Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 5

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland
Latest comment: 16 years ago by JayHenry in topic Bilateral relations of Ireland
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

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.

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Markreidyhp has developed a navigation template whose title is virtually unreadable against the green background. Perhaps a lighter shade of green would work. Several of the redlinks have been un-created for a long time and should probably be excluded until actually created. I am adding a link to Category:Ireland articles needing images. ww2censor (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that it was created in good faith, but at this stage, the template is not helping, so I have removed it. Apart from the legibility problems, its location half way down the page below the table of contents makes it too inaccessible to be helpful. Maybe a horizontal template at the top might work? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed

Cleaned up the red links and put in a lighter shade of green.I was going to do it this morning but had to go to my place of learning before I could !!!!!!So Stop Patronizing me!!!!!Markreidyhp 16:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I really wasn't intending to patronise you, and I'm very sorry if anything I said came across that way. The way we do things on wikipedia is that when people have concerns, we stop and discuss things to try to reach consensus. Please can we discuss this?
I have removed the template again, because now it has moved the table of contents down to an inaccessible place, and I still think that a horizontal template would be a better way to go. I also don't like the use of the flag; flags tend to be divisive in Ireland and there is a general tendency on wikipedia to limit their use. As you may have noticed, the projects templates use a map instead, and that's a better way to go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
fine i'll put a map instead of a flag. but i don't know how to change it to a horizontal navigation box. Markreidyhp 18:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Try starting here and here to find something suitable to copy. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Made another one

Here it is!!

If you except it i will move it off my user subpage and onto its own template page, unless you don't want me too.Markreidyhp 12:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made some stylistic changes ,looks good Gnevin (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dublin

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A stub page has been started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dublin.

I have no objection in principle, but when WikiProject Ireland has such poor participation rates, a subproject seems to me to be superfluous. The editor who created it is obviously keen to work on Dublin stuff, which is great and should be warmly encouraged, but a new project seems to me to be wrong approach at this time.

However, it does remind me that we do need to do some urgent work on improving the participation rates in Irish wikiprojects, and maybe User:Markreidyhp (who created the new project) would like to work with us on reinvigorating this project? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Markreidyhp did you even consider making a proposal for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Often this type of request is met with the suggestion it should be a Task Force of the main WikiProject. The proposal page also allows other editors to indicate their interest and see if such a suggestion is a viability in the first place. Let's see how many people step up to the plate. What is the scope of the project in terms of possible current articles? That number will determine a lot, because if it is low then a stand-alone project seems overkill. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian Wiki, Irish Towns project

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I received the following message but my Irish language skills are a horrorshow. (Although it really is a straight proposition not needing much in the way of such skills.) Sure, I certainly have an opinion on the subject of which names for them to use but I figure it would good for Obersachse to have wider input from interested parties from this project. (I'm actually a tad puzzled why I alone seem to have been chosen for input by Obersachse since my work on Irish related articles is far from my primary WP focus.) Slán, Pigman☿ 19:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Pigman! We've created Project Ireland in the russian section of Wikipedia. We plan to create (supported by a bot) articles about all irish towns and villages on the base of the english Wikipedia. Now we are thinking about the names of the articles. It would be political correctly to transliterate the irish (gaelic) names. On the other hand, english language is common used in Ireland and it's much more easier for us to take the english pronouncation. Most of us understand english, but only some linguists can read irish words. What would you propose us to do? --Obersachse (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, my tuppence worth: most Irish villages, towns and suburbs have their primary legal name in English - but most also do have an Irish form, and while some of these are bad modern inventions, most have real history behind them, and local support. "Political correctness" has no place here but I think a good and simple approach to recommend would be:

- for names of places outside the Gaeltacht, the English name with the Irish form in brackets - for names of places inside the Gaeltacht, the Irish name with the English form in brackets

It sounds a very worthy and interesting project. What will the Russian team use as sources - the "Towns and Villages in County X" series? SeoR (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SeoR here. Irish may be the native language of Ireland, but it's not native like Italian is in Italy, or Greek is in Greece. Irish is not after all the first language of any but a small minority of modern Irish people, and the only de facto national language of Ireland today is English. Are there even any rules for Irish-Russian transliteration? Anyways, those other theoretical points aside, the rules on en.wiki to follow usage are good IMHO. Just go with whatever forms are actually used in Russian. If that's no good, then assume any Russophone looking for more info in another language would turn to literature in English rather than literature in Irish. Best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
In most instances Irish language names would fail WP:COMMONNAME. Let me see if I can point you to a legal list of towns. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Greater Cork and Metropolitan Cork

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The articles Greater Cork and Metropolitan Cork cover the same topic, but "Metropolitan Cork" seems to be the term used in official documents.

