Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 33

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Dmcq in topic RfC: Should the Flag of Northern Ireland article say at the start there is currently no national flag for Northern Ireland
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34

Irish placenames

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would appreciate views of members on how Irish (and other) versions/derivations of modern placenames are dealt with in IMoS and articles, here. Thanks. Brocach (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry: an alternative proposal

Latest comment: 11 years ago65 comments14 people in discussion

Scolaire's recent proposal for a relaxation of the current IMoS guidance (Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles) was based on each article resolving the appropriate usage from consensus. I propose a rather different approach, based on a very simple modification of the current IMoS wording. If accepted, all IMoS-compliant editors would share responsibility for limiting deviations from the current city/county usage to those explicitly set out in the following rewording:

Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles, except in biographical articles about Protestant/unionist/loyalist people from the city (use Londonderry); biographical articles about Catholic/nationalist/republican people from the county (use County Derry); and articles about Gaelic games (use County Derry).

It was not clear to me how many of the (unfortunately, few) editors who responded to Scolaire's proposal might be open to this different approach, so in addition to putting it up for discussion here, I would invite editors to send neutrally-worded notifications to other forums or individual editors who have an interest in this topic. It would be good if we could involve more editors to give some weight to any IMoS change, and great if move even slightly beyond the current practice of forcing Derry down Londonderry throats and vice versa. Brocach (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This has zero chance of getting through. Abandon it now. There is no such thing as the county of Derry. Was never created. And GAA usage is common usage only, not the official name for the county board. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
What we really need is to establish the basis on which decisions are made. The Wikipedia policy is that articles should be based on the main reliable sources directly relevant to the topic, this is part of the 'verifiability not truth' mantra. Arguments that Londonderry is the official name for the city and County Londonderry is the official name for the county would use sources that are not directly related to the topic of say the Derry GAA or biographies of politicians. That is the basic reason why the current consensus to use Derry for every article including unionist politicians is wrong under Wikipedia policy - not because Londonderry is the official name for the city. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
See [1] for a source showing councillors with Derry or Londonderry against each - I see no reason to contradict such a source. Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I could support Brocach's tweak. My only concern is the addition of a religious element. While the vast majority of catholics would be nationalist and the vast majority of protestants unionist, that isn't always the case, for example Billy Leonard. Otherwise I don't see a problem with labelling unionist politicians as from Londonderry and nationalist ones as from County Derry. Valenciano (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't support this at the moment, but it's closer to something I could than the previous proposal. I agree the religious element needs to go - it's just not necessary, and people who are known for things other than their political views but who happen to be catholic/protestant should be treated the same way as people not known for their political views who happen to follow another religion (or no religion). There should also be something to note that if a person's views are unclear then the default (county Derry/city Londonderry) should be used. I'm not sure how to word that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree we should remove the catholic/protestant part. How about
Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. In biographical articles use Londonderry for unionist/loyalist politicians and activists, and County Derry for nationalist/republican politicians and activists. In articles about Gaelic games use County Derry. For all articles any consensus to override this guideline should normally be backed by the main reliable sources on the topic, for biographies the person's own usage should be followed if available.
I've said politicians or activists instead of just people as I think the clause should only really apply for people who are actively political rather than like religion those who just turn up at a church. If they actually say something we can take that as the default for them. Dmcq (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think also that outside of biographies we should say Londonderry (Derry) or County Derry (County Londonderry) the first time these names are used in articles. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Better, but not there yet I don't think. See my proposal below. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

To echo Laurel Lodged's statement, can someone please point out when the county of Derry (in non-GAA contexts) came into being? Was Coleraine, now Londonderry. There is not, and has not ever been, a "County Derry", so I'll oppose its insertion until someone gives me a good reason not to. — Jon C.ॐ 11:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See my comment immediately after Laurel Lodged's bit starting with 'What we really need is to establish the basis on which decisions are made.' Are you saying you believe decisions involving the Derry /Londonderry name dispute should be based on truth irrespective of the sources directly relevant to a topic? Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
And by the way a quick search of google books shows quite a few referring to 'County Derry' published in the 19th century e.g. 'A List of the Cretaceous Foraminifera of Keady Hill, County Derry' 1885, 'The Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal - Volume 2 - Page xxv'1868, 'Parliamentary Papers - Volume 43 - Page 2' 1836, 'Statistical survey of the county of Tyrone: with observations on ... - Page 3' 1802. Dmcq (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The earliest reference I've found to 'County of Derry' is in 'Geographia - Volume 1 - Page 479' 1682, and the earliest reference in the house of Lords is in 'Sessional Papers - Volumes 1-10 - Page 182' 1714. That Geographia one is written in Latin and gives both English and Irish versions of names. Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dmcq your historical research is firstly pointless and secondly idiotic. 19th century sources mean squat when the county was created and named in 1613! Prior to that the land that now constitutes County Londonderry was part of 4 different counties and none of them was "Derry" or "Londonderry". Since then "Derry" has been used as a shorthand by all sides, hence "Apprentice Boys of Derry" and "Siege of Derry" until the early 20th century when Irish nationalists in their anti-British racism hijacked it and pushed to have the city renamed, forcing many unionists to adopt fundamentally the name Londonderry when before hand Derry was acceptable to them in an unofficial capacity. Mabuska (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry: Thryduulf's proposal

Following on from and based on Dmcq's proposal above, here is my suggestion

Use "Derry" for the city and "County Londonderry" for the county in all cases except in direct quotes and where noted below:
  • For biographical articles and articles about political or activist organisations:
    • Where the subject's own usage is known, follow that usage where it is consistent. Where usage is not known or not consistent:
      • Use "Londonderry"/"County Londonderry" for unionist/loyalist politicians, activists and organisations;
      • Use "Derry"/"County Derry" for nationalist/republican politicians, activists and organisations;
      • Use the default ("Derry"/"County Londonderry") for others
  • For articles about Gaelic games, use "County Derry"
  • Where there is a clear consensus that the primary main reliable sources used for a specific article consistently follow a different usage, there is consensus what that usage is and there is consensus the article should also follow that usage.
Under no circumstances should usage in an article be changed without a consensus to do so.
Where an article does not use the default this should normally be clearly noted on the talk page.

I've basically just reorganised it to try and be clear (albeit wordier). Other changes are:

  • I've added "political and activist organisations" to cover articles like Democratic Unionist Party and Continuity IRA - is it clear that this is what is meant or will it lead to arguments?
  • I've added that a subjects usage should be consistent, if someone says "It's great to be here in Derry" but the following day that she was "In the great city of Londonderry yesterday" then we shouldn't treat them as having a view on the matter.
  • I've included a way of allowing for exceptions to follow reliable sources, but that requires three consensuses - first that there is a consistently different usage in the primary reliable sources; second that there is consensus about what that usage actually is and third consensus that the article should follow that usage. This is intended to stop changes where there isn't consensus about what the change should be.
  • The final point is intended to encourage notices in the style of {{British English}} to reduce misunderstandings and good faith but incorrect changes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd replace 'primary' by 'main' in the last clause because primary has a specific meaning for sources on Wikipedia. I think it is a good workable basis to go ahead with and certainly far better than the current bug squash business in IMOS. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dividing the encyclopaedia across sectarian lines is a poor and divisive idea. Worse again is the suggestion to use what source do: that's just a recipe for source warring. The current approach provides a bright-line rule. It's clear and fair. It ain't broke. Don't fix it. --RA (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just a recipe for a warring mess. Leave things as they are now. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could be more specific about an example of the problem you think would happen. Do you think there would be less trouble if the city council said Derry and County Londonderry had to be used consistently like the present IMOS? Also to RA, I really don't see why using sources is 'worse again'. The basis of Wikipedia is sources, the sectarian bit would simply be a reflection of reality as expressed in the sources and not specifically sectarian as such. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
A basis of Wikipedia articles is sources. But not to determine that on this article we use this word for a town and on another article we use another word for the same town. That would be a misunderstanding of WP:V. It's not the name of the town is being verified, it is statements about subject, whatever name is used for the town. I'm with Timrollpickering, the suggestion is a recipe for a warring mess. WP:AINT broken. --RA (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
How do you figure that out? Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be independent of what happens in other articles. If the source says something that's what we should say unless there is a consensus on the basis of common sense that we should ignore the sources. As to the name Derry it is the article name as determined by WP:TITLE, only the consensus in IMOS says it should be used anywhere else. Common sense says we should normally use the article name but it certainly is no part of any policy. WP:Consistency was proposed but failed miserably as simply not in line with what is done on Wikipedia, it is not even a guideline. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
The point about consistency on Wikipedia is that each article should be consistent within itself, i.e regardless of what name an article uses for the city it needs to always use that name. It doesn't matter whether it is consistent with articles on other topics (although sub articles should generally match the parent, e.g. "History of X" should use the same style as "X" unless there is a good reason not to (c.f Gdanks/Danzig)). This is why we can quite happily have n article about an association footballer from County Londonderry and a Gaelic footballer from County Derry, even if they grew up in the same village. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
And about this proposal being being a recipe for warring - the Gdansk/Danzig vote had a similar biography clause and an administrator said about the result 'But after the great Danzig/Gdansk vote, the area is relatively peaceful'. This proposal won't remove all dissention but at least it should satisfy a lot more people and encourage them to contribute constructively instead of just complaining or being driven away. Dmcq (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Recipe for multiple disputes ----Snowded TALK 20:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Snowded. The current convention works because it's simple and people on both sides adhere to it. Every new "rule" is an invitation to break the convention and start a dispute. The response to my proposal made it clear that nobody believes collaborative editing around Derry/Londonderry matters is possible. Therefore we have to leave the current convention alone. Scolaire (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Scolaire's Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 32#Derry: formal proposal so people can judge for themselves. The current proposal does not require any extra collaboration. I would hope that less cause for dispute would lead to less disputes and more constructive editing. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Why? I showed Co Derry has been in use even in parliament for the last 300 years at least, it isn't just some GAA thing, and anyway County Londonderry would be the default just like Derry is the default for the city. Dmcq (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Just a GAA thing" is not to be sniffed at, given that the largest secular organisation in Ireland has referred to the county as Derry since 1884. It seems obvious to me that the custom and practice of people who actually live there is what gives weight to any claim about the name of a place, and that this can change over time as they know in old Danzig. Most people who live in the county refer to it as Derry, as indicated by their voting for public representatives who use only Derry. Per those opponents who bother, unlike Jon C., to give reasons, one seems to be that the "official name" must be the name bestowed on Irish lands by a Scotsman who had become king of England, by signing a paper giving those Irish lands to London businessmen in 1613. Looks legit to me. Brocach (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry didn't mean to demean that usage. We better try and get some common ground though instead of asserting positions if we're to have any chance of getting anywhere near the flexibility shown in real life over the issue. It is ridiculous that Wikipedia is still stuck years ago in the troubles. Dmcq (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
My reasons are the same as they were before. There is no "County Derry", and that's it's been used sporadically and by those with a political motivation for 300 years doesn't change that. Unlike Brocach, who just undermined his whole argument by revealing his POV is based on his own lingering nationalist resentment (who'd'a think it?), I'm interested only in the facts. There is no Derry city any more, and there has never been a "County Derry". I can't support something that's patently untrue. — Jon C.ॐ 08:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The name Derry for the article on the city is in line with WP:TITLE and I have checked the backing and it is very sound. As has been explained above by me and Thryduulf above the WP:V that overall truth you're talking about is not part of Wikipedia policy. Besides the books I saw on the first couple of pages weren't political except for the ones where Co Derry was mentioned in parliament and then not in a sectarian manner. Is it really so unacceptable to you that GAA articles and articles about SF and the SDLP say Co Derry? I think there is a worse problem with articles on unionist topics being scrappy because editors there don't want to say Derry, this would allow such editors to contribute freely to such topics. Driving away such people is not going to contribute to rectifying any wrongs you think there are here. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you give an example of an article you think would have problems thanks. Dmcq (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I have been casting around for a single article where the Thryduulf proposal wouldn't give clear direction and I would also be grateful for one example of where problems might arise. It looks perfectly feasible. Jon C.'s attack on me doesn't merit a reply other than to say that any less hostile, WP:AGF reading of my comment will see that it deals with how placenames derive legitimacy, rather than expressing "nationalist resentment". Brocach (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now, leaning support. The concept of unionist or nationalist "organisations" would need to be better defined. As a minimum though I would support the idea of exceptions to the existing rule made for Unionist politicians and Nationalist politicians and the GAA. Valenciano (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with that, I think it should be a pretty strict interpretation, ones which are linked to named parties rather than just overall unionist or nationalist. Any better ideas or a better wording someone? Dmcq (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Have to agree with Jon.C in regards to the city/county and in regards to Brocach who hides behind AGF. The only change that has some some merit I could consider to the present policy is to allow politicians to have the city and county named in their preferred terminology, however that would create inconsistencies across Wikipedia with non politician articles, so the present status quo in my view should remain. Mabuska (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC) To quote Brocach:

