, they are breaking it in spirit by continually reverting each other. Please solve this amicably by discussing on this page and get consensus for any changes. Remember the cycle, Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert, Revert. That's called edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As the only editor who was reverting without offering any reasons appears to have stopped doing so, has not responded to recent talk page comments, and has not been supported by anyone else, it is to be hoped that the current format of the page is now stable. I would point out that any changes I have made have been backed up with clear rationale and that I have not reverted any edits solely because of who made them. Brocach (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit stream will show that I supplied a reason for all my edits. I have responded to comments and have repeatedly requested comments. My edits and comments are backed up with clear rationale. I have not reverted any edits solely because of who made them. In an edit warring situation, no party emerges with clean hands so po-faced comments like the above don't ring true. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Anytime edits are reverted by other users and you keep making them is edit warring. Rationale doesn't matter, both sides have rationales here, but it doesn't make it any less edit warring. It's been made clear that editors are opposed to the removal of the 6 counties of Northern Ireland, so to remove them will require a consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 22:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely the onus lies elsewhere. There was stability around the section 1,2,3 format. It was Brocach that interfered with that stability. Does the onus not lie with him and his supporters to show why those 8 counties not currently used for local government, of which NI only comprises 6, ought to be included in section 3? That is, to add those 8 counties would require a consensus. No ? And when did this become a NI thing? Let's not forget that Tipperary and Dublin are also excluded as they no longer serve the function for which they were established but continue a timorous twilight existence in folk memory.Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Single merged table?

Latest comment: 12 years ago59 comments8 people in discussion

There should be a way to present the lists of historic and newer counties in a single table. Some re-ordering and editing of sections would be needed to accommodate a table along these lines, but it would reduce the large amount of duplication between the two existing tables, while still distinguishing visually between the traditional counties, many of which are also administrative, and the new purely administrative ones. I would propose a non-sortable table to keep the subdivisions within their respective historic counties.

Suggested intro text: "The divisions listed below include the 32 'traditional' counties, many of which also serve as local government divisions in the Republic (in some cases with slightly redrawn boundaries). The exceptions, identified in the Notes column, are counties in Northern Ireland, which are no longer used as local government units, and administrative counties in the Republic that have been established as local government subdivisions of traditional counties. Coats of arms are shown only for the 32 traditional counties (the logos of other counties are shown on their respective pages). In the table below, "Region" means either a statistical region of the Republic, or Northern Ireland. "County town" is the current administrative capital of the county, except in Northern Ireland where the pre-1973 county town is listed. Cities which, in the Republic, are currently administered outside the county system, but with the same legal status as administrative counties, are not shown separately: these are Cork, Dublin, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. Also not shown are the former county boroughs of Londonderry (now Derry City) and Belfast which in Northern Ireland had the same legal status as the six counties until the reorganisation of local government in 1973."

[NB draft table deleted by Brocach 6 May 2012 to make this section easier to read]

I know that a few fields in the above table (Irish names, former names etc) are incomplete, and ref list is missing (though refs are embedded). Am just seeking views on the general principle of substituting a single table. Brocach (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The traditional counties and the administrativ' counties should be kept apart. As I noted above, they ar' two different 'sets' with different borders and different uses. The traditional counties of Galway, Limerick, Cork, Waterford, Meath and Louth (and maybe others) hav' different borders than the administrativ' counties of the same name. If we merged the tables we'd also hav' to remove the "older names" section, as that only applies to the traditional counties.