See merge proposal at Talk:Metropolitan Cork#Proposed_merger_from_Greater_Cork — it would be great if someone had the energy to do the merger. It's not a simple redirect job, because the article have differing strengths and weaknesses and some checking of the sources will be needed, but there do seem to be enough sources already included to create a reasonable article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I see from the above there is a discussion section at WP:IE , would it make sense to redirect it to here or Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board to it as they both have the same scope and goals ?Gnevin (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I support this merger. It would be good if more users with an interest in Irish topics used the same discussion forum. Redking7 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Also support this, as somebody who is newish to things Irish on Wikipedia, there was a fair amount of confusion in my head as to where to go, would be good if most (if not all) was in one place Perryn (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support the merger if it was a merger to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. It would make no sense to have discussion removed from a wikiproject, but a noticeboard can remain just that -- a noticeboard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with BHG. Not all Irish Wikipedians are members of WikiProject Ireland, though many may be interested in both, but the Project deals with all Irish related articles while Irish Wikipedians may not be interested in all Irish articles, so let's reveres the suggestion. ww2censor (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
My reading BHG is in favour of merging here to WP:IE , BHG can you clarify? Gnevin (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Will merge these two on the 7th of this month if not one else disagrees, so speak now of forever hold your pieceGnevin (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I support. Scolaire (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on British Isles moved from News section of notice board

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
  • In the interests of NPOV, I changed the opening paragraph of British Isles to read The British Isles is a controversial name relating to a group of islands to indicate that the name is not accepted by many people (therefore it's a controversial name). I think this is the best way to introduce the term to those that come to wikipedia to learn. Bardcom (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You just beat me to it here. Users might want to drop over to that page, where (again) certain users are determined to state as fact that Ireland is the British Isles with the fact that many Irish people disagree being relegated to later on, as if to say 'factually Ireland is in the British Isles, but the Irish have a problem with it.' FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There will probably be debate about the exact phrasing of how many people object - the one case that made the news was when Folens dropped the phrase from an atlas due to a complaint. On the one hand, it could be said that the use of the phrase in the atlas until so recently was an indicator of lack of widespread strong objections - on the other hand, it could be said that the publisher thought that the issue was important enough meant that the publisher felt there were enough people who objected to make commercial sense to change. In short, the exact figures aren't clear, most of the evidence is anecdotal (e.g. Kevin Myers' opinion column) and I'm sure there will be arguments about the exact phrasing, though it's important to mention that it is an issue for some. Autarch (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Should articles such as Celtic Christianity have an info box which reads "Part of a series on History of Christianity in the British Isles"? I raised the issue at Template talk:History of British Christianity without effect. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't - it's unnecessary. Bardcom (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure - I tend to avoid such arguments on the ground that they generate more heat than light and rarely convice anyone on either side of the dispute. Autarch (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
True
They changed it to "Part of a series on History of Christianity in Great Britain"
I don't know which is worse ClemMcGann (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's still the 1st of April, so I'm hoping that labels like the one Clem has pointed out will vanish tomorrow. (I'm also hoping that a flying pig will bring me a winning lottery ticket). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My compliments. Next question: should it be on Catholic Emancipation? - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there's a better case for having it there, since the crucial steps were all Acts of the Westminster Parliament. But its impact was most significant in Ireland, so I have moved {{IrishN}} above it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice diplomacy. well done ClemMcGann (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term British Isles in articles

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This discussion on Talk:British Isles#Use of the term British Isles in Articles may be of interest to some here. Bardcom (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Page titles

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Should clubs with a saints name such as Saint Vincents GAA be at Saint Vincent's GAA with a '? Gnevin (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's title should be the club's title. According to their website, Saint Vincents doesn't have an apostrophe in its name, so the article name is correct as it stands. Scolaire (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But there should be a redirect from the apostrophised form of the name. I'll create one now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But the club does not expand St to Saint. Neither does anyone else - county board, newspapers, TV. The naming conventions suggest to me that because it is almost exclusively known as St Vincents GAA, then that is where the article should stand. Saint Vincents GAA should be the redirect. Crispness (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Good call, Crispness! I missed that. Scolaire (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Article rescue