"Just a GAA thing" is not to be sniffed at, given that the largest secular organisation in Ireland has referred to the county as Derry since 1884. It seems obvious to me that the custom and practice of people who actually live there is what gives weight to any claim about the name of a place, and that this can change over time as they know in old Danzig. Most people who live in the county refer to it as Derry, as indicated by their voting for public representatives who use only Derry. Per those opponents who bother, unlike Jon C., to give reasons, one seems to be that the "official name" must be the name bestowed on Irish lands by a Scotsman who had become king of England, by signing a paper giving those Irish lands to London businessmen in 1613. Looks legit to me. Brocach (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL! This is the worst and most convoluted argument in the history of Wikipedia! Don't forget that that Scotsman also became King of Ireland and with the departure of the earls (who swore an oath to him!), was entitled to confiscate their lands per the terms of the Surrender and Regrant that the earls accepted meaning he had full right to do with the lands what he pleased! Also seeing as Hugh O'Neill and co. where for FACT planning to rebel again, their lands where going to be forfeit anyways on the grounds of treason meaning King James I would of had right to do whatever he pleased with them anyways.

Also on the GAA argument: so we must use the terminology used by an non-NPOV overtly Irish nationalist/republican organisation that doesn't use the name Londonderry purely out of anti-British racism? Then again why follow any differently from the anti-British system of the Irish Free State and thus Republic who acted out of anti-British racism in renaming Maryborough, Queenstown, Kingstown, Queen's County, King's County, and only officially down south County Londonderry and the city.

Maybe if Brocach could find a real argument for Derry as opposed to Londonderry that doesn't revolve around anti-British racism and maybe someday someone will take him seriously! Mabuska (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Also to further highlight Brocach's poor POV argument:

Per those opponents who bother, unlike Jon C., to give reasons, one seems to be that the "official name" must be the name bestowed on Irish lands by a Scotsman who had become king of England, by signing a paper giving those Irish lands to London businessmen in 1613. Looks legit to me. Brocach (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not just "Irish lands" but British lands, seeing as King James I was the first real British king, and he was the one who pushed the terminology of "British" to refer to his lands and subjects which spanned the British Isles. That "official name" has stood the test of time and still stands in court to this day hence why the UK court still finds in favour of "Londonderry". Brocach's argument also fails to recognise the fact that King James was king of Ireland. Oh the uneducated masses. Mabuska (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You are asking for Derry to be kept for everything instead of Londonderry being used for some things because you want the GAA articles to say County Londonderry. And you wish to make a point that you are influenced in that decision because Brocach has a POV. Have I understood you correctly or what are you trying to say? Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty clear what I said above. Status quo. Derry for the city. Londonderry for the county. End of. Convolute as you mean to continue. In regards to Brocach, I'm just pointing out the heinous holes in his arguments, which I've now made small as they are kind of off-topic. Mabuska (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I find it depressing that people say it will cause trouble on the articles without pointing out an article it would cause trouble with, and saying that consistency is important when it simply isn't on Wikipedia, and basically saying no without proposing any change removal or extension they'd like. It just seems silly to me that we can't do something that's commonplace in everyday life. We're supposed to summarize what's out there, life isn't always consistent and that's recognized as being okay and fine between different articles in Wikipedia. Thanks for making the comments smaller. Dmcq (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I too am unable to see any articles where this is likely to cause any problems. As for "source warring" I specifically worded the proposal to avoid that - it's explicitly the sources that are used in the article that count, and before this can apply anyway there has to be consensus that the sources follow a consistent usage that is different to Derry/County Londonderry and consensus about what that is. If there is no consensus then the article uses Derry/Londonderry. The only side effect that I can see is that an article gets more sources and I don't see how that can be a bad thing?
Regarding defining unionist/nationalist articles better, yes I can see how that would be a good thing to do. As noted earlier I was specifically thinking about political parties and paramilitary organisations. Certainly in UK politics political parties have to be registered so that's a set that is easy to define, my knowledge about Irish politics isn't as good but it seems that there are both registered and unregistered parties, the former are obviously easy to define but what about the latter? Is having verifiably contested at least one election a good criterion - it would certainly avoid problems with parties that existed before registration was required (relatively recently in the UK, I don't know about Ireland)? How are paramilitary organisations defined? Are there any groups other than political parties and paramilitary organisations that should be included, if so which ones and how are they defined? Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If we accept the premise that all articles use (city) Derry except where the article is wholly about a unionist/loyalist politician/political party/paramilitary group/loyal order, the guidance for exceptions can be agreed here - starting with UUP, DUP, UDA, Orange Order, tice Boys, VUPP, and persons wholly or mainly notable for their association with those bodies, or who have expressed a preference for the Londonderry (city) usage in WP:RS.
Conversely for the county, Londonderry should be used except where the article is about the IRA, Sinn Féin, the SDLP or the Nationalist Party, or is about the GAA, or is about persons wholly or mainly notable for their association with such bodies, or who have expressed a preference for the Derry (county) usage in WP:RS.
Other extensions to these guidelines could be proposed below, but in every case, the Derry city/Londonderry county compromise would prevail if a particular article did not fit clearly into either of the alternative categories. It would be incumbent on all of us to defend that fallback, whatever our own preference might be. I commend this approach as the basis for a genuinely inclusive and neutral approach to the placenames.Brocach (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for re-stating your case. However, it doesn't alter the fact that the majority have already considered these arguments and still rejected this proposal. Unless there is a rash of users striking their opposes and changing them to supports, you should accept that fact and close the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what your problem is with having some discussion, you put in a proposal which had no chance of succeeding and so ended the discussion previously and then said it proved some point of yours about arguments because your proposal was rejected. Anyway I'll set up a new section which will terminate this 'vote' like you want. If a bunch of people come along later we can raise an RfC instead but as you say that is unlikely at this stage. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the responses to the proposal, it looks a lot more like "no consensus" than "reject". Even more so when you discount the irrelevant objections about the official name (that's got nothing to do with the proposal, for reasons that have been gone over countless times). My most recent response was to the comments that actually addressed the proposal and can be viewed in 2 parts. One part is trying to understand where this source warring objection is coming from - I seriously do not get how anything in the proposal will lead to that, please enlighten me. The other part is in response to the expressed need to better define what is meant by loyalist/nationalist organisation - useful constructive criticism. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion has been going for twenty days. For most of that time I didn't even say anything, I just let other people have their say. I don't know how Dmcq can say I have a "problem with having some discussion". I closed the discussion of my own proposal when it was clear it had no chance of succeeding. I don't understand why you can't do the same. RA, Timrollpickering, Snowded, Jon C., BrownHairedGirl, HighKing and Mabuska are all intelligent, reasonable, collaborative editors who are as familiar with this question as anybody else on the project. We must assume that they all read through the discussion and weighed up the pros and cons before they voted "oppose". Opening another new section to challenge them to defend their position is only insulting. You wanted a discussion; you got a discussion. Your proposal did not have a consensus. It's time to say "thank you and good night." Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not asking them to defend their position, I'm asking them to explain it so I can understand why they hold the view they do. I accept that they think it will lead to source warring, but I don't understand why they think that. By setting out further why I believe it wont, my hope is that someone will be able to see where our thinking diverges and express that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

To quote Scolaire: "I don't understand why you can't do the same. RA, Timrollpickering, Snowded, Jon C., BrownHairedGirl, HighKing and Mabuska are all intelligent, reasonable, collaborative editors who are as familiar with this question as anybody else on the project. We must assume that they all read through the discussion and weighed up the pros and cons before they voted "oppose"." - and if you look at the editors that have opposed, they are from a broad spectrum of viewpoint. Mabuska (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The responses - what are the problems?

