Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:IECOLL)
Latest comment: 11 months ago by Scolaire in topic ARCA

Move: Republic of Ireland → Ireland (country)

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Wikipedia page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country.

I agree that Ireland, the island, pre-dates the establishment of either state on the island and therefore the article "Ireland" should refer to the island. The use of parenthetical disambiguation is a fair, accurate and unbiased solution. Any reference to "The Republic of Ireland Act 1948" in relation to the name of the country is irrelevant, as the act made no reference to the name of the country and the name is clearly defined in the Irish constitution of 1937 and no subsequent amendment has changed the name. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part2

It should also be noted that since the 2009 poll on this topic, Wikipedia has introduced auto suggest in the search field on the homepage. When a user enters the word “Ireland” into the search field the country is not in the list of suggested articles, as it is currently identified by a reference that is obscure to most. Cashew.wheel (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashew.wheel (talkcontribs) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Wikipedia page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country. Why? Most countries aren't at their official name on Wikipedia. Very, very few 'state' articles actually reside at the official name of the state in question - see, e.g.: State of Libya, French Republic, United Mexican States, State of the City of the Vatican, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - all doing well at page titles other than the official. "Ireland" is also the name of the island, which doesn't have a natural disambiguator. "Republic of Ireland" is a natural disambiguator for the state and is its official description. This has worked perfectly well both before and after the huge debate of 2009. If you read through that, and the archives of this page, and can still then bring something new to the table, then of course it can be discussed - consensus can change. But if your argument is solely that this isn't the name of the state, that won't serve to change anything. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing me towards the historical discussion on this topic, it made for fascinating, yet disappointing, reading. I would counter that the current naming isn't working, as requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods.
What surprised me (and offends others) is the simple fact that the name of the country is Ireland and that Wikipedia does not reflect that (internationally recognised) fact. Very few other countries actually bother to define their name in their constitution, yet Ireland clearly has, in both Irish and English.
For 85 years, this self-determination has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country, hence many Irish people balk at the forced imposition of the name "Republic Of Ireland". This delegitimisation is further perpetuated across Wikipedia as users link to a description rather than a country ( I know WP:IMOS does have a guideline to use [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] when linking, but in practice that is unlikely to happen as many casual editors will just copy the title of the Ireland article).
All of the states you mentioned above have been afforded the respect of redirecting from their official title to their respective articles.
The argument that using "Republic Of Ireland" as the name is weak, as it is akin to using "Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts" in place of Coca-Cola to distinguish it from Pepsi, as both are official descriptions.
In my opinion, parenthetical disambiguation of "Ireland (country)" is a fair, balanced, inoffensive and factual disambiguator for the page. There is precedence in the disambiguation between Georgia_(country) and Georgia_(U.S._state), even with there already being a natural disambiguation as the official title of the US state is "State Of Georgia". Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The most persuasive of your arguments is the one regarding the search field in the opening comment, but here you undermine your own position by posting an absurd and unsubstantiated rant in your third paragraph that reveals more about your own prejudices and bias than other people's and writing logically incoherent nonsense in the fifth and sixth paragraphs. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola are disambiguated and cola covers both. No article is at Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts. Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are disambiguated and Ireland covers both. No article is at Island in the Atlantic Ocean to the west of Great Britain. Georgia is a state. DrKay (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The clearest examples of attempts to undermine the constitutional name of Ireland are by the British government in both the Eire Act 1938[1] and the Ireland Act 1949[2], neither of which acknowledged the name of Ireland. These choices were politically motivated as there was still a degree of animosity between the newly independent Ireland and the former empire at the time. This position has subsequently changed[3].
@DrKay As for the Coke/Pespi example, just like your "Island in the Atlantic Ocean" example, it is absurd and was made to highlight how irrespective of how official a description is, it is not the name.
That aside, it would be good to discuss the negative impact the page title has on the discoverability/usability in the search field. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1938".
  2. ^ "Ireland Act 1949".
  3. ^ "Country names: The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use".