Overall, it would only lead to confusion. ~Asarlaí 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the traditional counties have fixed definite borders. Are you, Asarlaí, just assuming that the borders as at some particular date (1898? 1921?) are now frozen for all time? jnestorius^(talk) 21:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In the popular imagination, the borders of the 32 traditional counties hav' been the same (or "frozen") since 1898. When Co Tipperary was split into North Tipperary and South Tipperary, people still refer'd to Co Tipperary as a county and still spoke of "the 32 counties". When Dublin was split into four, people still refer'd to Co Dublin as a county and still spoke of "the 32 counties". ~Asarlaí 21:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Asarlaí, no harm to you but I'm keen on 'traditional' spellings such as are, have, administrative... I have removed your 'collapse table' tages so that others can see more easily what a single table would look like. Brocach (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This table is unwieldy and hard to navigate. On what basis are the two NI county boroughs included? Crests mostly relate only to the modern county councils; formerly the county town's crest was often used for the county. Is Northern Ireland a "region"? Etc etc. Once again, a split and dab seems the only sensible course. jnestorius^(talk) 21:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsided as to whether the page should be split, but I agree with all of your other points. ~Asarlaí 21:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope I won't confuse anyone by editing the proposed text and table above to take account of points made here. I think you're right jnestorius that inclusion of the county boroughs was an anomaly so have taken them out. I tried to make navigation easier by stipulating in the notes column the traditional/administrative/both status of each county, but think that keeping coats of arms only for the 32 trad ones is a useful visual aid. Coats of arms are those most recently adopted for each county, only one can be shown here. I've reworded the into text to clarify "Region". ~Asarlaí, you are right about slightly shifting county borders here and there, so I've referred to that in the intro. But where the administrative county is almost identical with the historic entity (bar looping next door to take in outlying bits of a town), I don't think it's necessary to treat the county as a new creation. Such minor border shifts can be dealt with in the county's own article - after all, WP at present has only one article for each of those counties, e.g. County Waterford, rather than one on the 'traditional' county and one for the 'administrative' county. Am hoping that a few more editors will now comment. Brocach (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's all gone a bit quiet... can I again ask for views on substituting the above table (as amended), which I think carries all of the same information, for the present two tables? Should I paste it in and see how it goes? Brocach (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Deckchairs on the Titanic. More extensive repairs required. jnestorius^(talk) 17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Take out all the coat of arms images. Many of them are non-free and can't be used in a table like this (WP:NFTABLE), and the gutted tale is an invitation to more violations of WP:NFCC. Displayed here on this page, those images are all violations of WP:NFCC #9. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. It seems to me that all the criteria for using these images are or can be met. The arms in question belong (or in some cases belonged) to public authorities, and were explicitly designed to serve public purposes. The images are obviously public domain and it is inconceivable that any of the surviving armigers would have any problem with their correct use in this context. They are useful in a talk page table like this, and no-one objected to their inclusion on the actual Counties page. Brocach (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Deep breath... I have taken the plunge and replaced the two tables with one, much reducing the duplication. Other content reorganised to fit. I did my best to take account of points made in the discussion and hope that the new version finds favour. Brocach (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why hav' you went ahed and made a single merged table after finding that nobody else supported it? The change should be undone. ~Asarlaí 19:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

~Asarlaí, Only three editors offered comments, and I tried to take account of their views (inc. yours). (One comment, re coats of arms, I disagreed with but it relates equally to the pre-change page.) Since I repeatedly asked if anyone else had views, and over a period of weeks no-one came back, I don't think the changes will be controversial - every bit of information that was in, is kept. Shall we wait and see how others react? Brocach (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland's counties should be in a separate table from the Republic's as the column header "Region" makes it look far too much that it is a region of Ireland the same as manner as the administrative regions of the Republic of Ireland, i.e. that they are all administrative regions of the same state. Also just to point out that what is the point in a table that lists historic and modern counties if your going to leave out the other historic counties prior to the thirty-two, i.e. Twescard and Lecale, and the rest of the "Former counties" section of the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also you can't technically say that a traditional county is in one of those regions as those regions apply to the modern administrative counties which aren't exactly the same in boundaries as the traditional ones. So that's another reason to have them separate along with the fact this proposed table needs to make it far clearer that six of those counties belong to a different state than the rest. All the easier done by keeping traditional and administrative separate. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The definition of Region (as meaning either a NUTS 3 statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland, or Northern Ireland) is given in the intro to the table. The table doesn't include long-extinct counties because, unlike the 32 traditional counties and the newer administrative ones, those counties are not currently in use for any purpose. The fact that modern administrative county boundaries may not be exactly the same as the boundaries of identically-named traditional counties is also abundantly clear from the text, and the respective NUTS 3 region articles should also make this clear. I really think that in the interests of readability this unified table has to be preferred over the three or more separate tables implied by your comments. Brocach (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking what you have said on board, you have failed to mention anything about the failure to mention what state a county is in. This is a glaring omission and having a separate table for Northern Irish counties would hardly be against the interests of readability since it would make it abundantly clear where the county is located. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to mix the "administrative" and "traditional" counties. It mixes apples and pears. Doing so also conflates administrative divisions of the Republic of Ireland with former administrative division of Northern Ireland. It's confusing, muddled and uninformative.

I believe this article should focus solely on the "traditional" counties and the "administrative" counties be treated at Local government in the Republic of Ireland. There is an argument to merge Counties of Northern Ireland in here but I think it is should be maintained as a seperate spun out article as the counties in Northern Ireland had 50 years of life seperate to the counties in the rest of Ireland. --RA (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mabuska, the table clearly shows "Northern Ireland" against the six counties that are in Northern Ireland, and anyone looking down the table can pick them out instantly. The intro text also stated that this column shows either "Northern Ireland" or one of the regions of the Republic. I have made a small edit to make that even clearer. To segregate the six north-eastern counties into their own table would surely be perceived as some sort of political statement, as well as undermining the point of having an article on all the counties of the island.