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I think we could do with an "article rescue" section here, and as a starting point here's two articles:

There is already a category for that Ireland articles needing attention currently lists 280 articles and the articles are listed there based on using the parameter in the assessment template. Will that work for you. We might need to promote the category somewhere within the project so that others might get involved in making some improvements. ww2censor (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I thought of the category, and should have mentioned it. The difficulty with it is that it's just a bare listing of articles, so it doesn't give editors much of an idea of what needs to be fixed.
I thought that a listings section might might provide an easy entry point for editors wanting to get involved, and we really do need to get more ppl involved in this project.
I just spotted a slightly difft example: Eastern Bypass of Dublin, currently a new sub-stub. An eastern bypass has been a key goal of Dublin road-planners since the early 1970s, attracts lots of opposition as well as equally diehard supporters, and it is still on the cards. There will be tons of sources available, and if we had somewhere prominent in this project to list this sort of potentially-great-article, it would be another great entry point for editors to get stuck into. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
We definitely need to get people involved. Maybe if we list the above articles needing attention in the Tasks section with some specific details, along with a the category link. That might be good start as well as advertise it at the Irish Wikipedian's noticeboard. ww2censor (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think we should merge the Eastern bypass with this other stub? Crispness (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I you did you would have to change the name but I think that it would better fit with the Dublin Bay ArticleMarkreidyhp 17:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WPI Template

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Whats the WPI template? If I did know i would do as it says on the Wikiproject homepage and make it like WP:AU's one.Markreidyhp 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Mark, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain more?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
this is what i'm talking about:

Modify WPI template so that it follows the hierarchy structure found in Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia. :Add the {{WikiProject Ireland}} template to all Ireland-related articles' talk pages, without engaging in too much templatomania.

N.B. - please do not substitute the template, as any future changes to the template will not be updated automatically. :On top of this, a substituted inclusion will not appear on the :list of links that provides a :gauge for the size of the WikiProject and ultimately all articles within the WikiProject (and does not include any non-relevant pages).
Do you mean with WP:AUSTRALIA's subprojects such as Australian sports, Australian law etc?
If so, it's a lovely idea in theory, but in practice it would only be useful to create subprojects if there are enough editors maintain active projects in those fields. Unfortunately, WikiProject Ireland is understaffed, WP Irish maritime has one or two wonderfully dedicated editors but that's all, WikiProject Northern Ireland has little activity, etc. There is no point in creating sub-projects until this one has many more active participants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. I've already figured it out.Markreidyhp 06:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems that someone has already done it now... although I don't see any difference in the template itself.Prehaps someones has changed the script?Markreidyhp 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Trollope

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Could Anthony Trollope be added to this project, especially because of Anthony Trollope#Time in Ireland. I will update more of the connections of his works with Ireland, but I think it would be nice if he was added, especially in regards to his respectful treatment of Ireland. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And William Molyneux too! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of Trollope time in Ireland and have added an assessment template to the talk page; B-class/low-importance. Trollope was responsible for bringing the Ashworth pillar boxes to Ireland and one of them still exists in the National Museum. In fact I was jointly responsible creating a report and proposal for the Museum director to refurbish it and put it on display again back in the early-1990s after it had been languishing in store in Daingean, County Offaly, for many years. BTW assessment requests are usually made here. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not so much an assessment request as an asking for people from this project to participate on the page itself. There are many "Irish" pages that get very little attention, because they aren't widely known as being "Irish" or are outside of common acknowledgement. The 18th and 19th century pages tend to get ignored a lot. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, when an article is assessed then it can be less difficult to find, unless you actually know him and are looking out for him. Mind you there are indeed many pages that are neglected after the initial spurt. It sometimes seems that some people prefer arguing and edit warring than constructively editing. To me your phraseology did not really request participation, but I will see what my sources can add to Trollope. With some work this could even become an FA. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Overhaul

Latest comment: 16 years ago36 comments9 people in discussion

Page Overhaul with sockpuppet comments

Page Over haul with no sockpuppet comments

I've made a new version of the WikiProject:Ireland home page that you can find it at this address Please Do NOT delete it!!!!!!!Markreidyhp 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Here is what it will look like!!! User:Markreidyhp/sandbox/wpie