It isn't an RfC, it doesn't need closing. No one is going to change the IMOS on the basis of this so far and if someone else wants to contribute some suggestion I'm happy to see it, it might contribute to a more successful proposal some time in the future. Perhaps someone who said there would be a fight over the sources would like to give an instance of where a fight would be? That would really help. Plus is that really the only objection besides the one above that Co Derry isn't the official name for the county? Dmcq (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer you anyway, so you'll know I don't "have a problem with discussion". Here's how the suggestion progressed:
18 April: "for instance those on unionist politicians"
18 April: "we could presume Londonderry (city and county) for unionist politicians, Derry (city and county) for GAA articles."
23 April: "Biography articles should use Londonderry for the city or County Derry for the county if the subject has shown an obvious preference for the name, this can normally be assumed for members of nationalist or unionist parties.
27 April: "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles, except in biographical articles about Protestant/unionist/loyalist people from the city (use Londonderry); biographical articles about Catholic/nationalist/republican people from the county (use County Derry); and articles about Gaelic games (use County Derry)."
28 April: "Where the subject's own usage is known, follow that usage where it is consistent. Where usage is not known or not consistent: use Londonderry/County Londonderry for unionist/loyalist politicians, activists and organisations; use Derry/County Derry for nationalist/republican politicians, activists and organisations; use the default Derry/County Londonderry) for others. For articles about Gaelic games, use County Derry."
7 May: "use (city) Derry except where the article is wholly about a unionist/loyalist politician/political party/paramilitary group/loyal order, the guidance for exceptions can be agreed here - starting with UUP, DUP, UDA, Orange Order, tice Boys, VUPP, and persons wholly or mainly notable for their association with those bodies, or who have expressed a preference for the Londonderry (city) usage in WP:RS. Conversely for the county, Londonderry should be used except where the article is about the IRA, Sinn Féin, the SDLP or the Nationalist Party, or is about the GAA, or is about persons wholly or mainly notable for their association with such bodies, or who have expressed a preference for the Derry (county) usage in WP:RS. Other extensions to these guidelines could be proposed..."
Notice how the "simple" tweak just keeps getting more complex? This is known as instruction creep, and it's fatal to any guideline. You're literally opening the floodgates: people will just add more and more exceptions until the rule is meaningless. To paraphrase Thryduulf, Your proposal boils down to "use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county except when you don't."
For an example of an endless and pointless source-war, see Talk:Denys Rayner#Derry/Londonderry. --Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I was intending that it originally just deal with the simplest case and then some commonly occurring cases could be added later. There is nothing wrong with that. The wording could be simplified and the cases that were found under it itemized.
But anyway the main problem is the second one, the argument over sources that went on for a month at Talk:Denys Rayner#Derry/Londonderry. Do people agree this is a suitable testcase for the assertion that a change in IMOS would lead to an unacceptable degree of argumentation, and that what has happened there is perfectly okay? As far as I can see if sources triumphed then Londonderry would be used in that article instead of Derry. Would people really try and find some more major sources for that topic that said Derry instead? In fact would someone like to go and try and find some major source that says Derry except for Wikipedia thanks?, or would they like to somehow give an argument that gets around having to go and find a source? Dmcq (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
But if Londonderry should have been used in that article, then you'll have to add the British Navy to the list of exceptions! You surely wouldn't suggest that the usage of the Vanguard Party should be respected and the usage of the British Navy should not? The main problem is not source-warring – although I guarantee you that will happen – it's instruction creep. Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The main objections above cited source warring not instruction creep and support of the current wording was as cutting down arguments. We already have creep because there is a direction over Derry/Londonderry, the problem is getting it to halfway conform to policies and guidelines as followed in the rest of Wikipedia. The argument in that discussion was over you and others quoting IMOS whereas that editor was quoting what happens elsewhere and saying the topic had very little to do with Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
As to Vanguuard and the RN. The wording would in effect say Vanguard were automatically treated as unionist and the Royal Navy would have to depend on someone looking at the major sources and demonstrating they were definitely mainly saying Londonderry. I see no problem with that. There is no need to add the RN to the list unless the question comes up frequently as guidelines aren't to micromanage but to document general things that come up reasonably often. Dmcq (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Entirely with Dmcq here. It is surely possible to move this beyond a simple rule that creates awkward and offensive anomalies, to a slightly more complex rule that accommodates different perspectives (the 28 April version quoted above is, I think, the easiest to work with). We could shut down the potential Navy-type problems by collectively maintaining the current default unless/until a further refinement was agreed at IMoS. Brocach (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole basis of this proposal whilst is in good faith, as most things start of as being, could only enshrine or reinforce a sense of sectarian/political division across Wikipedia in regards to the issue. Mabuska (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions but it just is not Wikipedia's job to fix the problems of the world by fudging the facts. We should just summarize what is in reliable sources for topics. If the result appears sectarian then that is a quite reasonable reflection of the reality of the situation. As to Wikipedia itself, yes there are a load of POV warriors around which is why detailed guidance in IMOS is needed, but for people outside of that they find us riddled with sectarianism because we don't follow the standards of verifiability. They find their edits reverted per IMOS even though they have carefully followed verifiability and done everything in a reasonable manner. When people come along saying the article Derry should be renamed Londonderry I don't quote IMOS as the reason why not but because it documents the verifiability of Derry being the common name for the city and that's how Wikipedia works rather than by official name according to WP:TITLE. Dmcq (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Participation

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am involved in discussions on:

The number of Editors participating in the discussion is woefully small and I would really like if more Editors took part. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Technical hat note at Republic of Ireland

Latest comment: 11 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion
  Moved from Talk:Republic of Ireland
 – This discussion concerns the name of the article and the addition of this template. --RA (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that the pre introduction line stating that the true name of the state/country is "Ireland" and the reason for its alteration was removed, I thought this was a valuable addition to the introduction as the actual name of the country in question is "Ireland" and people need to know why wikipedia is not at present naming the country in the title correctly.Caomhan27 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced we need that as a hatnote, given it is explained in detail in the article. The template you used is only for cases where technical restrictions prevent us from naming the article as we wish. In this case, there would be nothing preventing us from calling this Ireland and the island Ireland (island) except our own blasted consensus (which, personally, I shall never understand). But, that's not where consensus lies. I'd suggest a FAQ on this page instead - like I just added at Talk:Deadmaus. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Obiwankenobi, I had thought that the line was there by consensus prior to reverting as it made sense as a lead, I did not write it myself but i can see the logic behind it being there, that is amazing and quite wrong really if there is no technical issue with naming one Ireland(island) as you say and the other Ireland then thats what really should be done, issues that deal with facts of law should not be open to polls in my opinion. A Wikipedia poll trumping Irish, European and international law regarding the recognized name of country/state is frankly slightly ludicrous and does nothing but undermine wikipedia itself.Caomhan27 (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
unfortunately, everything at Wikipedia works by consensus, and there have been miles of digital ink spilled on this topic. In fact, if you read above, we aren't even supposed to have this discussion here (ie about the best title for this article), so let's end it now. If you have 12 hours to spare, you can read the records of this epic debate. I'm going to add a FAQ here to talk, as it certainly comes up a lot. Fwiw, Côte D'Ivoire was recently moved to Ivory Coast much to my chagrin, so Ireland isn't the only unlucky one... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't think Ivory Coast is in a comparable situation. "Ireland" is the common and official name of the Irish state in English. Côte D'Ivoire isn't English at all. I don't think there should be censorship on Wikipedia and discussion of the current title should go on (i) for as long as there is a Wikipedia or (ii) until there is consensus. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
By the way Obiwankenobi, "to add a FAQ here to talk" re the title issue will likely be contentious itself. Could you do me a favour and leave a message on my talk page if you do. Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Côte D'Ivoire is the common and official name of the state in English, TOO, but whatever, this is not the place. My point was simply, Wikipedia certainly reserves the right to name something other than the OFFICIAL name, we do it all the time. I did add the FAQ already, scroll up. I agree, there is no censorship, and discussion of the title of this article can occur, just NOT here - it has to be at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration. When you edit this page, there is a big orange notice in bold to that effect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we could add a hat note to the hatnote explaining why the hatnote is there even though it isn't quite right and anyway the official name is given first in the article. There could be a preliminary discussion about that. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
There was a very lengthy discussion of this issue in June-July of last year. You can read it at Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 16#ROI/Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland/Archive 16#Request for comment. The second is only a continuation of the same discussion, but it shows that we went through the formal RfC procedure. I proposed that there should be an explanation of the "true name" and the reason for the use of ROI, not in a hatnote, but in the second sentence of the lead. Other proposals included adding it as a footnote. In the end, there was a clear consensus for leaving it out altogether. As for the actual article title, I've explained that situation on Caomhan's talk page. Individual editors may, and do, think it is all wrong, but consensus is what we go by. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi scolaire thanks for that, personally and I am probably a lone voice in this but I would contend that there has to be an alteration in policy on how the consensus process works in relation to varying levels of information from subjective issues to sourced indisputable facts that should not be open to this process at least as it stands today, for example I would be very sure that if such polls were undertaken for many other scientific/law facts and other known non factual information included as choice options that quite a few would end up with severely erroneous outcomes (What next the world is flat?), this would be due to population size and bias aswell as lack of factual knowledge of the subject matter etc etc , that situation if continued will completely undermine Wikipedia as a reliable source. On Côte D'Ivoire issue brought up by Obiwankenobi and Dmcq I could vote and influence the outcome of the article title if a poll was undertaken not knowing the facts or details or even if I did, I could simply vote on the basis of a biased opinion. I think the editors should really look at this issue much more closely if they want Wikipedia to retain a high level of reliabilityCaomhan27 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It was looked at very closely and at length, it was not just some vote. This isn't the place to try and change any policy about article names, the talk page of WP:TITLE is for that. I didn't bring up the Côte D'Ivoire issue though I think I have looked at it in the past. I can see you're convinced you're right but so were lots of other people on opposite sides in the discussions. That's why resolving things like that is called dispute resolution. Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
@Caomhan, the link above from Dmcq, shows its the article title which may vary from the name of the subject of that article. Read through the archives to find some understanding of the precess, as a relatively new editor you would not have been involved, I was and gave my opinion and reasoning, it didn't turn out the way I voted and discussed but thats the nature of the process which is a way of keeping the encyclopedia running as trouble free- and opinion free- as possible. Murry1975 (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
@Caomhan, I'd suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. We don't really vote (that's why people say !vote, as in not-vote) - so majority doesn't necessarily rule. You happen to have stumbled onto a minefield - e.g. the title of this article - that is particularly contentious, one of the most in the whole wiki in fact - which is why there are restrictions. Scroll up no this page, just a few months ago someone proposed to move the page, and such discussion was immediately shut down, since all discussion about such titles must occur in a specific place. Most areas aren't like this, but this article is one of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
@Caomhan, I'm interested in your use of the phrase "indisputable facts". Can you explain to me how there was a dispute that raged for over ten years (with sources of every sort being cited) if the facts were indisputable? I think perhaps you mean "facts that I am absolutely convinced of"? This is precisely why consensus is needed: because many people are convinced of certain facts and therefore declare them to be "indisputable", but it ain't necessarily so. Scolaire (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Dmcq,Murry1975 and Scolaire, I am admittedly naïve with regard to policy procedures and I totally understand even some factual information issues have varying levels of discrepancy depending on where your from and differing government law/policy. I would say that in relation to this title, the name of the country I know is contentious to some people, but "Ireland" the state at present is not a society for example dealing with internal issues on these matters or peace processes etc where clearly the consensus process is useful, Ireland the state name is recognized everywhere in terms of other states, in Ireland obviously, the UK, the EU and worldwide with embassies throughout the world and this is why I dont believe the consensus process is necessary in this particular case unless its being employed to appease a number of individual users. Because perhaps a number of users on here may have a strong view in relation to the naming issue does not mean that they should be able to engineer the false perception of some societal or international ambiguity where none exists. I hope some editors etc will appreciate what im trying to say in relation to the matter.Caomhan27 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that may be true, but there is also Ireland the island, and two articles can't share the same name. Hence, the debate. Another solution could have been be Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) and then have Ireland disambiguate between the two. But that, and dozens of other combinations were debated at LENGTH, and what we have now was the compromise. C'est la vie. Again, if you want to pursue this further, there's a link at the top of the page pointing the way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like I might be wasting by "breath" so to speak Obiwan as you suggested its been discussed at length and people's opinions are unlikely to change on my lone contribution, but the option you cite of Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) would surely be the most factual to employ, so hopefully that might be used instead in future.Caomhan27 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Caomhan, it won't! It has been proposed again and again. It has been rejected again and again. I appreciate that you're just coming to the discussion now, and you want to be heard, but why can you not accept that all these arguments have been put already, as passionately and more passionately than you're putting them now, and the end result is that things are as they are, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that they are going to change any time in the foreseeable future? You've had your say. We hear you. We respect you. But please can we move on now? Scolaire (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Im not sure and I would hope that your not in the position to say something wont ever change for the better on Wikipedia scolaire, rome wasn't built in day as they say, but I did notice your "26 county" mention on my page which clearly shows you have a biased view on the matter and for personal reasons would not wish the topic to be revisited continuously as for some misguided reason you think this inaccuracy is a good thing, the reason why I think it most likely will keep coming up and I would recommend users to do just that, is because the title is simply not the correct legal or worldwide recognized name of the state in question and as mentioned prior nor is it an ambiguous or contentious issue within in the state itself nor does any other state today refer to the country in a different manner. I understand the republican viewpoint however I think you should revisit your own view on the topic referring to the state of Ireland as it is legally known everywhere in no way excludes or undermines anyone's Irishness (if they so wish) in the remaining "6 counties" which you must mistakenly believe it does in order to be pushing your view. Caomhan27 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Another reason we try to avoid these pointless discussions is that they very quickly descend in personal attacks. I have taken considerable trouble to explain things to you because you are new to this discussion and you seem to have trouble getting your head around things. You repay me by calling me names! I'm done here. Scolaire (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Anyway I'm not sure of the number but shouldn't it be something like 30 counties now? And surely the 26 refers to the Northern Ireland unitary councils? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Jeez, can't even say 26 counties without someone thinking you support the IRA. Yep suggest WP:NPA otherwise you'll be very quickly banned from all topics dealing with Ireland. As to the title of this article, never is a long time but I would suggest leaving it at least another year before trying to change it as people are currently sick to death of the subject and there's lots of other things to spend your and everybody else's valuable time on. Dmcq (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly scolaire and dmcq what are talking about when did I ever even mention the IRA, I said republican massive difference, I think the insult is equating the two, where are you are getting a personal attack or insult from, utterly ridiculous, there is nothing at all wrong with a republican viewpoint, but what I was unsuccessfully attempting to get across was as with any particularly strongly held viewpoint it can lead to bias in certain areas. Anyway like you said I most likely wont be engaging in edit discussions again either as I have always found they rarely lead anywhere constructive on this platform.Caomhan27 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Try nationalist instead if you want to not cause trouble. Not that saying 26 counties means anything about that either. Dmcq (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not particularly offended by the word "republican". It's "pushing your view" that I find offensive, plus the assertion that I have "personal reasons" (i.e. political bias) for not wanting the topic to be revisited continuously. I don't want it to be revisited continuously because I'm sick to the back teeth of it, and the latest "visitation" contains nothing that we haven't heard a thousand times already. However, if Caomhan is sincere in saying that he's going to withdraw from the discussion, then I'm satisfied. Scolaire (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well actually I hadn't referred to republican originally either, it all just sounded to me like they thought you were over there with Republican Sinn Féin, not that I want to get in trouble with them! Just saying nationalist can avoid problems if you don't know the affiliations exactly. Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@OB1 - I don't even know how to make that squiggle over the "o" in Cote d'Ivoire. Are you seriously saying most of the time English speakers use it? @Caomhan27 - I support your proposal. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There are enough controversial issues that come through this project without also discussing diacritics on names of places nowhere near Ireland. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make a circumflex or any of those other accented letters in Wikipedia there is a drop down menu besides a box of different characters below the edit window. Just select 'Latin' characters and try and find the appropriate accented letter. Much easier than remembering keyboard shortcuts unless you have to do it often for instance if you'd like to contribute at an Vicipéid. Another option is to cut and paste if somebody else has typed such a a name. Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dmcq. You and I hardly ever agree on content or get anywhere discussing it. But you seem really genuine. Appreciate the tips. All the best. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Should .ie get listed in domain field on Northern Ireland?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is an RfC at Talk:Northern Ireland#Is there any UK law governing ".ie" domains?, please have a look at some of the discussion and contribute your thoughts thanks.Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RfC shows how to set up an RfC. If you need some help ask here or there. Dmcq (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dmcq - I think its working. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Should the Good Friday Agreement be included in the "Establishment" field of the infbox of Northern Ireland?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

There is an RfC at Talk:Northern Ireland#Should the Good Friday Agreement be included in the "Establishment" field of the infbox?, please have a look at some of the discussion an contribute your thoughts thanks. Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Updated link as the title was changed. Dmcq (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This discussion could do with a few more people to say aye or nay with their reasons as the decision isn't obvious yet thanks. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Are GAA biography articles violating Wikipedia policies?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please see discussion here. Mabuska (talk)#

When did this project become a notice board? That's four notices in quick succession that have been posted here. Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Dare we tag relevant article talkpages with a banner and use Article Alerts rather than having notices filling up this page? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Notifying relevant projects about problems that may need wider participation by people in the project is standard practice, especially when when an RfC is raised, see WP:RfC#Publicizing an RfC and WP:Publicising discussions. Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It probably is a good idea to have article alerts but for this project they should be limited to topics which would normally be of interest. I notice that Northern Ireland is not listed as of interest to this Project in its talk page, does 'tag relevant articles' mean you'd register this as another interested project there? Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Commonwealth Realm of the Irish Free State

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Before raising a formal RFC, I'm asking for comment on a matter at Commonwealth realm. The Irish Free State was never a Commonwealth Realm. It was a Dominion. Opinion is divided as to whether the Irish Free State should be listed with Former Commonwealth Realms or Former Dominions. I think that it is important to get the terminology correct when we are talking about the political evolution of the Irish nation(s). --Pete (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Both, a Commonwealth Realm is a Realm that is within the Commonwealth. The Irish Free State was a Dominion of the Commonwealth, and therefore a Realm of the Commonwealth too. Only Realms that existed prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth should not be listed. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Wrong place, Regards, Rob (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaisce – The President's Award merger

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is proposed here to merge the Gaisce article into the Duke of Edinburgh award. All imput welcome. Murry1975 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2014)

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments16 people in discussion

Proposal rejected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

– In common parlance, "Ireland" usually refers to the country consisting of the 26 counties. Furthermore, Protestants living in Northern Ireland probably don't want to look at this article and see their territory lumped in with the rest of Ireland. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  Moved from Talk:Ireland
Request swift close. Not a neutral phrasing of request, quite offensive really. Actually no showing of how guidelines, policy, and current usage promote this view. Murry1975 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Ireland' usually refers to the country consisting of the 26 counties. Does it? So when someone talks about the culture, history, geography, sport, people, and so on, of Ireland, you think they mean only the southern portion of that place?
  • Protestants living in Northern Ireland probably don't want to... Goodness! It must gall them altogether to be members of the Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Church in Ireland and Methodist Church in Ireland.
Oppose per disambiguation guidelines (WP:DABCONCEPT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). --Tóraí (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose nothing has changed since the last discussions. Ireland is the common name for the island, which has a much longer history than the state. Valenciano (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose It is not at all clear that Ireland refers to the country more than the island. It is generally best with a name like that to refer to the more general entity. Republic of Ireland is a recognised disambiguator for the country. The feelings of people in Northern Ireland have not been documented on this matter and why on earth would they want to deny they are on the island when they are in Northern Ireland? Dmcq (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose --- lets not go over this (again). Ireland means so many different things to so many different people, it is to hard to define. Djegan (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per all the previous discussions. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Ireland has been used for the island for much longer than the modern state, by more than a few centuries, no reason to move the article on the state to Ireland and then move the island article. Canterbury Tail talk 22:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per umpteen previous discussions. The island is the broader usage. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose and refute silly claim on Protestants not wanting to be mentioned as being in Ireland - though I can understand their reason for stating this. Mabuska (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: Why keep this open? Close as WP:SNOW. Do we really have to waste any more time on this again? ww2censor (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose:. Agree with Www2censor, close as WP:SNOW. Finnegas (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Due to the biased and offensive phrasing of the request. -- HighKing++ 17:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Note: Due to the past contentiousness of this issue, I think we should not close this as snow. I'm still waiting for other supporters to show up. Perhaps they feel it's not worth it? If we leave it open 7 days, that will establish a new clear consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Disagree: The only clear consensus would be that there's no place for such offensive phrasing, and all such requests should be Opposed without consideration of any merits. So I'd close for that reason as per WP:SNOW. I note the original proposer has been blocked, based on the frivolous nature of his editing, so it's hard to take this seriously as establishing any kind of consensus. -- HighKing++ 18:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It does look like SNOW to me but I'm willing to wait another two days if that's what someone wants. Goood riddance to the OP is what I felt when I had a look at their edits. Occasional little fixes to try and show they might be okay mixed in with low level vandalism and general trouble making. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
OP now blocked. Murry1975 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Abstain Due to the controversial nature of the language but this is still a clear problem issue and will continue to be, so this should not in any way be considered a consensus. Is any other state article incorrectly titled. How on earth did it become so in the first place. It should clearly be at the very least Ireland(State). Unfortunately this article title has become a causality of certain protagonists (strangely something they finally agree on) but it is showing that Wikipedia consensus does not always lead to the correct outcome. It needs to be corrected in my view. Setanta Saki (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2014 (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.

"Republic of Ireland" de-capitalisation in running text

Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments11 people in discussion
NO ACTION
Closing per request despite possible involvement due to clear consensus. I read the discussion first before looking at the survey. Consensus at this time appears to be clearly against use of "republic of Ireland". Kudos to Victor Falk and all who participated for healthy and generally respectful discussion. --Tóraí (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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 would like to to have guidelines for de-capitalising this in running text, as Ireland describes itself in its constitution as a republic but the word is not part of the official name, as for e.g. "République française". It would look like this: [2], [3]. walk victor falk talk 20:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

user:Scolaire makes a good point that a survey is premature at this point; it's better to let the discussion take place first.
===Survey===
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion.
It's not not a poll about any concrete proposal as of now, just a a way of gauging positions. walk victor falk talk 11:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(1) You had already gauged positions, and it was as clear as day that nobody was in favour. (2) If it was not "a poll about any concrete proposal" it should not have been set up as a poll, it should have been left as it was. Scolaire (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Republic of Ireland Act 1948: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." "Republic" is capitalised. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
And any other place that refers to it uses a capital R too. Putting it in with a small r is being perverse and ignoring the rest of the world. 16:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The capitalisation of République française doesn't work as an analogy, I'm afraid. République is always capitalised. française is not, because French has different rules of capitalisation than English, and doesn't capitalise nationalities as adjectives, or words in titles other than the first unless they're capitalised in normal speech. But in any case, the Republic of Ireland, while not being the official name of the state, is a legitimate way of referring to the state as provided for in Irish law, and I don't understand the reason for the long-standing campaign to de-legitimise it on Wikipedia. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Official description uses it capitalised, and all references I've ever seen to Republic of Ireland have it capitalised. Without capitalisation it would have a slightly different meaning and reference. Canterbury Tail talk 16:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
In most cases, the country should be referred to as "Ireland" as that is the official name mandated in Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland. The later Republic of Ireland Act provides a description of the country but does not define the name.
When discussing the national football team, the official name defined by FIFA is "Republic of Ireland". The team in Northern Ireland is called "Northern Ireland". In the past, both teams were called "Ireland" and FIFA did not like it.
Where the fact that it is a republic requires mention, it would usually be referred to as "Republic of Ireland" but there are, of course, legitimate cases when it could be mentioned as "the republic of Ireland". For example, one might legitimately write: "We had a conversation about the legal-constitutional differences between the monarchy of the United Kingdom compared to the republic of Ireland." — O'Dea (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Nicknack, capitalisation on en.wikipedia should not be modelled on French capitalisation, and if it was, it would be "Republic of ireland", not "republic of Ireland". Note, by the way, that "Fifth Republic" is "Cinquième République" in French, even though it's not the "official" name. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 is the guideline. ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The "République française" is not meant as analogy, just as an example of a country with an official name that includes "republic". If the constitution so unequivocally states that "Republic of Ireland" is the name of country, then why does the lede say "also commonly referred to as the" RoI ? walk victor falk talk 17:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to WP:Assume good faith here and take it that you are confused by the replies that have been given to you, rather than that you have ignored them. The Constitution, as nobody above has denied, says that the official name of the state is "Éire" in Irish and "Ireland" in English. However, for the third time, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 says "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." Therefore, it is provided for by Irish constitutional law to refer to the state as the Republic of Ireland when appropriate - for example, to avoid confusion with the island of Ireland, with which it is not coterminous, or with Northern Ireland, which is also found on the island of Ireland. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

For normal everyday use is word republic as common as people, islam, president, government... Once you using those words in sentence with general meaning, you using it with small first letter. But once you refer special and exactly particular thing (aka official name), such a People's Republic of China, Islamic Republic of XYZ, President of Ireland, Government of Ireland and many many others, it should be used with capitalize first letter. It's own name. Also, in article Proper name is: "...In English and many other languages, proper names and words derived from them are associated with capitalization;..." If I'm wrong, let me know, I'm not educated in english grammar (even I live in Ireland for long years), but this giving me logical sense. --Magy357✉ 19:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magy357 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment I feel I failed at introducing the proposal properly. I feel especially bad in using French, instead of English as in "French Republic" or "Republic of France", as "republique francaise" could be translated. The point is that in sentences like "[...], as the French Republic is a country in western Europe, then [...]" or "[...], as the Republic of France is a country in western Europe, then [...]" it is correct to capitalise "republic" as it is the straightforward proper name. But it should be "[...], as the republic of Ireland is a country in western Europe, then [...]" or "[...], as the Irish republic is a country in western Europe, then [...]", when using those terms as metonyms for Ireland.
    Or,O'Dea perhaps puts it better than me:

In most cases, the country should be referred to as "Ireland" as that is the official name mandated in Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland. The later Republic of Ireland Act provides a description of the country but does not define the name.

When discussing the national football team, the official name defined by FIFA is "Republic of Ireland". The team in Northern Ireland is called "Northern Ireland". In the past, both teams were called "Ireland" and FIFA did not like it.

Where the fact that it is a republic requires mention, it would usually be referred to as "Republic of Ireland" but there are, of course, legitimate cases when it could be mentioned as "the republic of Ireland". For example, one might legitimately write: "We had a conversation about the legal-constitutional differences between the monarchy of the United Kingdom compared to the republic of Ireland."

walk victor falk talk 21:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Saying 'republic of Ieland' or 'Irish republic' or even 'Irish Republic' is not the same as saying 'Republic of Ireland'. The first lot are not officially sanctioned descriptions of the state and not usable as a substitute where just saying Ireland would cause problems. Saying republic of Ireland cases confusion because it is not immediately clear whether Ireland refers to the island or the state and in fact it only makes sense when it refers to the island and not all of the island is part of a republic. Dmcq (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Dmcq: You say that "saying republic of Ireland causes confusion" but there is no reason why it should. Northern Ireland is part of a monarchy; it is not a republic, so cannot be mistaken for the republic south of its border. — O'Dea (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I find it difficult as it isn't clear what it refers to exactly, is 'Ireland' an island or the state in that phrase or is it something else again? Does the whole phrase refer to the current state of Ireland? The Republic of Ireland is a common phrase which is complete in itself and has an exact meaning. In the context you specifically point out the republic with a small r is okay in that context because what you are referring to is a republic rather than the state and Ireland itself refers to the state. There is luckily no real confusion in what you said but if there were we would be pushed towards saying 'the republic of the Republic of Ireland'. Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
In any case, the hypothetical examples given here are no more than hypothetical examples, and for a very good reason: it is awkward writing. I cannot think of any situation where it would be desirable to use "the republic of Ireland" rather than, say, "the republican nature of the Irish constitution" or "Ireland, which is a republic" or "a republic, such as Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I see the survey above has been hidden in the interest of more discussion. The purpose of these talk pages is to discuss possible improvements to the encyclopaedia. It is obvious from the survey that this idea has no traction. Discussing something that won't contribute to the encyclopaedia comes under WP:NOT#CHAT. Dmcq (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Re this, what I said was not that a survey was premature, but that it was pointless, since the discussion had taken place and nobody was found to agree with Victor's proposal. I asked Victor on his talk page not to intervene in the discussion again, but to let it take its course. Collapsing the survey section was an intervention, and it had the effect of muddling things still further. I recommend that we now all declare the discussion closed, simply by not posting any more. There is no more to be said. Better still if an uninvolved editor or admin could be persuaded to formally close it. Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with the proposal. The official description which we use to distinguish one Ireland (state) from the other (island) is in Irish law with a capital R. Mabuska (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2014 (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.

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Title Change to Wiki Article Ireland to Island of Ireland

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no move. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose that the title of the Wiki article Ireland should be changed to the ´Island of Ireland´ to make it clear that the article relates and encompasses the independent sovereign state of Ireland or Republic of Ireland and also Northern Ireland a constituent territory of the United Kingdom. I know this has been the centre of numerous debates and I would not usually make this request, only there has been some argument by a certain user on the Republic of Ireland talk page that Ireland should be titled as Southern Ireland, despite many attempts by various other users to point out that the term Ireland is referring to the state of the Republic of Ireland and which is officially named Ireland through the European Union EU, United Nations UN, and even the British Foreign Office British Foreign Office official websites to mention just a few international authorities. I would invite all those concerned that they read up on the talk pages for the Republic of Ireland and Southern Ireland before commenting here, thereby getting an understanding at what and why I am requesting the name change to the wiki article of Ireland to the `Island of Ireland` and so to uncomplicate things for any user and others that seems not to understand the difference between the two articles. Alternatively, to give an example of the various disputes, I have copied and pasted some disagreements from the Republic of Ireland wiki article talk page for you to see. I am sure most of you are aware of these types of disputes since the Southern Ireland and Ireland wiki articles have similar disagreements which relate as far back as 2007. This issue needs to be resolved and is only going to reappear again and again and which may result in people not from any part of Ireland or the UK becoming confused and misled because they are not aware of the differences of opinion on the useage of the term Ireland . For the record by changing the name of the wiki article of Ireland to the Island of Ireland does not mean I support the wiki article title of the Republic of Ireland to be changed to Ireland. Contrary to this, I believe the Republic of Ireland title should remain as the Wiki article title for the state. By having one article titled the Island of Ireland and the other as the Republic of Ireland, I believe this would ease tensions and make things simpler for those interested in finding information related to the Island and those interested in finding information related to the state. Thank you.

Republic of Ireland Talk page

Southern Ireland

The bulk of this article (Republic of Ireland) should be transfered to Southern Ireland as the term is less political.

The partition of Ireland first occurred under The Government of Ireland Act 1920.

The Act divided Ireland into two territories, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, each intended to be self-governing, except in areas specifically reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom: chief amongst these were matters relating to the Crown, to defence, foreign affairs, international trade, and currency.

Many people from the Republic of Ireland refer to themselves as being from "Southern Ireland". AlwynJPie (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC) I dont know how to reply, really. Just, how encyclopedic is that suggestion? Coming after your removing the actual name of the state from the lead. I really dont understand what you mean "less political", less political in what way? Less encyclopdic to be sure, why not call it the ol' sod? Murry1975 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Murry1975. What concerns me is that the article is entitled "Republic of Ireland" yet it starts with "Ireland... commonly known as the Republic of Ireland...” The content of the article is chiefly about the 26 counties. For example the description of the territory, e.g. that it's only land border is with Northern Ireland. And the demographics and population statistics are shown only for the 26 counties. Why is the term "Ireland" used when referring to just the 26 counties?

I feel the term "Ireland" was retained for political reasons to appease those who see themselves as "Irish" and want to be known as "Irish" not "Republic of Ireland'ish" or "Southern Irish" or "Northern Irish"; and those who see the whole island as just one nation and those that would like a political unification of the island. Even the Constitution implies this:

The Constitution declares that "[the] name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland" (Article 4). Under the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 the term "Republic of Ireland" is the official "description" of the state; the Oireachtas, however, has left unaltered "Ireland" as the formal name of the state as defined by the Constitution.

United Ireland: Article 2, as substituted after the Good Friday Agreement, asserts that "every person born in the island of Ireland" has the right "to be part of the Irish Nation"; however, Article 9.2 now limits this to persons having at least one parent as an Irish citizen. Article 3 declares that it is the "firm will of the Irish Nation" to bring about a united Ireland, provided that this occurs "only by peaceful means", and only with the express consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland.

As many people born in the 26 counties refer to themselves as "coming from Southern Ireland" as opposed to Northern Ireland, perhaps the article would best be entitled "Southern Ireland", this being the original name for the area when partition first happened, to make it purely geographical. AlwynJPie (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No offence to newbies, but we've has this discussion many times over the years (see the archives) and its been settled. For the record, I oppose your suggestion. Snappy (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It concerns me as well that the article is entitled "Republic of Ireland" when the official name of the state is simply "Ireland". But we've lots of compromises here - for example the official name of the city of Derry is Londonderry, but the article is at Derry. But your suggestion to name the article "Southern Ireland" has no basis in fact, and only a fleeting nod in the direction of your opinion that some people say they're from "Southern Ireland". As Murray says above, and based on your logic, we could just as easily end up with an article entitled "the ould sod". Personally, I don't know a single soul that says they're from Southern Ireland. I'm not biting the newbie, but this is a ridiculous suggestion. -- HighKing++ 15:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Snappy and HighKing. The difference between calling the article Southern Ireland and "the ould sod" (or anything else) is that Southern Ireland was the origional name of the state when the island was first divided. The term "Republic of Ireland" says it is a republic and Irish Free State says it is a free state. Southern Ireland does not contain a political word and it is specific in that it refers only to the 26 counties. The term Ireland is important to a lot of people, I know. Eamon deValera was opposed when he attempted to drop Ireland from the official name in the constitution. To me Ireland is the whole island not just the 26 counties. But the article deals with the 26 counties not the whole island.

I know many people who have said they are from Southern Ireland when explaining that they are born south of the border. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Southern Ireland" does not satisfy either Wikipedia's WP:Common name requirement for articles nor is it any sort of officially recognized name or description. There really is nothing more to it. As to anything you feel political about it that is an invalid objection on Wikipedia, see the policy WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not in the business of making life easy for people by bowdlerizing things. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

While I have heard the term Southern Ireland by people mainly from the UK, I don´t know anyone from the Republic of Ireland that says they are from Southern Ireland but rather they are from Ireland. As far as I am aware in the EU at delegate meetings Ireland is known to as Eire/Ireland which assisted the Irish language to become an official working language in the EU. As for the UN (as far as I am aware) Ireland is known and listed as Ireland, primarily because it is a sovereign independent country. Northern Ireland is not a sovereign independent country but part of the UK. No offence intended but that´s the way things are, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.42.50 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What bothers me is why the lead begins with Ireland when the article is entitled Republic of Ireland. To me the term Ireland refers to the whole Ireland. And particular when, as I have already stated, the article deals with the demographics of the 26 counties (origional called Southern Ireland) not the whole island of Ireland. Surely this is not good practice.AlwynJPie (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The wording in the lead has been subject to many years of heated discussion but it is clear by the context and the title of the article that "Ireland" in this case is correctly refering to the country. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlwynJPie Don´t get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, but you have to accept that despite of the title "Republic of Ireland" the article is correct in stating Ireland and not Southern Ireland. As stated above, Ireland is the legal short official name of the independent sovereign state of the Republic of Ireland as recognized by both the European Union EU and United Nations UN official webpages. Even the British Government accept that the name Ireland refers to the 26 counties of Ireland as listed here by the Foreign Office British Foreign Office. If you observe the EU´s Europa website on how to write and reference EU countries here Europa, there is a special note at the bottom which states Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’.

Looking at the list of the EU countries you can see that the short version of the official name of the Republic of Ireland is in fact Ireland. If we were to abide by your logic and concede that the term Ireland is misleading to individuals in that everyone thinks of the entire island of Ireland, then we would have to think this is the case for the Republic of Cyprus which has the short version of the official name as Cyprus, despite it is only referring to the Greek part of Cyprus and not the Turkish part, which is not part of the EU but rather a territory of Turkey. Secondly, we would have to change the names of all the Wiki articles for all the sovereign independent countries that officially have the term republic in their titles, i.e. Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Finland. Additionally, you might note that the official name of Greece is the Hellenic Republic but yet the wiki article titles it the short official name of Greece and yet people can still easily find information about the independent sovereign country from this name rather than the long version. I would also refer you to the current name dispute with Greece and the FYR Macedonia, which is unable to join the EU at the moment.

Since Northern Ireland is a constituent territory within the United Kingdom and the UK government did not have any difficulties with the Republic of Ireland applying the official name of Ireland, therefore it was accepted legally by the EU and UN that the term Ireland should refer to the 26 counties of Ireland (you may find a similar argument with the US State of Georgia and the independent sovereign state of Georgia). From what I understand the only reference to Ireland applying its official long name of the Republic of Ireland is in soccer, otherwise it is referred to as Ireland, such as in the Olympics.

I would argue that if the term Southern Ireland was applied to this article, then this would confuse people in thinking that the article was referring to the Munster counties in the South of Ireland and not the Sovereign independent Republic of Ireland. Secondly, the term Ireland enables individuals of the EU who are looking of information on Ireland as they know it, while if the term Southern Ireland was applied, then not only would they not get any information, but if they did find it then they would be confused. As the wiki article of Southern Ireland correctly states the term Southern Ireland implies that it is a constituent territory of the United Kingdom and not an independent sovereign state, which it clearly is, and therefore the term Southern Ireland would be misleading. You may have a valid claim for a name change for the wiki article of Ireland to that of the Island of Ireland since this article title refers to both sides of the island. However, your argument for a name change is not valid because there is no such place as Southern Ireland, yet officially there is a such place as the Republic of Ireland, which is recognized as Ireland. Of course this may change in the future if Northern Ireland becomes an independent sovereign country or if it reunites with Ireland but at the moment Northern Ireland is as it is and that is a constituent territory of the United Kingdom and Ireland refers to the Republic of Ireland. Once again, I don´t want to cause offence but this is as things stand officially.

Thank you. Before the Partition of Ireland and the formation of the territories of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, the term Southern Ireland could have been used to refer to the province of Munster, just as Northern Ireland could have meant the province of Ulster. Since then, to avoid ambiguity, the terms are generally just used to refer to the countries formed from the Partition. Many institutions do refer to the two counties as being "the North" and "the South" such as the North/South Ministerial Council, a body established under the Good Friday Agreement to co-ordinate activity and exercise certain governmental powers across the whole island of Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The official name of the country is 'Ireland'. That is not the short form of the official name. 'Republic of Ireland' is not thee official name, it an officially sanctioned description and is used for instance in the Dáil when they are talking about all Ireland matters. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Ireland meant and still means the island of Ireland. So why was Ireland chosen for the name of the new nation when it doesn't cover the whole island? Why wasn't the origional name Southern Ireland retained? Was it because most people in Ireland were against partition? Why does the government of the Republic of Ireland give those born in Northern Ireland the right to an Irish passport? Does the government of the Republic of Ireland consider Northern Ireland to be a part of it's territory but occupied by the United Kingdom?AlwynJPie (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities is probably best for questions like that. This talk page is just about improving the article. Dmcq (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Alwyn a few answers for you, as a history student you should have known. The original constitution of the state claimed ALL of the island, up until the implementation of the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland. And still sees NI as future part of it , but by re-unification through by peaceful means. It also gave right for those born on the island to be Irish citizens, this bit was only recognised by the UK after the above amendment. The name SI only existed from the signing of the AI treaty to the founding of the IFS, that was in the treaty itself, SI was never a state. The terms Southern Ireland, Irish Republic are used mainly by Unionist and Nationalist, the latter even Free State or the 26, as opposed to the states recognised name, even ROI finds favor in these quarters instead. Why was it chosen? It was chosen as the states name, probably to do with those who wished to call the state Ireland, the UK didnt intially have a problem with this, but one developed until the GFA, when the issue was resolved. And to add the term means the island, historically and geographically to a point, but when I read the NY times talk about the financial recovery in Ireland, it aint the island, when I read about the station of troops in the Golan Heights from Ireland, it aint the island, when I read the conditions on the South African government website, Ireland isnt the island. In most usages Ireland is the state, we as a global society think in these terms. America owes China trillions, it aint Taiwan. The IMF support the continued economic growth in Ireland, it aint the island. Hope this helps you. Murry1975 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland real name

The official long name of "Ireland" as it is called on the page is "Republic of Ireland so why is "Ireland" the name and am I granted permission to change it? WikiImprovment78 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC) WikiImprovment78 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. The official name is 'Ireland'. There is no long form. 'Republic of Ireland' is not the official name. It is an officially sanctioned description used for purposes like disambiguation when there might be confusion with the island or when also talking about Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicely put. I might use it sometime in the future. -- HighKing++ 21:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.43.98 (talk)

After the big load of copied talk page text

You should not have copied over all that text, you should have just linked to it. And you shouldn't have stuck it here unformatted. And why don't you get yourself a username instead of using a different ip every time you stick something in and giving no identifier. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose There is no way in policy we could rename the island article without then allowing the state article to take over the vacated name. Articles are independent of each other and the state article would then be named Ireland because there would not be a disambiguation problem. Personally I prefer it the way it is with the island using the Ireland title. As to usage the state uses Ireland more in financial and political maters but the island is what is referred to more in travel and history. Both have a strong claim to the name but the island one is better from a hierarchical point of view. Dmcq (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would like it to stay as Ireland for the whole island of Ireland. Because most people understand Ireland to mean the whole island. If they mean something else there is a hatnote with a clear explanation and a link to Republic of Ireland for the independant state and a link to a disambiguation page for other likely meanings. Also, as Dmcq says above, the island has a longer and, therefore, stronger claim to the name than the state. AlwynJPie (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2014 (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.

WikiProject X is live!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Referring to Londonderry in artices when the main references say so

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think things seem to have quietened down a bit here so a bit more flexibility over Derry/Londonderry might be in order. I believe it is wrong to start referring to Derry everywhere in articles where the main references are to Londonderry. It also seems a bit much to me to insist on it in a bio for a Unionist who has referred to Londonderry all their life. Any ideas on what might be acceptable addition for these circumstances to what's at WP:IMOS#Derry/Londonderry? Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a little like saying, We haven't set ourselves on fire in a long time, so let's start playing with matches. In particular, this idea has be aired before and it's a recipe for a sectarian carve up IMO.
The choice of Derry or Londonderry is no more than a stylistic decision. Other sources may make other decisions. There is no obligation on us to ape their style, no matter the topic. We have our own style. --Tóraí (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh just because the main articles don't see much warring anymore doesn't mean we don't have IPs making the obvious changes elsewhere. In fact I'm reverting one right now. Mabuska (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Having said that, I think it might be alright for politician and political party articles where it would be pretty obvious what to use. I must also refute Tóraí's assertion of a "sectarian carve up". A carve up yes but no exactly sectarian. Mabuska (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Renamed article

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This move appears to be a controversial one and should have been discussed before moving to obtain consensus. The pre-move name was clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. ww2censor (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
At the same time, it might not be a bad idea to move Southern Ireland. The term is far more commonly used to mean either the Irish state or the southern counties of Ireland than it is to refer to an early 20th-century political entity that never existed in fact. Southern Ireland (Autonomous region of the United Kingdom) is a hideous title, as well as being inaccurate, since there are no reliable sources saying that it was such a thing, but possibly "Southern Ireland (Government of Ireland Act 1920)" would be a less awful alternative. I would suggest that "Southern Ireland" should then become a redirect to Republic of Ireland, with an appropriate hatnote on that article. Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest a disam page, with electoral and sub-regions that also use SI. Murry1975 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Talk:Southern Ireland#Article title. --Scolaire (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian terrorism (2nd nomination)‎ may be of interest - one of the main sections in the article affected concerns The Troubles. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please give your opinion at Talk:Derry#RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles. Dmcq (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland Instead of Republic of Ireland

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I copied and pasted the following section from the Republic of Ireland talk. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland is a better name

Latest comment: 9 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per WP:AN/RFC: "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." There is a clear consensus not to rename the article "Southern Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

AlwynJPie (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)When Ireland was partitioned the names given to the two parts ot the island were Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. Southern Ireland was the origional name of the territory that this article is about. The current Government of the Ireland (the Republic of Ireland) formally laid claim to the whole island of Ireland and this is why they used the term Ireland instead of Southern Ireland. Even the former Irish Free State origionally included Northern Ireland. Governments can call themselves what they like but to me Ireland means the whole Ireland and Southern Ireland is the part of Ireland controlled by the current Government of Ireland. There are many All Ireland institutions and agreements but this article is only about the 26 counties. AlwynJPie (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Since Donegall is one of those 26 counties, Southern Ireland isn't a better name. Valenciano (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Are there any circumstances under which you would stop this business short of everybody else doing what you want? Have you ever been wrong? Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
You say it yourself, governments can call themselves what THEY like. Wikipedia editors do not have those powers. Let's stick with the official name. Arnoutf (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Valenciano and Dmcq. This Wikipedia article is about the 26 counties. Southern Ireland is the best name to use for the article because it is the origional name for the 26 counties and, unlike the Republic of Ireland (which formally laid claim to the whole island) or the Irish Free State it does not contain any reference to the states political situation. Yes, it’s peculiar that the most northerly point of the island of Ireland happens to be in Southern Ireland, but this is one of those geographical anomalies.

Arnoutf. What would Wikipedia do if Northern Ireland decided to change its official name to Ireland? AlwynJPie (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Alwyn, it should be abundantly clear that nobody shares your view or even has any interest in it. Your continued flogging of a horse that wasn't even alive to begin with has become disruptive. Please stop. Scolaire (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Technicially Southern Ireland stopped existing when the Free State came into being. Mabuska (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska. On the day the Irish Free State was established, it comprised the ENTIRE island of Ireland and, as I pointed out before, the Republic of Ireland formally laid claim to the WHOLE island. Whereas Southern Ireland has only ever been the 26 counties. Southern Ireland still exists, it was never abolished. It is currently the territory of the Government of Ireland. This long running naming dispute would be solved once and for all if the article was called by the ORIGINAL name given to the state when it was created, i.e. Southern Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Alwyn, do you see the big box at the top of this page? The one that says "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration by order of the Arbitration Committee" ? You do. Good. If you want to continue this discussion, go there, but Scolaire has a point, you're unlikely to find consensus for that. In the meantime, someone uninvolved needs to close this discussion. Valenciano (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Valenciano. I am copying and pasting this section to the talk section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and I will continue this discussion there. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Southern Ireland is not the official name which is Ireland or official description which is Republic of Ireland nor the most common name for the state which is Ireland. There is no way the title of the article nor the name used for the state will change in those circumstances unless there is overriding Wikipedia policy or guideline. Which Wikipedia policy or guideline supports your choice of name? Do you think you have a chance of changing the name in Wikipedia? If not then stop, as WP:TALK says "Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia". Dmcq (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you think you have a chance of changing the name in Wikipedia? It is like banning Virginia because you are confusing it with West Virginia. -- Lugnad (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

2009 called and wants its PoV warriors back... WP:SNOW-close this dead horse, please. (The zombie horse scenes in Game of Thrones don't even get filmed in Northern Ireland, afaiaa...) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The article Republic of Ireland is about the part of Ireland which contains the 26 counties. This part of Ireland was originally called Southern Ireland. Original names carry a lot of weight in respect of what a Wikipedia article should be called. Many places have been renamed by controlling governments for all sorts of reasons but the original name will always be the original name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This is the prime reason that I would prefer the article to be known as Southern Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Original names carry a lot of weight, really? More than the common name/disambiguator in general use? You claim to be history student and you've no doubt read the articles in question, so presumably you're aware you're trying to replace the article's title (the description of the state) with the name of a predecessor state. Why would you want to deliberately introduce inaccuracy and confusion?
Wait - are you just trolling, badly? Tell you what - if original names are so important, come back when you've managed to get United Kingdom changed to "Britannia", the original name for the whole of that place... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so Romano-centric. They were known to the Greek and Phoenecian geographers as the "Tin Islands" long before the Romans even had an empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so Classical-centric. They were known by whatever they were known as to the inhabitants before the Greeks and Romans. Though I wouldn't kick the tin down the road, it only means sooner or later you or someone else comes across it again. Mabuska (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so Celto-centric. Though I don't think, from a technical perspective, WP is capable of having an article called "Cold wet foggy windy snowy sunny hail place, sometimes all on the same day, why did we ever leave Iberia anyway?" that's in 50 different languages. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Who mentioned Celts? They aren't the natives. Or rather that culture isn't as they aren't a race. Mabuska (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The guideline you pointed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says nothing about original names. Please find a policy or guideline that supports what you say rather than just sticking in ones that don't. Dmcq (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Dmcq (talk)

Can I respectfully request all you good people to remember: Don't feed the troll. --Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Time for a WP:SNOW close. Valenciano (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bastun and Dmcq. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the name given when it was formed in 1801. Britannia was a Roman province in southern Great Britain. AlwynJPie (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2015 (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.

Move "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)" or similar (June 2015)

Latest comment: 9 years ago28 comments17 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

– I know this has been proposed time and time again. But I have to at least try.

The current name is a blatant violation of COMMONNAME.

If a user enters Ireland into the search box, or links to it from an article, to heavily paraphrase WP:COMMONNAME, it should be more likely than not that they are looking for the island. There is no evidence of such. I have seen users in past contribution make suggestions to this effect, but completely devoid of any supporting evidence.

Arguments based on anything but policy are not valid - Most of the arguments for preserving the status quo are based on history, philosophy, politics or a combination of the three. These are not considerations which are used when determining article names, and they certainly do not override COMMONNAME.

Countless articles are linked incorrectly - provesIreland is too ambiguous Within the first page alone of "What Links Here" for Ireland there are examples of incorrect linking. Apple Inc. in the same section switches from linking to RoI to Ireland (when it very clearly should be the former). The problem of incorrect linking rampant is throughout the English Wikipedia.

Nothing has to be at Ireland - It is not a foregone conclusion that one of the articles must occupy Ireland. Indeed, FR and NL do not do this, with Ireland being a disambiguation page.

Again, the name is too ambiguous - The fact is, both the island and the sovereign entity are commonly referred to as Ireland. COMMONNAME does not care about historical provenance or what it "oughtright" be. The primary consideration is whether the average user, when looking for "Ireland" is far more likely to be looking for one over the other. No one has ever demonstrated this to be the case, at least not in any past discussion I've read.

If anything, someone is more likely to be looking for the sovereign entity than the island. (Not proposing it move to Ireland, never was. Better off deleting this) Even with non-sovereign entities such as Catalonia, or the Basque region, the primary title is given to the entity that is legally incorporated (those of Spain) not the greater areas which include parts of France. Indeed, the vast majority of Wikipedias (where it can be argued editors are far more likely to be, on average, more detached from the topic) the ambiguity has been resolved in this way: RoI either occupies "Ireland" (its equivalent in the language) or redirects directly to "Republic of Ireland". Wikipedias which either place RoI at Ireland, or redirect in this fashion include: DE, PT, CA, ES, IT, ZH, sv, ru, ceb (or so it seems; it's linked in this manner anyway). Of the top ten Wikipedia's by article count, the only other one which resolves the ambiguity the same way as the English Wikipedia is the WAR.

I am not proposing that we move RoI to Ireland. I am proposing to use the Dutch/French model of Ireland being a disambiguation page. If it were the case that people using the term Ireland were far more likely to be looking for the island, and vice versa, that when they refer to RoI, they are far more likely than not, to use the term Republic of Ireland, the current situation where time and time articles are mislinked to Ireland would not arise.

Embassies for almost every country in Dublin, except the UK (maybe every, I don't have time to check them all) refer to themselves as the embassy "to Ireland". Even the British Embassy, referred to as British Embassy Dublin makes several uses of the word Ireland where it is clear such usage does not encompass Northern Ireland. (see here).