The work that editors and moderators do on Wikipedia is fantastic and I appreciate it very much. I'm sure many are jaded by this topic rearing it's head so frequently and are reluctant to entertain a change to the status quo. Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus. Building a consensus is obviously the only way a change can be made here. May I ask, who determines that consensus has changed? Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The community. As you can see in the archives here the subject has come up many times. No new information seems to be raised in the conversations and they always (to date) end with the same consensus. There was even an attempt on this very page in the section immediately above, where the proposal was completely shot down. Now WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE but it also doesn't have to change. I have zero issues with people re-opening the conversation and trying to alter or establish a new consensus, just as long as it isn't continuously happening. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
I did see that it was recently discussed but the topic had been closed so was unable to reply within context.
As a relatively inexperienced contributor to Wikipedia (historically only making small additions), this WikiProject is quite an obscure corner of the platform that many users do not know about, but is a great way to discuss and gain agreement for changes.
Coupled with how intimidating it can be to new editors when an admin or moderator dismisses their suggestion, it's no surprise as to why the topic of fixing the title of Ireland is destined to always be classified as WP:SNOW.
Might I suggest that, given the frequency of contributions on this matter, a topic be left permanently open for discussion? Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Cashew.wheel: You seem to be under a number of misconceptions here. 1) There is no position of "moderator" on Wikipedia, so requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods, for example, makes no sense. 2) There is a position of administrator, but nobody has taken any admin action in the discussions here or at Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland. All that has happened is that other users like yourself have put forward their views, countering your arguments – not dismissing them. 3) Discussions like the three above end up as WP:SNOW because a great majority of those who take the trouble to !vote are opposed to any move (8–1 in the most recent move request), not because "new editors" are "intimidated" against !voting. 4) The topic is left permanently open for discussion; otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it now. An individual thread is closed when there has been no additions for a reasonable amount of time, as was the case in the three threads above. Not a misapprehension as such, but I completely disagree that the name "Ireland" has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country, that ROI is imposed by force (by whom?), that many Irish people "balk" at it, or indeed that Irish people in general find it offensive in the real world. For this reason, as well as all the reasons given above, I am opposed to any change in the status quo. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Scolaire Thanks for clarifying about editors, admins and topics. I am new to discussing edits and as such am unfamiliar with the terminology, process and etiquette (I didn't even know to sign my first comment). I was not accusing anyone of intimidation, just noting that it can be intimidating for new editors to engage on a talk page with more seasoned editors who reply with terms, conventions, history and even markdown that they are unfamiliar with and may be put off from returning to contribute more.
I have found the editor community welcoming and fair when engaging in constructive, albeit repetitive, discussion.
The only case that I know of where the term "Republic Of Ireland" was actually forced on an Irish entity, is the 1953 ruling by FIFA on the name of teams fielded by the Football Association Of Ireland.[1]. Other none-forced cases referred to the refusal of the British government to acknowledge the official name of the country until the late 1990s, the downstream impact that had on reporting by the media and thus the spread of the use of the incorrect name of the country.
We can agree to disagree as to the degree as to proportion of the population that might take offence, it is subjective after all. Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • The country's official description is "Republic of Ireland" and as someone in England I'd not even known the country's actual (short) name was just "Ireland" until I came across this debate in 2017. Many countries have official descriptions that aren't in common usage like Republic of France and aren't really ambiguous so we use the official (short) name namely France. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opposition to name change

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Forgive me but its time to finally call this out. But it seems from looking at the history of the wiki contributors who object to having the above change, 99% of them come from a British nationalist persuasion judging by many of their edit history and interactions, and are completely unimpartial in this regard.

I question the validity and feasbility of WikiProject Ireland now as it has clearly been hijacked by British nationalist and Northern Ireland unionist/loyalist editors projecting their political agenda and bias on an encyclopedia, as evidenced by the proposed requested move hiding behind "consensus" (between themselves) and "previous discussions" (agreed amongst themselves) they have become the gate-keepers now of this project and topic. Many Irish editors have simply given up on this project and can't be bothered dealing with this project anymore. This has clearly escaped the attention of the Arbritration Committee who should intervene in this issue and that of the move discussion on 'Ireland'. It seems like some radical Irish republicans and British nationalists have something in common by opposing the usage of the term Ireland also in that regard, leaving all the reasonable people scratching their heads. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