User:Markreidyhp/wpie navbox does look good I agree , i don't prefer User:Markreidyhp/wpie navbox2 or a {{Irishnoticeboard}}Gnevin (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll remove the User:Markreidyhp/wpie navbox if you want so long as the page is accepted or nobody else wants it removedMarkreidyhp 06:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If nobody object i'am going to change the page on Saturday 7:00 UTC or 8:00pm Irish time.Markreidyhp 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it either. This one, User:Markreidyhp/wpie navbox2, might work, so long as it does not get overloaded. It should only have the most important links. I think it should normally be in a collapsed state. ww2censor (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(contribs) 17:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please talk about the the navbox that I created on it's user talk sub page.NOT HERE! THIS IS FOR DISCUSSEING THE PAGE OVERHAULMarkreidyhp 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The Orginal Navbox Talk Page
User talk:Markreidyhp/wpie navbox
The New Navbox Talk Page
User talk:Markreidyhp/wpie navbox2
I don't like the green in the templates, much to bright for my liking. User:Markreidyhp/wpie navbox2 is a little bit overloaded, but could work with some reduction.
I also don't like it if my comments get removed from here as this is very bad style. The comments about the navboxes are on topic here, as I don't want to see them on the projectpage in the current form (why do we have to change the page anyhow?). The discussion should also be in one place and not in split over several places. And Markreidyhp, you don't have to shout if you are talking here. --Mdebets (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>This page doesn't need a page overhaul. If someone wants to add a navbox somewhere, then fine. Lets have a proposal. But please do not do anything else to the project page. Thanks. Crispness (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why do this page say on Major Pending tasks to overhaul this page?Markreidyhp 19:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason that it mentions an overhaul on the project page is that someone thought that it did need an overhaul, more than 2 years ago. Crispness (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done some work on the navbox. Any comments? Crispness (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't think it quite works: it's too bulky to work at the top of the page, which is where such a template really needs to be (for ease of navigation, and because templates at the bottom of talk pages don't work).
I don't think that all the links to individual articles are very useful, nor the links to the categories: one link to Category:Ireland would be enough (the rest should really be somewhere on a project subpage. What really matters here are the various chunks of the project, which are currently hard to find.
I thought I'd take a quick peek at a few other projects, to see if anyone else had used a hizontal boxm and I can't find any examples. However I did find a few verical alyout which showed some intersting possiblities:
  • WikiProject Military history and WikiProject Australia both have a vertical template which manages to keep all the crucial project links on the first screenful.
  • WP:SOCCER has a similar design, but it's gotten too bulky and isn't placed at the top of the page, so not enough of it is on the first screenful. WP:Baseball's template is similar, but placed higher.
  • I rather like the approach of WP:SHIPS, with everything collapsible, and the statistics included.
However, maybe we have been getting a bit ahead of ourselves in looking at designs before considering what a navbox should do? I wonder if we wouldn't be better to start by looking at what we need/want in a navbox, then at how we prioritise it, and finally at how arrange it?
To my mind, the main purpose of the navbox should be to make it easy for anyone, particularly people new to the project, to find their way around. There are lots of prolific editors working in Irish articles, but too few of them have much involvement with this project, and to get them on board we need to make this project more accessible and user-friendly. If we make this project an easy and useful place for them to get come to get help and advice and collaborators, we could really revitalise the project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultural_cringe

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Anyone ever hear of this and more important this Cultural_cringe#Ireland?Gnevin (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of this, the Scottish cringe. Our two countries just have everything in common! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Scottish cringe is what linked me to Cultural_cringe#Ireland but the whole thing seems to be WP:NOR Gnevin (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, it doesn't really matter. The source of modern culture is basically from Italy. The British (English) copied much of their culture from the French, the Dutch, the Germans, and the Spanish. Ireland and Scotland has had a huge influence on British culture. And now British culture is being influenced greatly by American culture. Even in my short lifetime, I can see it, being a child of the 60s. Culture just flows around like mercury, and Britain (English), is more influenced than influencing. Old cultures like Scotland, Wales and Ireland have more impact on the modern ethos than is realised. Stuffy plastic culture has nothing to offer, but older cultures are now saving and adding to humanity, I'm sure. -78.19.75.148 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this all just psychobabble? Won't we all be turning Chinese in a few years time? Everybody will be Kung-fu fighting....Sarah777 (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Is this all just psychobabble?". No, guinnessbabble! LOL. 78.19.4.75 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What should the MOS template look like

