Wikipedia

Talk:Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland/Archive 4

< Talk:Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Sock proposal

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I propose we excise all contributions by banned sockpuppets from this page. Either all past and future ones, or starting from now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your suggestion Batsun: all should go. I am sure we shall see another new sock account complaining about this too. ww2censor (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Totally disagree .Let's not go down the "non person" route .Garda40 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If there is no consensus to excise posts then perhaps archiving would be a better idea, especially seeing as the page is now 124k long and a suggested size is 32k, and seeing that most of the posts were about the proposed postcodes and most posts, besides being sock posts, were more appropriate to Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That also works. Would you be happy with that, Garda40? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we should remove as much as possible, since the sockpuppetteer has been blocked with persistent evasion. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a sockpuppet is persona non grata: those are the site rules. I cannot see a single thread on this page that is not largely by or about the banned user so perhaps we should archive the lot and make a clean start. In any case, I'm happy to support as thorough a clean as can be agreed. — Richardguk (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Archiving is a good compromise . Garda40 (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  Done OK, I will do it. ww2censor (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

PostCode delayed in favour of Selection of More Consultants

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
With respect to point 2, that depends on how we "know" what you say we now "know" we "know". With respect respect to point 1 please refer to my point with respect to point 2. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry RA - that's a block-evading sock. Speaking of which, Mr Spock - as and when something happens with regard to this, and we've reliable secondary sources that we can cite, it'll appear here. Until then, we won't speculate. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

An Irish Cross Party Parliamentary (Oireachtas) Committee has recommended the implementation of a unique Identifier Postcode for Ireland according to "The Post Codes Report" as reflected in the Irish Examiner. The code now recommended will be such that it can be supported on google maps, iphones and GPS and will be capable of a unique postcode for each property.

The report questions any plan to introduce a broad area code which is unable to identify properties and states that the proposal for a D04 123 type code may make address ambiguity and problems with finding properties in Ireland even worse.

The report is from the Joint Communications Committee of the Irish Parliament and includes members of most political parties. It was published on 31 March 2010 and will lead to a significant revision of existing proposals.Marhabba (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


Followed by a press Release with more specifics on 1st April 2010

The New Postcode Report Marhabba (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Late on 1st April, the full report was released and is available for download here There is considerable mention of the use of GPS in relation to the new code in the report and both the HSE and the GeoComputation Centre in NUI Maynooth are quoted as being strongly in favour of a code which provides a unique identifier such as is achieved with a GPS related code.. Marhabba (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Major Edit marked as minor

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is this[1] major edit marked as a minor edit . Garda40 (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When will the major edit be? - think it will be early in June....196.0.7.131 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving this discussion page

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Why is this page being short order archived ? - Garda40 wishes to archive after minor discussion/sections/days/MB - contrary to the recommendations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Archiving_a_talk_page.

Archiving also requires concensus - as a contributor I do not agree as there is not justification and is not the norm elsewhere and therefore there is no concensus. Marhabba (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I find your personal attack on me as regards the archiving issue distasteful .I did not archive the discussion , It was done automatically . I re-archived it and pointed out that we don't un-archive discussions as mentioned in in my edit summary without at least an explanation provided and which you were then able to provide in your next un-archiving edit [2] . Garda40 (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
1. Excuse me - What Personal Attack Garda40 - are you not over reacting just a tad?
2. Who is the "we" that you are referring to?
3. I provided an explanation that the report referred to in the recently archived discussion was released just as the Dail went into Easter recess and so politically it has of yet not been responded to and is therefore still topical and likely to result in further discussion when the Dail resumes.
4. The current archiving settings on this dicussion page were set contrary to the recommendations of wikipedia and do not conform to norms and therefore I suggest that they are adjusted to realistic norms and as a result of concensus as required.
5. Garda 40 - you unilaterally cannot decide what is topical for dicussion and what is no longer current for dicussion.
6. Please do not be so melodramtaic with your "personal attack" claim when no such thing occured.
7. I have reated a new related discussion item in a new section - it has not been retireived from archive it is a new section- I have every right to do this so please refrain from any tempation that may exist to interfere with a legitimate discussion topic.Marhabba (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I notice you are continuing your personal attacks .I'm sad to see that happen .Garda40 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's try keep this sensible Garda40 if we can - there was/is no presonal attack of any sort Marhabba (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Marhabba blocked by an admin as a sock of banned user Garydubh. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Detective40 also blocked as a sock of Garydubh and this edit proves IP 86.41.143.64 is also him. Contrary to Marhabba's claim that he has rights, that is untrue, sockpuppets have no rights on Wikipedia. All sockpuppet posts should be removed from this page, the talk archives and the article. Do I want to censor posts, despite what Garydubh has claimed about my name and actions? No, but I think it is appropriate to remove all his disruptive edits no matter what accounts he uses. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Old merge comment

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this merger proposal a mistake? Was it not intended for Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland. Talk on this page specifically excludes postcode information.

It's grown to include that. -- Beland (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Old archives

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Something has happened with archiving old versions of this talk page following a page move/merge. Previous comments can be found at the following links.

--Rumping (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Archive redirects now fixed The Yeti (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Eircode information: original research?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm concerned about the Eircode information lacking sources. in particular the list of routing keys: as far as I know no list has been published anywhere officially (and I've looked very hard) by either Eircode, an Post or the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources. So this is presumably original research by someone? Should it be removed? Lozleader (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That data may have come from here. Can we call this a WP:RS? ww2censor (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is a reliable source, mainly because it is self-published. I am also concerned that the author, as an elected representative may take a political stance on Eircode as a system. This would affect the neutrality of the source. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have collapsed the rather unwieldy list into an expandable table. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This unbalanced article should be WP:SPLIT

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article is now dominated by approximately 85% on the postal codes and their introduction and only about 15% about the postal addresses themselves and is completely out of proportion to the article title so is an entirely suitable candidate for splitting. The lede mentions addressing in one paragraphs which never appears again in the body of the article. The lede should reflect the topic and be a precis of the whole article. It now does none of that. I think all the postcode prose should be spil off to the article Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland which is currently a redirect to this page and this page should be refined to include the actual addressing requirements (per http://correctaddress.anpost.ie/pages/Search.aspx) as well a some history of the addressing in Ireland because apparently nothing happend between 1922 and 1990, (I have some of the older Eolai an Phoist that provide some details) plus a short section on the postcodes with a link to the then main Irish postcode article. ww2censor (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - seems sensible. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  Comment:: A lot of the Eircode-related stuff boils down to hype, rumours, edit creep and other non-notable points. I have half a mind to cut the excess out of the article entirely. It's a postal code system based off the national postal service's sorting infrastructure. It's a library of alphanumeric codes corresponding to the relevant sorting centre and a randomised code. Some people wanted different systems. They complained. Other people thought it was too expensive or too slow. They complained. That is the jist of it. I don't think anything more needs to be said about Eircode. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

First country to use unique postcodes for each address

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"According to the government the new system made Ireland the first country in the world to have a unique postcode for each address (without requiring the use of building numbers)."

I appreciate the "according to the government", but this seems dubious - see Postal codes in Singapore, which says: "On 1 September 1995, this was replaced by a six-digit system, in which every building was given its unique postcode..." Rolypole (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Postcodes in Singapore are assigned to buildings, most of which contain more than one address, given that Singapore is a small, urban and densely populated area - unless you live in a detached house, it's unlikely that your address will have a unique postcode. Polemicista (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
But urban and suburban areas in Ireland also have apartment, office and mixed-use buildings containing more than one address, so yeah, inaccuracy on the government's part. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Postal_addresses_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_4&oldid=1027482340"