RA, have I got this right - your preference would be for one table showing administrative counties in the Republic; a second showing "traditional" counties in the Republic, most of which would be substantially the same as the first table; and a third table here for "traditional" counties in Northern Ireland, while retaining the separate Counties of Northern Ireland article? Can I ask if any other editors think that would be a better way forward than the current version? My own view is that where there are significant differences between admin and trad counties of the same name, the main county article is bound to spell that out; this article need only provide an overview of the topic and its readability was impaired by having two very similar tables, never mind three. Brocach (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You say having NI separate might be perceived as a political statement. Absolutely. It would be stating, or at least implying, that Northern Ireland is a separate country. Which is, of course, a fact. So that's the way forward. We should not have content which in some way implies that Northern Ireland is part of any greater political entity other than the United Kingdom, of which it is an integral part. If not already included (and I haven't checked), the NI counties should be part of a UK counties list. Van Speijk (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Further; I just checked and NI is indeed included in a list of UK counties, so I've added a 'See also' to the current article. Van Speijk (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Van Speijk underlines my point that to separate out the six counties would be a political statement, one which he wishes to make. I don't. In an article about "Counties of Ireland", to include all of the counties of Ireland in a table does not of itself state or imply anything about which state has jurisdiction over which counties: that is, however, indicated clearly in the table, as I have just pointed out. Van Speijk's link to the UK counties adds precisely nothing - there is no information there that is not given in this article. Brocach (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the meaning of 'See also'. Van Speijk (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

From the relevant MOS; Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant.. Van Speijk (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I understood that perfectly, thanks, having gone straight to it to see if I could find a good reason to leave your link in. To me, the MOS says that it is not sensible to insert a gratuitous "see also" pointing to a page that gives no information whatsoever about the topic. The duplicated Northern Ireland information aside, the rest of List of counties of the United Kingdom has no relevance to Counties of Ireland. (It's also one of the most badly-designed pages on Wikipedia.) You made it abundantly clear above that your reason for adding that otherwise pointless link is to make a political point about which state has jurisdiction over which counties, in addition to the factual statements contained in the article and table. That in itself would be a reason for removing the link. Brocach (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

When you talk of duplication, almost all of the see also links have information duplicated here. Rather than accuse editors of making "political" edits, i suggest that you ensure that your own edits and comments aren't. The convolution of Van Speijk's statement on making a political statement should also be avoided as it is an ad hominem argument. The island of Ireland is split between two different states and it would be easy enough to have to two separate tables for them.

Has anyone actually backed your edit? As so far not many seem to agree with you regardless of no reverts thus far (nice to see discussion in flow on it). Mabuska ^(talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Van Speijk's "see also" and all the others is, firstly, that the UK counties article gives absolutely no additional information relevant to Counties of Ireland, and secondly, that Van Speijk above (2 May) makes it quite clear that the "see also" was added for the political purpose of stressing Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom. I would not accuse anyone of political editing without that sort of solid evidence. It is simply not appropriate to make political points by tossing in useless "see also" links: they should only be inserted to direct the reader to additional information relevant to the article's subject. Brocach (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I hid or deleted the above draft of the unified table that is now in the article, to make it easier to read the talk page? Brocach (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Brocach, 14:54, 2 May 2012 - I think I must have been unclear. I think there should be three articles:

Counties of Ireland, dealing with the 32 "traditional" counties of Ireland (as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)
Counties of Northern Ireland, dealing with the 6 ("traditional"?) counties of Northern Ireland
Local government in the Republic of Ireland, dealing with (amongst other things) the 29 "admistrative" counties in the Republic of Ireland today

I would go further than you when you say, "My own view is that where there are significant differences between admin and trad counties of the same name..." I don't think the 29 "admistrative" counties of the Republic of Ireland and the 32 "traditional" counties of Ireland belong in the same topic at all. They are two completely different things.

In this article, I think the "traditional" counties that are today in the Republic of Ireland and the "traditional" counties that are today in Northern Ireland belong in the same table. The topic of this article is (today) mainly historical, geographical and cultural and preceeds partition. Indicating which are in ROI and which are in NI is important tho.

The 29 "administrative" counties of the Republic of Ireland should be removed from the table (and from the entire article). They are administrative units today in the Republic of Ireland. They no more belong in this article than a list of district councils in Northern Ireland does. --RA (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would also mean we can reduce the amount of columns in the proposed table from Brocach, which to be honest isn't the best piece of ease of readability. These three separate articles already exist, and should be kept separate.

By focusing this article solely on the historic counties of Ireland pre-partition and pre-Republic, the proposed table can lose the "region" and "notes" columns, with regions being applicable to the local government article and the notes superfluous. The "Older Names" column may also be a candidate for removal - surely archaic names belong in the associated article's lede?

We could have separate tables for each province to make it easier to show the general location of a county, or amend the table so that it has a sort column feature so it can be clicked for a person to group all counties in a province together. Separate for each province would mean that only the Ulster section would need a state "Region" column stating "Republic of Ireland" or "Northern Ireland" [maybe with (United Kingdom) added to the end of it]. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have stripped out the archaic names column, and the Ulster-Scots column which had entries for only seven counties. Hope that makes it easier on the eye.