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I don't get it.What should the MOS template look like. Where would you put it??Markreidyhp 07:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite lost , can we keep all these page/template ideas together? Gnevin (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

okMarkreidyhp 14:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not sure what you mean by "the MOS template". Please, if you want advice from others, can you explain more precisely what you mean and supply any necessary links? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish literature

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that this WikiProject should be merged with this one as Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish literature is dead.Markreidyhp70px 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bilateral relations of Ireland

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I have just come across a series of articles on Ireland's bilateral relations with other countries, as listed in Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland.

They are all brief stubs, with the lone exception of Ireland-United States relations (borderline start-class), and Canada-Ireland relations (which is start-class).

I'm sure that Ireland-United States relations has plenty of potential for expansion, and likewise for Canada and Australia. No disrespect intended to the people of Bulgaria and Georgia, but is there really much of substance to be said about Georgian-Irish relations or Bulgarian-Irish relations?

Bulgaria probably pops up through the EU, but I doubt that there is much of bilateral relationship, and I suspect that Ireland's dealings with Georgia are minimal. They deserve a mention in lists, but that's about it.

I'm inclined to AFD most of these articles. Any thoughts? (The articles all appear to have been created, by Groubani (talk · contribs), who I'll msg with a link to this discussion) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more tempted to boldly redirect most to Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, and only AFD if there's opposition to that? One Night In Hackney303 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. I have left a msg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland, and I'll hang on to see if there's any feedback from that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And then move Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland to Foreign relations of Ireland. Might as well fix a few things at the same time. I notice that, outrageously, Foreign relations of Ireland is actually a redirect page to the makey-up name. I think I'll oppose any reform or deletions here that don't include the proper naming of the Foreign Relation of Ireland article. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As we have been discussing at WikiProject International relations, if you don't want all these stub articles, it might be good to make a one-article list of Ireland's relations with each country. It could have 200 rows, one for each country, and one column each for things like whether they have an embassy in each other and what international organizations they are both members of. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude late in the game as it were. But I don't understand the need to delete "permastubs". This is a peculiar desire of Wikipedians that as far as I can tell has no underpinnings in any conventional definition of "encyclopedic". The encyclopedias I've encountered have numerous stubs. This is not always because of lack of paper, but for the simple and obvious reason that there need not be a great deal to say about a subject for that subject to nonetheless be encyclopedic. We're not a paper encyclopedia, so what's the supposed problem with having accurate articles about the verifiable bilateral relations between two nations? Why is Wikipedia supposedly better if these articles are deleted? --JayHenry (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Political History Series Navigation Templates

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, being bold recently, I updated the Irish Political History Series Navigation Templates to a new style based on the widely used Politics of [Country] templates. I have modified Template:IrishR, Template:IrishN, Template:IrishU, Template:IrishL and Template:IrishM to follow the same style.

The main change is that the template is collapsed until the user expands a particular section. I did not modify the content of the templates, the Masthead(?), the headings, the links in each section remain the same. I also kept the colour scheme the same as before.

One editor, One Night in Hackney, has objected to the style change only on the Irish Republican template and has reverted it, claiming the old style is better. So I decided to come here and see what everyone thinks of the new style template? Fab or Flop? Keep or Revert? Let us know what you think! Snappy56 (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased message, since you failed to mention the negative aspects. The templates are a total shambles. Not only do some increase in width when you expand them, they distort formatting on pages when expanded, moving text and images around which serves to confuse the reader. There's no logical reason for this to happen, other that style wankery. One Night In Hackney303 04:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No more biased than your messages. Text moves around on the screen all the time. If someone views a Wikipedia page with an 15" monitor with a 640*480 pixels setting, it will look different to someone viewing the same page with a 17" with a 1280*1024 pixels setting, and if they have a 21" widescreen monitor, it'll be different again, so to say that the formatting is messed up is simply wrong. Also, what about the numerous pages that have a Politics of template on them, are they all messed up too? No, the IrishR template does not increase in width when expanded, and give some credit to the reader, they will not be confused when they expand a section, its pretty common. Also, I'm not saying that my version is perfect, I'm sure it can be improved further. Snappy56 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, what has monitor size got to do with anything? Have you not seen the formatting problems your "improved" (LOL!) templates cause when expanded? If I'm reading a book I don't expect the words and pictures to move around on the page. Where did I say IrishR increased in width? I said "some of the templates", haven't you even bothered to check if your "improved" templates work properly before inflicting them on the readers? One Night In Hackney303 04:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I initially thought "oh no, not another infobox/navtemplate row", and felt a growing sympathy with the anti-box fundamentalists who dominate a few projects.