All is forgiven. ooOOOh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Go on then, don't be a tease - give us more juicy facts / examples of hijacking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
At least this question of its hijacking is out in the open now. Hardly a conspiracy theory when its so obvious to outside observers who will read and dig through the history and discussion on all this. I think everyone who wants to look can look at editors' like yourself and this project's contribution and talk history, same with the Ireland page, can judge for themselves and agree. At least on wikipedia people can see everything if they want to search. :) 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ooooh I do love a good title that has to wrap, even on a desktop. Succinctness is overrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
The prevtious heading for this section was Hijacking of the WikiIreland Project by British Nationalists + Opposition to name-change to 'Ireland' (actual name of country) from 'Republic of Ireland' (description). I changed it to Opposition to name change on 9 December. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
While I welcome support for a change of consensus on the name of Ireland, the aggressive, confrontational tone is not going to achieve anything. Also by not being a user, you lack accountability & credibility. Cashew.wheel (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have had an account for many years, but it was inactive for a while and cannot remember my log in details and username anyway so I stopped using it (I am not a sockpuppet a CheckUser will confirm that), me being a user or IP shouldn't matter anyway as the point still stands, the tone may be considered aggressive and confrontational by some, but when bad faith and political bias interfere with encyclopedic work and its impartiality then assertiveness is required to address it, I am sure any reasonable and impartial reader here would agree with that statement. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Oooohh I do love a good stream-of-consciousness paragraph. Punctuation is overrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ooooh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Let's have the evidence shall we? Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
The proof is in the pudding as they say, you and the editors with British nationalist sentiments who are all over the WikiIreland project and oppose Ireland having an article being referred to by its actual name is amongst the evidence. Why don't you rename the France article "the Republic of France' or Spain 'the Kingdom of Spain' while you are at it? 51.37.118.212 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not a British nationalist, I fully expect a United Ireland in my lifetime, something I never thought I'd see but the UK shot itself in the foot on that one. Do not make such attacks on other editors. My only objection to having the country at Ireland is that that is where the island is and the island is the primary topic. We prefer not to have clumsy brackets in topic names if it can be avoided such as Ireland (state). Thankfully the Irish government and legislation gave us a very handy disambiguation alternative. (Plus almost every single country on Wikipedia is not at the country's actual name, not the United States of America, not the Commonwealth of Australia, not the State of Israel, not the Republic of Korea and not even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Not a single person on here denies that the name of the country is Ireland. And as I've clearly stated many times, consensus can change but nothing new has been brought to the table to result in enough of a discussion to alter that consensus. It's hardly anyone here's fault that when they formed the country they choose the same name as the island it was on despite not being all of the island. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Additionally stop accusing other editors of being nationalist editors and gatekeepers, if you continue with that you will be blocked for personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Feels a bit disingenuous to compare - I believe some of those list acceptable alternatives and none of those were imposed on them by former colonial overlords (who still occupy territory!) despite decades of trying to stop that former overlord using the incorrect name.
Republic of Ireland isn't an alternative name, it's a description of the state. As far as I knew Wikipedia generally uses accurate names instead of descriptions of things - is that not for the text in an article? Saoirserose (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am forced to repeat: "End the tryanny inflicted on the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya! Liberate the French Republic! Stop the oppression of the United Mexican States! Won't someone please think of the State of the City of the Vatican?" (Ok, in fairness, someone actually did end the tyranny inflicted on the State of Libya pretty soon after I originally wrote the preceding sentence - but for several years that was the official name of the state!) So, er, no, actually... Wikipedia uses common names, and, in situations where there is ambiguity (as there is between the name of the state and the name of the Ireland), we use a disambiguator. Most 'state' articles aren't at the official name of the state. Why do I have to keep pointing this out... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Probably because it continues to be an issue. As mentioned previously, in my opinion parenthetical disambiguation of the article, while retaining the MOS WP:IRE-IRL in it's current form, would probably prevent the issue being brought up so frequently. Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Um Republic of Ireland as the official description of the state was suggested and signed into legislation in Ireland by the government of Ireland in 1948, not by some colonial overlord. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • What are you proposing here? Are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland" and the island to "Ireland (island)" or are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland (country)"? As has already been discussed "Republic of Ireland" is the common name and the island serves as broad-concept article. Personally I'm from England and until I came across this about 5 years ago knew very little about Ireland, I wouldn't even have known which country Belfast and Dublin were the capital of, if someone asked me where either of them were I would have answered "Ireland". And I also had no awareness the country's official name is just "Ireland" I'd always heard it called "Republic of Ireland". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Genuinely hilarious - unless I'm misinterpreting this you're literally arguing this from a British point of view. Why should the Irish put up with an incorrect name imposed on them by Brits and have that defended by Brits saying "oh it's just what we knew" Saoirserose (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Just looking from the top of this page, I see support for the status quo coming from myself (Scolaire), SeoR, Laurel Lodged, Guliolopez, Nicknack009, FDW777 and ww2censor, all of whom (correct me if I'm wrong) are Irish, and none of whom are of a "British nationalist persuasion" as can be seen from their edit history and interactions. What intrigues me is the number of anon editors and SPAs who have opened discussions on this page and Talk:Republic of Ireland in the last few months saying they are shocked, shocked to find that the title is being foisted on good faith Wikipedia users by a cabal of British editors! After ten years of nobody making any comment. I'll say no more. Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
And I've never revealed my nationality or anything. In all my years in the Ireland related space I've been called a Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Republican, British, Irish, IRA sympathiser, UDA whore, and every single possible variant combined with as many expletives as you'd like. I really should make a list as I'm honestly not sure which side of the divide I've been accused of being on the most by people interested in maintaining a divide and continuing to foster divisions. Canterbury Tail talk 10:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ha! My "I know who/what you really are!" Wikipedia accusations CV includes an ETA member, a muslim, Sepp Blatter, Ian Duncan Smith and, based on an article I created, God. It's almost always those busting a gut to push a POV that make such charges, ironically enough. Valenciano (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Oh yeah I've been accused of many other things (usually by people who are blocked very shortly after.) I was just restricting to the Ireland related articles :) Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why not a disambiguation page?