I think the article (not just the table) benefits from treating both "traditional" counties and the newer administrative counties. They are not such radically different entities as RA suggests: 20 of the trad counties are also admin counties, with pretty much the same boundaries and pretty much the same range of county council functions. The Local government in the Republic of Ireland and Counties of Northern Ireland articles, both prominently linked here, will allow readers to explore the finer details, but an article called Counties of Ireland should surely provide information on all the places for which the term 'county' is commonly used, whatever their status in current local government. Brocach (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The flaw in RA's reasoning is that it assumes that the pre-1922 counties had a function other than local government. They didn't. The only function of a county from Norman times to the present day is to demarcate aresa of local government. There were several points in their development along the way from Norman times. You could split the articles at 1608 when Wicklow was shired. You could split at 1838 when Tipperary was divided. You could split at 1973 when NI decided to invent another demarcation regime. You could split at 1995 when the new Dublin counties were created. And so on. 1922 is as arbitrary as any other date for splitting. Best not to split. There was no golden era, no apogee, only continual development. Today is as valid as any other period. All is flux; nothing stays the same. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"The only function of a county from Norman times to the present day is to demarcate area of local government" – not anymore. The 32 traditional counties ar' in use for many things, most of them cultural.

"All is flux; nothing stays the same" – the 32 counties hav' been the same since the 19th century.

I don't mind whether the article is split or not. I'll be happy so long as the table is split. ~Asarlaí 14:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Couple of comments:

"an article called Counties of Ireland should surely provide information on all the places for which the term 'county' is commonly used" -- the alternative is to be a DAB page. That puts the differences up front and centre. Compare Counties of Wales.
"The only function of a county from Norman times to the present day is to demarcate aresa of local government." -- Intercounty hurling matches date from the 18th century. Counties were used for national as well as local govt, i.e. each county constituency elected two Knights of the Shire to the House of Commons (in Dublion and Westminster) till 1885.
I.R. Uimh. 519/2003 — An tOrdú Logainmneacha (Contaetha agus Cúigí) 2003 compare Chapter 2 "Counties" with Chapter 3 "Administrative Counties (in addition to those in chapter 2)".

jnestorius^(talk) 16:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not easy to find a way out of this; there are strong views on splitting the article and on keeping it together; personally I would be sorry to see "Counties of Ireland" reduced to a disambiguation page as per Wales, which is effectively a barrier between the subject that the reader looked up, and the information they were seeking. Right then. What about keeping one table, but listing the "trad" 32 first, then, as per the last example from jnestorius, listing below the new purely "admin" ones ? OK if I try that out? Brocach (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"The flaw in RA's reasoning is that it assumes that the pre-1922 counties had a function other than local government. " — County Tipperary ceased to be a division for the purposes of local government in 1898 (i.e. is is a pre-1922 county that had a function other than local government). And yet, per Jnestorius' ref, we see it being referenced in 2003 by the ROI government.

This is why we need to remove, for the most part, the administrative counties from this article. It mixes apples and pears. County Tipperary and South and North Tipperary are two different things. Just because there are two sets of things in Ireland that a called "counties" — and just because there may be elements common to both sets — does not mean that those two sets are the same thing. They are two separate topics: one set describes the list of counties in Local government in the Republic of Ireland, the other describes the list of counties in (the WP:PRIMARY topic of) Counties of Ireland. --RA (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Logainm database is very useful. I use it constantly for things like civil parishes in baronies. Nobody bothers much with such things these days. Neverthelss they existed and some continue to exist in a half-life of rare legal situations. I would not expect to find the Barony of Castleknock in any county other than Dublin. Logainm does not recognise that it is in Fingal. Why? Because civil parishes and baronies have not been updated since the 19th century. No legal instrument has formally re-assigned them. So if you want to find the Barony of Castleknock, you must perforce search under county Dublin in Logainm. This does not detract one iota from the validity of Logainm. It's designed to put an Irish language on English language placenames and it does that very well. It's hardly the fault of Logainm that the Legislature has declined to sort out geographic anamalies. Regarding the Order posted above, it says of itself: "This Order declares the official Irish language version of the names of provinces and counties.". It does not claim to define, re-oder, re-distribute, abolish or recognise the provinces and counties. It merely acknowledges that certain placenames ahve existed and may continue to exist. The Order is not normative, just descriptive. It suffieces that the Order lists the new counties among the list of counties. To inquire into the legal status of counties past and present we must search elsewhere. This Order just tells us their names in Irish - no more. To push it any further would indeed be OR. Laurel Lodged (talk)

In the merged table, I have now grouped admin below trad counties, hope that will please some of the people all of the time... intro text edited accordingly. Brocach (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiousity Brocach what "strong arguments" have been given for a single table? No one else has backed you up as far as i can see, and your continuing on without consensus from your peers. Also your recent edit to the table only further fuels the reasoning for it to be split as you've essentially did that whilst also ignoring all dissenting views from your own - views that no-one else here seems to agree with.