Since {{IrishR}} has been reverted, I took a look at {{IrishN}}, but couldn't decide from looking only at the template. There's a collapsible box on Social Democratic and Labour Party, and it does make the display jump a bit, but not much. I don't like the jumping, but it doesn't seem too bad, though I do worry about its effect on disabled readers; however, it does make it a little easier to find the sections.

I decided to look at how this was used elsewhere, and found a similar-styled box on Canadian House of Commons, which also seems quite useable. Sorry ONIH, but I don't see the disaster here. Without reverting the other templates yet, can you point us to any particular uses of them which seem to illustrate the problems you see?

One small thing, which isn't dependent on the collapsibility: the colours on {{IrishR}}. Snappy56's version has much better contrast than the horribly low-contrast restored version, where visited links fade into the background. If the collapsibility is not kept, that background colour needs to be changed, and if there was a straight choice between the two formats, I'd unhesitatingly prefer the collapsible one.

BTW, ONIH, I'm sure that Snappy has done this in good faith. I'm sure it's a good idea to review the changes, but please can we discuss this calmly? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My good faith left the building when my removal of a poor template was reverted without any attempt at discussion. Before making unilateral changes to a number of templates, it would have been good form to leave a message on a talk page saying "here's a sandbox, have a look and see what you think". Not that it's compulsory, but when I revert a new template that screws up pages, I don't expect to be reverted thereby having this new template foisted upon a vast number of articles without checking if it works first. If a cut down version is needed for some articles how about something similar to {{IrishRdocu}}? But there was no attempt to even do that despite is being suggested, just an arrogant attempt to drive through an inferior template under the false premise of an "improvement". {{IrishL}} varied in width until just being fixed still varies in width. To show other examples I'll need to copy the template and an article or two into a sandbox first, since at least one involves reverting to a previous version of a page. One Night In Hackney303 05:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, good job I'm not thin skinned, e.g. from One Night in Hackney: biased message, "improved", LOL, inflicted, style wankery. Charming!
Anyway, yes, some of the new style templates do expand in width a little bit but that's just minor tweaking. I like the Canadian one, that could be a good model for the Irish ones. No, I didn't consult before making changes, I was being bold! Snappy56 (talk)
There's a difference to being bold once, and being bold twice. I refer you to User:One Night In Hackney/CIRA, which is exactly what the page looked like followed the template being amended. User:One Night In Hackney/CIRA2 is what it looked like with the original template. Did you check every page the template was transcluded to? And that's separate from the formatting problems expanding the larger sections in {{IrishR}} and the like causes. One Night In Hackney303 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The CIRA just needs to have the template at the very top, move the image down, problem solved! Collapisble Nav templates are used all over Wikpedia and if they caused problems like you claim, then they would have been reverted en masse, yet they haven't. If you can't come up with valid objections to the new style, then stop coming up with spurious ones. Snappy56 (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find if you're wanting to introduce a new template, it shouldn't damage existing articles due to piss poor coding, so obviously the template is a shambles and you haven't even bothered to check it works properly. And my objections are perfectly valid - I object to text and images being moved by an expanding template, as does the average reader. Also, why should other people have to move images (against the MOS!) that worked fine with existing templates because your new template doesn't work properly? One Night In Hackney303 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
They do not mess up existing articles. When expanded they move text to the side. Have you heard of the word dynamic? You seem to be stuck in a static world circa 2002. Time to move on. You're still avoiding answering the point about the widely used Politics of templates. You also know what the average reader thinks, how amazing! Also try re-sizing your browser window, watch in amazement as the text and images move about the screen, must be some kind of magic! Try not to compare written word in books with computers, apples and oranges. Snappy56 (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the links above prove they do. You just can't admit your templates are unfit for the purpose they are designed for. One Night In Hackney303 08:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No, those links don't prove anything. According to your logic all the Politics of templates, including the Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland should be reverted. The Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland was changed without prior notice and discussion, yet no-one objected to the new style which is collapsible. Basically, it all boils down to the fact that you don't like the look of the template that I did and have come up with spurious reasons to revert it.

I agree with ONIH, this is not a improvement of the existing templates, and should have been discussed before the changes where made.--Padraig (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Snappy56 asked me here to pitch in on this discussion.
I recently had a discussion about this issue on User:C_mon/template, where different users pitched in and we came to the following compromise, specifically in the case of ideology templates like {{Socialism sidebar}}, which are used on a lot of artcile.
The reason I started making templates collapsable is that these templates tend to be used on a lot of articles, many of[[ which are stubs (like Green Party of Iran]. Having a large template on such are articles create a lot of unneccessary open space, moreover large templates tend to conflict with eachother and pictures under different sizes of screens.
The solution we came to was to make three different templates: the collapseable {{Socialism sidebar}} and {{Socialism}} and then users themselves could decide which template fitted a specific article best. This offers choice and flexibility to all.
This solution was proposed by User:Yahel Guhan who came to this compromise on {{African American topics sidebar}}. A similar solution has been found on {{Anarchism sidebar}}.
I think it could also work in this case. C mon (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A small fix

Many thanks to ONIH for providing the test version to illustrate the problem. I have just made a small change to the CSS on User:One Night In Hackney/Template:IrishR, which fixes the display problem on User:One Night In Hackney/CIRA.

ONIH, are you happy with that fix? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean you had to fix something when Snappy insisted there was absolutely nothing wrong with the template? A template he clearly hadn't bothered to test first? And that's one of the problems solved, but it doesn't address the rest. One Night In Hackney303 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
C'mon ONIH, what happened is done, and now we need to try to find a solution.
So far as I can see, the outstanding issue us that you don't like the principle of an expanding template, because the text reflows when it is expanded. Have I got that right? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Text and images. Expanding templates are great where templates are normally found, ie at the bottom of the page where they don't interfere with formatting. I see the option of two alternative templates has still not been discussed by anyone.... One Night In Hackney303 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Before considering the other options, I wanted to check that I properly understood your concerns about the collapsible-templates-at-the-side which Snappy had developed, and I'm still not 100% sure that I have got it.
I mentioned above the example of a collapsible box at Canadian House of Commons (the template is {{Politics of Canada}}). Could you take a look at that, and let us know what you think of it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a soulution, return to the way it was and discuss first. BHG, your attitued is an editor created a problem, now lets find a solution to the problem? Surly the problems should be addressed before the template is put up for discussion. This is very important when it effects a number of articles. --Domer48 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Domer, it would help to discuss the substance rather than to to make comments about "my attitude". An editor made a change which another editor doesn't like. Both editors have a case to make, and I'm trying to encourage a discussion about the merits/demerits of the change.
May I ask you to take a look at the Canadian template which I just pointed out to ONIH, and see what you think of that one? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it is not the case that one editor doesn't like the change. It's that one editor made a change which affects a number of articles and made an arse of it. Not to mention the fact that they did not flag it up first, since it would effect a number of articles. What your suggesting is rather than discuss this change first, we sort out the problems it created? Makes no sence to me. --Domer48 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Domer, the change to {{IrishR}} has been reverted, and I have been trying to encourage discussion of the revised template. We have now got to where you want: change reverted, discussion underway. It would be great to have your input on that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There were a few minor formatting issues with articles which I was in processing of sorting until the template was reverted. As I've said before these changes are the same are those made to the Template:Politics of the Republic of Ireland by user C mon. Strangely enough, no one reverted or objected to those changes, even though its more widely used. It's only the IrishR template that 1 editor has found objectionable. If the consensus is for it to look like a pile of poo, so be it! It's obvious editors here are not interested in discussion or compromise. Snappy56 (talk)
I don't see any consensus that it's a pile of poo. I see justifiable annoyance that you initially edit-warred over the reversion rather than discussing it (and with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better for you have tested the new template in a sandbox before deploying it), but we should have moved beyond that by now. There are also concerns that it wasn't working properly at the start. which I hope have been resolved by the CSS clear:right tweak. The remaining objections seem to be to the principle of making these templates collapsible, but the objectors haven't clarified whether that's actually the case. I'd say give a day or two and see if the objectors want to resume the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Archive_5&oldid=1142660922"