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I read through some of the recent discussion on renaming this page and the argument generally seemed to be "there can be only one article named Ireland and so that is the island" and that's the way it's always been so that's the way it should always be.

There seems to be some inconsistency here with respect to how Britain is treated though. That goes to a disambiguation page that suggests Britain could commonly either refer to the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Why would Ireland likewise not default to a disambiguation page that says Ireland most often refers to the island or the Republic of Ireland? TempDog123 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see no need for consistency between these articles and Britain. Ireland defaulting to a disambiguation page was one of the options in the poll on Ireland article names in 2009. It did not reach consensus. There is no reason to believe that consensus has changed since then. It's fine to have the British dab page at Britain and the Irish dab page at Ireland (disambiguation). 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As someone else said above, "Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus." TempDog123 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nobody said that it is a "recently established consensus." It has been the consensus since 2002, and that consensus was clearly shown in the 2009 poll. The fact that there has been no major debate since 2012 is itself evidence that consensus has not changed. You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed. Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
"You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed."
Thank you for agreeing that I've made a reasonable suggestion. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree, just as I disagree with your conclusion that the supposed lack of support for my proposal on this page is evidence that consensus hasn't changed. I would argue that there was no "rush of support" for the same reason there was no rush of opposition, because this discussion page is difficult to find and has low visibility. Even as someone who was interested in addressing the topic, it took me awhile to find it, and only because I actually cared about posting in the designated area.
If you want to limit discussion to people who have already made up their minds, and are already aware that this page exists, then that's an easy but questionable way to maintain consensus for the status quo. If, on the other hand, you want to get a sense of what the broader Wikipedia community thinks about this, you'd be better served revisiting this topic on the actual discussion page for Ireland and/or Republic of Ireland. TempDog123 (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
You are actually unusual in raising the issue on this page. Mostly, discussions about naming are started at Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland. This is followed by somebody pointing out that discussions must take place on this page (by order of the Arbitration Committee, not "people who have already made up their minds"), at which point either the discussion moves here, or it lapses. Either way, the outcome is the same: people are made aware of the discussion but do not turn turn up in numbers to overturn consensus. Thus the consensus remains. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there. While I personally prefer to refer to the state as Ireland where possible, and think it could actually be done so more extensively on Wikipedia without confusion than is the case at present, it is an official description of the state in Irish law. According to WP:NCDAB, where there is a natural disambiguation, that is typically the best term to use, as Republic of Ireland qualifies as that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there."
How do you figure? There are only 11 entries on the disambiguation page for Britain and 25 on Ireland (disambiguation). In both instances, there are only two main disambiguation links - to the island and the country. TempDog123 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
After all these years, I'm not seeing any consensus for changing the title of this page or for making it into a disambiguation page. The poor old horse's remains, are down to just the bones. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
For all the talk that "consensus can change" WP:CCC, it's just a fallacy. Those against change hide behind it as an excuse while those in favour of change grow disillusioned by the vague arbitrary goalposts being set. I would support a disambiguation page and the use of parental disambiguation. Cashew.wheel (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Consensus can change" is not a fallacy. See for instance this 2006 discussion on whether to make "China" a redirect to China (disambiguation) instead of to "Chinese civilization" (the then current setting), and compare it with this 2011 discussion which decided that "China" should be the article for the People's Republic of China. In that case there was a clear and obvious change in consensus, which led to the desired change. It wasn't a case of "twenty people over the last five years have expressed dissatisfaction so we'll have to change it." Nothing similar has happened on these pages. Also, please assume good faith. Neither I nor anybody else is hiding behind anything as an excuse. We're replying to your arguments, that's all. And what in the world are these "vague arbitrary goalposts"? The reasons for keeping the status quo are concrete and clearly (and consistently) stated. Scolaire (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Further to my point above about where this discussion should take place to truly determine current consensus, I note that those 2006 and 2011 discussions on China that you mentioned took place on the actual talk page for Chinese civilization (which was the default redirect at the time). TempDog123 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