Turning this into a DAB page i think isn't required as the article can deal simply with the counties of Ireland prior modenr administrative counties. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I also find the removal of the "Ulster-Scots" quite curious seeing as no-one raised it as a problem, noting that alongside some of the other pointy views. Does it not have as much right of place as Irish Brocach? GFA gives it as much. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Brocach, we can still hav' one table but two lists within it. One list of all the trad counties and, below it, a list of all the admin counties. With your last edit you went part of the way ther', but the trad and admin counties wer' still somewhat lumpt together. I think things would be much clearer with two full lists. ~Asarlaí 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Mabuska, please re-read - I referred to "strong views" not in relation to the table, but on single article versus treating the various types of county in different articles. My recent edit was precisely aimed at taking account of discussion here. I could not be said to have "ignored all views except my own" given that, as you acknowledge, it reflected the views here that the (main) two types of county should be distinguished more clearly. I have engaged repeatedly with all editors here, ignoring no-one and trying honestly to reflect and accommodate different views within this one article, including yours. Only seven of us have engaged to date. To summarise the views expressed to date (sorry, this is very condensed): Asarlaí wants to split the table but doesn't mind whether all "counties" are kept in the article; Jnestorius wants to keep all "counties" here, with a single table, but made smaller (which I have done); RA wants admin counties taken out; Van Speijk wants Northern counties taken out; you want admin counties and Northern counties taken out, and/or extinct counties put in. All of my edits have tried to find a way through that variety of views while respecting also the "silent majority" outside this conversation - none of whom, as you noted yourself, ever objected to my merging the two tables.

On the issue of Ulster Scots names, only seven of the 41 counties have any such names suggested for them, so an additional column - with 34 blanks - seemed excessive; moreover, apart from (unsourced) "Lunnonderrie", there were multiple (and unsourced) versions of these names, with no authoritative version as is the case for the Irish names; and in most cases the English name was offered as one of the Ulster-Scots names (Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh, Tyrone). The fact that this was not picked up before now doesn't mean that it meets WP standards. As all of the Ulster Scots names can be given (and sourced) in the seven county articles, it seemed unnecessary to list them here, but it would be good to hear from other readers on that point. I do have to say that Ulster Scots does not have equal status with the Irish language, whether under the GFA or under the international human rights treaties to which the UK is a party. If there is a consensus here in favour of reinstating the mostly-empty Ulster Scots column, I won't object so long as the data is sourced.

Because it seems to me that your revert was based on a misunderstanding, I will now revert back, but will watch this space for other views. Brocach (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't assume what I am thinking Brocach, and as an experienced editor i'd expect you to know of and follow WP:BRD. You were bold, i reverted, so it should be discussed and a resolution come around before the edit can be done. I still don't agree with your quite potentially biased removal of Ulster-Scots (added to your unwillingness to explicitly state in the table that six counties belong to a different state than the rest). Since Ulster-Scot names only apply to counties in Ulster, a table for each province is not stupid, for why do we need an overcomplicated single table that tries to mix everything in it? Provincial specific ones allow for the use of Ulster-Scots and State columns in the Ulster one only. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Also if your suggesting the "Ulster-Scot" names can be just left to their articles then why not also the Irish ones? Would make the table even easier to read... Mabuska ^(talk) 21:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unwillingness" to indicate the state? As I keep telling you, and you keep not noticing, the table very plainly stated which six counties are in Northern Ireland by showing "Northern Ireland" in the Regions column and explaining in the intro that Region means either Northern Ireland or a NUTS region of the Republic. How much clearer could it possibly be? Would you like to have a little Union Jack inserted?

All of the Irish names have single, agreed official versions and the table easily accommodates that column. If a majority - no, if any significant number - of editors support your suggestion that the Irish names be deleted, I will not oppose that, but for now I think the column is useful and should stay.

As for Ulster Scots names, I await comments from anyone who thinks that it is useful to have those multiple, unsourced and possibly made-up versions for seven counties occupying an entire column. It has nothing to do with "quite potential bias". You yourself argued for removal of the archaic names column, yet you have now reinstated it, and some of the alleged Ulster Scots names are clearly archaic - find me one living person who calls Tyrone "Owenslann". Have you ever thought of being consistent?

No-one has supported your proposal for splitting the table by provinces.

You ask why we need an "overcomplicated" table, then revert from a simplified one to a more complicated one.

In reverting the version that separated administrative counties, you are contradicting yourself, as you had previously argued for that. Please stop being disruptive, and try being reasonable about this. I am just trying to make this article more useful: over the past two years you have done very little here but revert changes. I urgently invite other editors to say which version of this table they prefer. It is impossible for me to debate with someone who argues even with him/herself. Brocach (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Tellingly no-one has fully backed your proposal. People have actually objected to yours, no-one has commented on mine for you to assume what they think. Your all about assumptions. Also who has backed all that you want removed from the table? No-one thus far. I agree with some but not all - why not work with what everyone who's voiced an opinion on it agrees with.

Also i'd say to stop convoluting my comments for I never suggested that we include historical counties; if you read what I said and properly comprehended it you'll see it's not even a suggestion but simple statement questioning your logic: "Also just to point out that what is the point in a table that lists historic and modern counties if your going to leave out the other historic counties prior to the thirty-two, i.e. Twescard and Lecale, and the rest of the "Former counties" section of the article. Mabuska (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)".

I also haven't contradicted myself. In regards to administrative and traditonal counties, separate tables i'm all for - not a single overloaded table that's displayed to pretend that its two tables. What the hell is the point of doing that when you could simply have two tables. My reversion of your edit is not to a version that i prefer, but simply a reversion on the point of letting the discussion run it's course rather than using the article as your sandbox making in which you also make minor changes that weren't discussed and someone objected to - i.e. "Ulster-Scots".

On being reasonable, i am quite reasonable. You are the one trying to plough on regardless of discussion, initially ignoring WP:BRD, and dismissing other editors views seemingly believing in the immaculateness of your own as being "reasonable" and for the best of the article - which i for one disagree with entirely as you've failed to provide a comprehensive case to convince me. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no support here for the reversion of changes that clearly simplified a table that several, including Mabuska, maintained was too complicated. I have therefore reinstated the simplified version. Brocach (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What support do you have for your changes? None. So your edit is still in breech of WP:BRD as you have no consensus for it. To sort this issue out properly i'll start it anew and offer examples of multiple solutions rather than a single solution that you insist must be adhered to. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Also Brocach what evidence do you have that the GFA gives Irish more right and preference over Ulster-Scots? As far as i understand both are treated equally by it. Also where in UK statute are Irish names for Northern Ireland's counties official? You say the Irish names are official - but only in the Republic of Ireland so your arguement there is flawed. Also on your NUTS3 arguement - none of the traditional 32 counties belong to it as far as i am aware??? Maybe i'm wrong but that only applies to the current administrative divisions - and then again if you check NUTS3#Levels and look at the table you'll see that in NI NUTS3 is groups of districts whilst in the RoI its regional authorities spanning county councils. Regardless of that i'll have examples up soon.Mabuska ^(talk) 16:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Irish and Scots names aside... why is the "one-table solution" being uzed on the article right now if Brocach is the only one who wants it? Shouldn't we go back to the "two-table solution" while we discuss the other things? ~Asarlaí 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mabuska, your reverts - virtually the only thing you have been doing on this page, for two years now - amount to persistent disruptive editing. No-one could accuse me of not engaging in the discussion here, in a much more constructive way than you have. Where a change finds no real objection other than your own, it should be allowed to stand, and your repeated reversions that qualify as "bold". As I outlined at length on 6 May & 8 May above, my changes have as far as possible tried to accommodate the comments of Asarlaí, jnestorius, RA, Van Speijk & LaurelLodged as well as yours. When you talk of "letting the discussion run its course" please note that over the past month no-one but you has objected to the merged table. Your own objections are confused and contradictory, on the one hand arguing for fewer columns, then reverting to a more complicated table.

As for the relative status of "the Irish language and Ulster Scots", as the GFA pointedly refers to the language and the dialect, they are not and never have been equal. The unequal status was formally acknowledged in the UK's ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, where the language was specified under Part III and the dialect only under Part II. (If you don't know what that means I'd be happy to explain.) The Irish-language names of the counties are single, agreed official versions: they are mentioned in statute in one of the jurisdictions, but are used officially in both, for example in Ordnance Survey maps and in any other official correspondence or publication using Irish language names for counties.

As for the NUTS regions, it would be a simple matter to remove the region from traditional counties that are not also administrative ones, but pointless, as in most cases the traditional county is located entirely within the borders of the specified region; the fact that they are no longer used for local government doesn't mean that they are physically located outside the NUTS region. The exception is Tipperary, where 'n/a' appeared in the amended table with a footnote explaining that the two admin counties of Tipperary lie in different NUTS regions.

If you really intend to offer alternatives, feel free to do so. Meanwhile, the version of the table that has stood since 6 May, with no objection from anyone but you, should be allowed to remain. Brocach (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Asarlaí, the table (as amended) splits the purely admin from the purely traditional or traditional+admin counties, an attempt to take account of comments above by you, jnestorius and RA who wanted a clear distinction. Brocach (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You did take account of some of our comments, but if nobody else wants everything in one table then why do we still hav' it? I suggest we revert to the old layout while we discuss the other things. ~Asarlaí 17:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We have it because Brocach is insisting that we have it despite the fact no-one has agreed with him at all about all of his changes and he still flouts WP:BRD. A user conduct report i feel will be needed. The single table of both traditional and administrative counties is counter-productive to what Brocach is aiming for - simplicity. Anyways... Mabuska ^(talk) 18:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

...i've now started a discussion below on how to improve this article below which takes into account this table. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Asarlaí, the table has been split to take account of your comments and there is surely now no difficulty in distinguishing between the purely admin and the other counties.

Mabuska, Wikipedia has many millions of users. Only seven or so have engaged in this discussion. No-one has ever suggested that the former ghastly layout, with two largely repetitive tables, was preferable to a single table. I have edited carefully and conscientiously within the rules and with the sole purpose of making this article more useful. You have reverted endlessly, and now threaten to "report" me. Go right ahead. Brocach (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually i haven't reverted endlessly, i reverted a few times based on WP:BRD which you have violated several times. You are in the wrong, not me. If you really wish to help improve this article then i suggest you contribute to the re-newed discussion below and actualy try to work with other editors. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh Mabuska, you disappoint me, please "report" me so that someone other than you can assess (a) whether I have improved the article over several months, engaged consistently and appropriately with other editors and tried throughout to take account of their views, and (b) whether your contributions here are mostly non-constructive reverts. I have read back through the evolution of this article and with all the modesty I can summon (not very much but hey) I believe that everything that I have done here has improved this article. Some of your reverts have been justified but if reverting's all that you do, it's not enough to allow you to claim ownership of this piece. No hyphen in renewed, by the way, but I suppose I'm old school. Brocach (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Antrim county town

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Antrim was never the county town of Antrim. It was Carrickfergus to 1850, then Belfast (the County Court House was an enclave within the county borough) to 1970, then Ballymena (Feb 1970: Belfast June 1970: Ballymena to abolition. So what does that mean for the "traditional" county town? jnestorius^(talk) 21:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Have amended in my proposed unified table, above. Brocach (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Style for counties created after 1997

Latest comment: 12 years ago32 comments7 people in discussion

Is it common usage or just OR to state: "In Ireland, the usage of the word county nearly always comes before rather than after the county name; thus "County Clare" in Ireland as opposed to "Clare County" in Michigan, US. The former "King's County" and "Queen's County" were exceptions; these are now County Offaly and County Laois, respectively. The abbreviation Co. is used, as in "Co. Clare". A further exception occurs in the case of those counties created after 1994 which drop the word county entirely; thus "Fingal" as opposed to "County Fingal". In informal use, the word county is often dropped except where necessary to distinguish between county and town or city; thus "Offaly" rather than "County Offaly", but "County Antrim" to distinguish it from Antrim town. The synonym shire is not used for Irish counties, although the Marquessate of Downshire was named in 1789 after County Down."? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you any reliable references to back up your claims about the new administrative counties? Snappy (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, is the proper style of the new counties? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That's my point, its not my opinion or your opinion, its what reliable sources say. Snappy (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You must have had a reason for assuming that the style as contained in the above paragraph was not the proper style. What was the basis for that opinion and the reversion? The reversion must have been based on some prior knowledge. What was that knowledge? Clue us in. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Snappy hasn't actually reverted, just inserted a 'citations needed' box. But I absolutely agree that the new admin counties aren't prefaced with the word 'county', and Snappy is not actually contesting that. It would be tedious to reference it but it could be done, e.g. by linking to the new county council websites; I'd rather that Snappy backed down and removed the citations prompt, it is not a good use of time to hunt out sources for every single statement. Brocach (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think it would be tedious, you don't have to do it. However, you can't simply remove the tag: either leave the tag or remove the contentious statement. Linking to county council websites would not suffice; it would be WP:PRIMARY. You would need to find a secondary source that actually describes the usage. The same of course holds for the outer claim that the usage is County X for traditional counties. Most cites for that would predate the 1994 counties. This problem would not exist if the article was split, since the usage para would be in the Traditional Counties article, not the Administrative Counties one. jnestorius^(talk) 09:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Brocach does not seem to know how wikipedia works, if an editor inserts info into an article, it must be backed up by reliable sources. It might seems obvious that the Sky is blue but if you want to put that into wikipedia you need refs, and if you look at the Sky article, you'll find not one but four. As User:Jnestorius states, you must reference it or remove the contentious statement. Snappy (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No need for the patronising, Snappy, I know how Wikipedia works. I am merely saying that it is not sensible to demand a time-consuming search for citations for every single non-contentious statement. If anyone contends that the statement is incorrect, that's different. jnestorius, there is no prohibition on careful use of primary sources. Brocach (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you? Do you really? You put in statements but you not prepared to back them up when asked. Furthermore I am not demanding citations for every single non-contentious statement as you claim, I am asking for one contentious statement to be referenced. Snappy (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was anything contentious there. No-one has contended that what was inserted is incorrect. You seem to be demanding sourcing for a non-contentious statement. Brocach (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up over it Brocach. It has nothing to do with correct styles and even less to do with WP:PRIMARY. It's all about who inserted the statement. Let's just say that we have previous. Shouldn't be like that I know, but that's Wiki for you. May this serve as a warning to any other editors that might have been sucked into playing Snappy's petty games. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Asking for citations is petty now, is it? At least you're not edit warring with Brocach anymore. Snappy (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Snappy, unless you can point to what is contentious in there - meaning, something that you have a reason to think is incorrect - I propose to delete the 'citations' box which interrupts the flow of the article. Brocach (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, its the opening para of the article, specifically the bit that asserts the new administrative counties don't use 'County'. Snappy (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure they do, at least on roadsigns - definitely seen "Welcome to County Fingal" ones. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On further checking, both "County Fingal" and "Fingal County" are in official use, but "Fingal" alone is used at least ten times more frequently. Have amended the passage accordingly and referenced both general web search results and the local authority website. That is surely enough effort to expend on this point... Brocach (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was after. Thank you for clarifying the point regarding the usage of 'County' in relation to the post 1997 counties, and for providing a reference. Snappy (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me like pure original research:

thus for example internet search engines show many more uses (on Irish sites) of "Fingal" than of either "County Fingal" or "Fingal County". There appears to be no official guidance in the matter, as even the local authority uses all three forms.

jnestorius^(talk) 12:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing search engine results is about as far as it is possible to get from "pure original research" - it is no more than the crudest quantitative analysis of earlier internet publications. A source is given for the assertion that Fingal council uses all three forms, and no source is required for the assertion that there "appears to be" no official guidance, given that, logically, such statements are only capable of being disproven. Brocach (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Web search results.

I can't tell the difference between "there appears to be no X" and "I couldn't find any X". If the "I" in question is an expert whom one might trust to be familiar with all relevant sources, that would be citable; but not if "I" is just a Wikipedian like me. jnestorius^(talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

On the propriety of citing relative frequency of usage, I've responded as per link above.

On the point of "X appearing not to be the case", no huge amount of subject expertise is required, rather a determined effort to track down information showing whether or not "X is the case". I gave more time than it was probably worth to trying to find whether there was official guidance on using Fingal with or without "county"; there "appears to be" no such guidance but if anyone knows otherwise, please share. Brocach (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"…it is no more than the crudest quantitative analysis of earlier internet publications." Yes, original quantitative analysis.

"There appears to be no official guidance in the matter, as even the local authority uses all three forms." — Jnestorius' reference above would appear to give official guidance:

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown (Dún Laoghaire-Ráth an Dúin)
Fingal (Fine Gall)
North Tipperary (Tiobraid árann Thuaidh)
South Dublin (Baile Átha Cliath Theas)
South Tipperary (Tiobraid Árann Theas)

I suggest we avoid use such as "FInal County" or "County Final". --RA (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged (above, end of single table section) is persuasive on this point: the Order gives grounds for dropping Contae for these five (as I am now doing in the table), but does not set out an official version of the English names. Brocach (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that the new administrative areas don't prefix the word "County" as a deference to the traditional counties. I wonder was the name discussed at any council meetings of which the minutes would survive? --HighKing (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this anecdote about "County Fingal" which might provide a lead to follow up on. My impression is that "County Fingal" scans well enough to be potentially viable, where "County South Dublin" or "County North Tipperary" don't. Another reason why Brocach's earlier OR is unacceptable. jnestorius^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, looking at how often particular forms of county names appear in search engines is about as far from original research as it is possible to get: all that search engines do is trawl already-published material. A more authoritative piece of evidence than someone's "impression" of how a name scans... Brocach (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The furthest from OR you can get is citing peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals. Can you find any featured article which uses a Google-search in its references? Your previous Googles seem to have been entirely done on "Fingal", which is not representative of the other new administrative counties. I agree that my critiquing this is not a reliable source, but this is a talk page, not an article page. jnestorius^(talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do many people imagine that totting up search engine outputs counts as "original research"? I have hired a few researchers in my time and might need to tighten up my interview questions. And don't assume that I just looked up one admin county, in one search engine, because I just cited one example. Brocach (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure your hiring practices are sound, but they have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. "Original research" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia which may differ from its meaning in other contexts. Why do you think {{google}} has a warning "Do not use in articles"? jnestorius^(talk) 07:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant - {{google}} is about creating Google search links, which I didn't do and which has nothing to do with citing frequency of usage of county names, which in turn does not meet WP definition of original research. Please stay on the topic and stop accusing me of violating the OR rule. Brocach (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Is internet search engines show many more uses (on Irish sites) of "Fingal" than of either "County Fingal" or "Fingal County" supposed to be (a) an assertion requiring proof or (b) the proof of the preceding assertion? If (a), you have not provided any proof, and how would you propose to prove it? If (b), it does not prove it, as the preceding thus, for example admits. jnestorius^(talk) 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Blank footnote

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

No. 24 is an invalid link which leads back to this page. Either what it linked to moved or was mistyped. Perhaps someone can look into this 86.45.50.218 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless it has been changed since your post, No. 24 links to Derry/Londonderry name dispute. RashersTierney (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)