Wikipedia is not supposed to be prescriptive. Nor is Wikipedia supposed to espouse a point of view. Yet, by blatantly ignoring the reality that Ireland in common usage is an ambiguous term, it is doing just that. Estoy Aquí (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What checks have you done on your belief that people are more likely to want the state rather than the island? When people are going on holiday to Ireland or say they are Irish they don't commonly distinguish between the two parts. There is also the problem that it is usual to have the wider entity have a name if there is no good reason otherwise - then people can work down when it is the wrong one. Are you proposing that Ireland just be a disambiguation page? even more people wouldn't find the right one first with that. It sounds like you are wanting to change the name so editors don't get it wrong so often rather than so it helps readers. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It helps readers in the sense that it doesn't make assumptions about what they are looking for. The way editors mislink is simply a manifestation of the fact that in common usage it very often refers to what is currently at Republic of Ireland. My point about the more common usage being the reverse was anecdotal (just as your "people are going on holiday" point is). It's not part of the main argument because I don't propose that RoI be moved to Ireland anyway. If a user does not know which page they want, the point of a disambig is to allow them to know at first glance the term they've searched for can commonly refer to different things. The vast majority of other articles with ambiguous titles only have one in the main title when it is demonstrably far more common than the others. (e.g. how Spielberg redirects to Steven Spielberg) - Estoy Aquí (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. The template says you're proposing multiple moves, but only one move is listed? In any case - after much discussion, a widely-advertised poll took place in 2009 to determine the titles of the articles about Ireland. The result, with 239 participating, was the island article being located at Ireland and the country article being at Republic of Ireland. While that outcome was binding for only 2 years (i.e. until 2011), it has since been reaffirmed through consensus discussion, most recently between September and November 2012. I see no reason to reopen this particular can of worms at this time. You've offered no evidence to support your own assertions. If there are errors in linking, we should simply fix the links. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Which part? The reference to Ireland being more common to refer to the State is not part of the main argument, because I'm not proposing it move into Ireland. It was just an aside, which I've now struck out for clarity. Unless you are honestly suggesting that Ireland commonly (not mostly, just commonly) referring to the sovereign entity is so contentious that it needs to be proven. In any case that's difficult, because how do you search (for example) on Google and measure which results are for which entity? The membership of Republic of Ireland in all international organisations is as Ireland: the UN, the IMF, World Bank, EU. It is also the name used by Britannica. I'm not suggesting that (as a matter of undisputed fact) one usage is more common that the other, just that it is ambiguous. I can't stress enough I don't think that either article belongs in Ireland because neither can be demonstrated to be undisputed COMMONTHING (the inreverse to WP:COMMONNAME) to which the name refers. The reason I am using examples of Ireland referring to the RoI exclusively is because the only way to prove the ambiguity is by counterexamples -- examples that show that Ireland very commonly (not necessarily most of the time) refers to the RoI which in the case of almost every other ambiguous title on Wikipedia, is sufficient to have the main title as a disambiguation.
With regards to the template, I couldn't find any way to force the template to list A to B where A is not the current location of the discussion, except by using the multiple move option - Estoy Aquí (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You said there was a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME. I can't see what point in the policy is being violated. Currently we have disambiguation for the state which comes under WP:NATURAL "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
That gives undue preference to one of the subjects. The island also has a natural disambiguation (Island of Ireland - though it doesn't sound like article title material), but it doesn't have more of a claim to Ireland (based on Wikipedia policy; not talking about politics etc.) than RoI. Users should find what they are most likely to be looking for when they type Ireland. Only if they are more likely to be looking for the island (and this can be demonstrated) should it be at Ireland. I can't disprove this idea because the default position is to assume they are not particularly more likely to be looking for one over the other. The only way you know where to find the Republic of Ireland on EN Wikipedia is by already knowing how it is named on Wikipedia. Very few people would type Ireland and expect to find information on an island, if they would, that is what should have to be proven (which I doubt it can be).
My main point of using the other Wiki's where RoI is at Ireland or (as I am actually proposing) is a disambig like FR and NL, was to show that no other Wiki in the top 10 (except WAR) arrived at the same resolution as EN, where it is practically certain (obviously I can't prove this, but it stands to reason) that the average editor was more detached from the sensitivities of the the name. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't see anything in the WP:TITLE policy about anything similar to undue preference or some injunction about avoiding it so there is no blatant violation on that basis that I can see. 'Blatant violation' and pointing at a policy is something that needs to be reasonably obvious in the policies or guidelines. "Very few people would type Ireland and expect to find information on an island" needs much better backup than a strong assertion. Finding the state is extremely easy, just type 'Ireland', it is given in the hatnote for the article.
I looked up the French Wikipedia like you said and the state is under fr:Irlande (pays) and the island under fr:Irlande (île) and the disambiguation page is at fr:Irlande. Fine for them but I don't see why you think that speeds up finding the island or the state. I wouldn't all that much mind a change to something like the French Wikipedia but there needs to be a reasonably good argument for it as it involves disruption and there's been loads of arguments over this. Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
To comment, I was one of the ArbCom appointed monitors of a vote to decide whether the island or the country would be at Ireland, and that result was expected to be binding. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there's no violation of WP:COMMONNAME, the island is residing at it's common name, "Ireland", and your move request to move that article to "Ireland (island)" still resides at the common name of "Ireland" because parenthetical disambiguation does not affect COMMONNAME considerations. Any discussion on the Republic of Ireland's article name have no bearing on the common name of the island. Indeed any discussion on any other article that exists have nothing to do with COMMONNAME discussions at all, they only point to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussions, which is a completely different beast, and not COMMONNAME discussions. Further, you haven't even asked to move the page located at Republic of Ireland at all, so discussions of COMMONNAME of that article isn't even part of the nominated pages in this move request. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment as you are proposing to replace "Ireland" with "Ireland (disambiguation)" ; is this because there is no PRIMARYTOPIC ? (Note this has nothing to do with COMMONNAME considerations of the article located at "Ireland") Then this is an improperly formatted request, because there is no indication in the nomination template or the nominated pages listing that the dab page is being moved. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The island has had the name for over a millenia compared to the 60 odd year history of the republic of Ireland. Why give undue prominence to a lesser entity and by far younger entity? Mabuska (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Also when you state that the island has a "natural disambiguation", so does the state. According to their own acts, the state is officially described as the "Republic of Ireland". Mabuska (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Your suggestion of moving RoI to Ireland is neither here-nor-there seeing as the proposal above states that it is not proposing this, so why bring it up when it belongs to in a different discussion. Mabuska (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. You can argue if the Republic has primary topic; it's indisputable that a hunk of land does not. Red Slash 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • If Ireland is a hunk of land, then what is the Republic? A slice of a hunk of land? And Northern Ireland, a smaller slice of a hunk of land? Ireland is an island that contains two polities. It is also a country, albeit partitioned. That country had a real existence, whether as "Gaelic Ireland", "Lordship of Ireland", "Kingdom of Ireland" or "constituent country of the United Kingdom" for all but ninety of the last 1,000 years. Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The island has been known as Ireland for centuries. There is no such place as "Ireland (island)" so it is not a common name. Stop wasting time. All of these related Irish naming topics have been resolved even if not to everyone's satisfaction. ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose in the ideal world, both the country and the island articles would be at Ireland and a script would ask people whether they want the island or the country when they search or add links. We don't have that technical possibility here, so we had to decide which of the two would be at Ireland. As the island has a much longer history, that meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Valenciano (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ireland is the name of the island. The republic does not administer the whole island; it only administers the 26 counties of Southern Ireland. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear where the overall opinion on the matter lies. Call to close? Mabuska (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Northern Ireland flag - Rugby World Cup 2015 Media coverage

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

2015 Rugby World Cup#Participating nations

Rugby union doesn't usually split the home nations into the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, so there doesn't seem to be any formal guidelines for this situation. It happens in this article because it is discussing media broadcasts within each sovereign state. In this situation, Northern Ireland needs to be shown belonging to both the   United Kingdom broadcast region, and the   Ireland rugby team. The home nations teams are displayed individually, as it is important to recognise that   England,   Ireland,   Scotland and   Wales are not performing as the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The article is currently as the following, but I'm not convinced it is satisfactory.

Any ideas? BananaBork (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this captures it well.Dubs boy (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Simple solution is to remove both the United Kingdom and "Republic of Ireland" from the 'Country' column - neither are "participating nations". Replace them with the participants - Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales. Group the corresponding second/third column entries so they cover more than one participating nation. Add a note in brackets if necessary for UTV coverage of Ireland games. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm apprehensive about doing that because I think broadcast region (i.e. UK and ROI) is more important. The rugby clubs are just reference - almost a side note - rather than the key. BananaBork (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Surely the most important thing about the Rugby World Cup is the participating teams?  ;-) In any case, here in Ireland, most people also have access to the ITV/UTV coverage, in addition to RTÉ. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Touche! BananaBork (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Its an easter egg pipelink, the best bet would be

Or drop the Northern bit in the UK list. Murry1975 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I considered this, but I think   United Kingdom (  England,   Ireland,   Scotland,   Wales) implies that Ireland as an entity is a constituency of the UK.BananaBork (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A move discussion has been opened at Talk:Economy of the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 11 October 2015. DrKiernan (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Rename Gun politics in Ireland to Gun legislation in Ireland

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I propose renaming the article Gun politics in Ireland to Gun legislation in Ireland since there is no substantive gun politics in Ireland and that is what the article is actually about. All of the sources are primary sources to Dáil questions in relation to gun legislation, also the courts and with one secondary source also on legislation. (posted here as per arbcom) Second Quantization (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This was already suggested on the talk page and has seen discussion and consensus there to move the page to Firearms Legislation in Ireland for the exact reasons above. And as mentioned earlier, this is such a specialised chunk of law and so badly written, that there are very very few secondary sources which are in any way accurate; half of them quote from this page, ironically. MarkDennehy (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The lack of secondary sources means we should cut back on the scope of the article. Wikipedia is not for original research. I posted here about the rename as arbcom requires it, Second Quantization (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Your prior comments on your talk page lead me to believe you are making edits to a longstanding page for ideological reasons, so I'm taking your suggestion about deleting large swathes of the page without discussion as vandalism. Please stop. And you didn't mention the arbcom until after the talk page reference was mentioned, it would have been helpful to (A) have mentioned it and (B) to have given a link to it since we don't know which one you're talking about. MarkDennehy (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article talk page is the correct place for discussion of this requested move. Second Quantization has inadvertently highlighted an ambiguity in the banner at the top of the page. "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles" means the Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) pages, i.e. the article on the island, the article on the state and the dab page that links to them. It does not mean any articles relating to Ireland. I can only guess that the banner was put there in case somebody tried to move it to "Gun politics/legislation in the Republic of Ireland", which might conceivably need to be discussed at IECOLL. As it is the discussion should continue where it is. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, unless someone has more input, then I think there is agreement on the name change. Second Quantization (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
As further input, this section has changed the proposal slightly, which was to move the page from Gun Politics in Ireland to Firearms Legislation in Ireland. Firearms legislation would be more accurate. MarkDennehy (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The original proposal, firearms legislation is fine with me, Second Quantization (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we have consensus so. It's not a terribly contentious move. MarkDennehy (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

History of British nationality law and citizens of the former Irish Free State

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article British Nationality Law and the Republic of Ireland was recently moved to History of British nationality law and citizens of the former Irish Free State. There was probably some point to this as the article covers the period while Ireland was a Dominion and people born during this period. It a difficult article to name but I think British Nationality Law and the Irish Free State might be best even thought the 1937 to 1949 period is included. Does anyone have any better ideas? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 10:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to no appetite for discussion of the title, so I have just reversed yesterday's move by the now indef-blocked editor. Scolaire (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of "Monarch" in Officeholder infobox for Northern Irish politicians

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an RfC underway at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC_on_inclusion_on_Monarch_in_Information_Boxes_on_NI_politicians which will effect the likes of the Martin McGuinness article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the Flag of Northern Ireland article say at the start there is currently no national flag for Northern Ireland

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland#RfC: Should the Flag of Northern Ireland article say at the start there is currently no national flag for Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_33&oldid=1147970129"