An earlier ArbCom ruling has stated that this discussion on moving Ireland, renaming the articles on Ireland and Republic of Ireland, must take place here. Unless that ArbCom ruling is withdrawn or rescinded then here is the only place any such discussion may take place. I will agree though that that does have a measure of potentially limiting involvement in the discussion which could be an issue, however anytime anyone brings up this topic elsewhere they do get redirected here and there are headers on the relevant pages directing to this one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm glad you agree that does potentially limit involvement in the discussion. While Scolaire mentions that most people initially raise the issue on the Ireland or Republic of Ireland talk page, he also says that the discussion almost immediately gets rerouted here. That probably has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion.
However long ago that ArbCom decision may have been made, it might be time to revisit it, if only temporarily. if there's an actual desire to take the temperature on current consensus, then I think it's quite frankly unlikely to happen as long as the discussion is limited to this page.
I do appreciate, whatever other differences of opinion we may have on the matter, that you both acknowledge my suggestions here have not been unreasonable. TempDog123 (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't accept that rerouting the discussion "has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion". If there was a substantial number of people wanting change (i.e. enough people to overturn the consensus), they would see the request at the Ireland or ROI talk page, see that the discussion was moved, and follow the link to this page. Compare the current version of this page with this one, which I picked at random out of 34 archive pages(!), and see the amount of discussion and the number of people that contributed over a period of just three days. That simply wouldn't happen today.
I would have no problem with somebody asking ArbCom to change its ruling, and allow naming discussions to be held at the article talk pages. Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Since TempDog123 raises the same point twice, I'll answer it twice. More often than not, requests to rename the pages are initially made on Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland, so people are aware of the request but do not turn up in numbers to overturn the consensus. To reiterate, consensus can change, but in this case it just hasn't. Sorry. Scolaire (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also it's worth nothing that most requests to move the page are by drive by accounts with no real skin in the game, just new accounts or editors that fly by after being outraged at it, post some angry messages, and then leave with no actual desire to engage in actual real conversation or debate on the topic beyond a couple of hours. When this is the instigation and participation, it's no wonder that there isn't any further progress on anything. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Credibility bot

edit

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

ARCA

edit

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Ireland article names about changing the notices to say discussion about the Ireland articles should take place on this project's talk page rather that the project page its self. I'm not suggesting any other changes are needed or that the articles should be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Now that such discussions are allowed to take place on the island & the country talkpages? Maybe this WikiProject could be retired. Since there's already WP:IRELAND in existance. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Inevitably, some lover of drama or good-faith new editor will propose a move. Seeing as that will effect, at minimum, the Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) pages, it makes sense to have a "neutral" central place to have the discussion. There is also a lot of material here that people will want to link in any ensuing discussion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Retired" doesn't mean deleted. Linking to here in any future discussion may be useful, but moving the discussion to here would be directly counter to the ArbCom decision. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
PS: See here for links. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply