Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 6

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Latest comment: 15 years ago by HighKing in topic Position argument summaries
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland in articles

Latest comment: 15 years ago41 comments11 people in discussion

I have replied to a post by Blue-Haired Lawyer on the manual of style about use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland in articles. He/she made what I think were fairly common sense proposals and my reply was really just re-wording simpifing of them.

My rewriting of Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal is here:

In general the state should be referred to as Ireland. There are situations however when, for clarity and/or disambiguation, distinctions will need to be made a) between Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island and b) to avoid confusion with regard to Northern Ireland. In these situation the preferred means to do so is to call the island Ireland and the state the Republic of Ireland (this can be emphasised where necessary by use the phrase island of Ireland).
While the final decision to use one set of terms or the other should be determined by the unique contexts of each situation, the following rules of thumb will generally hold true:
  • In lists of sovereign states, when discussing economies, governments or other qualities of states, the state should be referred to as Ireland e.g. Economy of Europe, NATO
  • When describing the area served by an organisation that is primarily all-island, use the phrase island of Ireland in the first instance and either Ireland or island of Ireland thereafter e.g. Supermacs
  • Always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. the President of Ireland, never the President of the Republic of Ireland)
  • When writing about the state and Northern Ireland in the same context, use the Republic of Ireland (or the Republic thereafter) e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland".
  • For articles where historical correctness is important (e.g. The Emergency (Ireland)) the state should be called the Irish Free State for the period between 6 December 1922 to 29 December 1937. In the same kind of articles, for the period thereafter until the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act (18 April 1949), the state not be referred to as the Republic of Ireland (another means to distinguish Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island should be used as necessary).

Since there was no reply to Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, I've copied mine here to get some feedback. Obviously, more input than what is available here would be required to put these into the IMOS but since the contributors here represent a spectrum of opinion, I though it would be a good place get feedback. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think thats pretty fair in that ROI really does only need to be used when Northern Ireland is directly mentioned alongside it. There is one small thing I disagree on though. e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland". In my opinion it should be described in general as "the border between the United Kingdom and Ireland" as that conforms to a more international NPOV. Everything else is fine though.MITH 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably a bad example for Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with everything said above. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal too, but (to User:MITH) "Republic of Ireland" should also be used when the island is mentioned, not only when Northern Ireland is mentioned. ~Asarlaí 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well if both the island and the state are mentioned then two things can be done. If it's a political sentence then island of Ireland should be the disambiguator and correct name of the sovereign state be used. If it the context is geography then ROI can be used.MITH 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a good example of where ROI is needed. The opening sentence is ambiguous at present with the link to Republic of Ireland disguised by piping. Mooretwin (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. ~Asarlaí 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, the article is perfectly clear.MITH 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not "perfectly clear": it refers to Ireland, but links to Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"it refers to Ireland, but links to Republic of Ireland" Hmm. Strange that. Especially as somehow 95% of these links seem to do the exact same thing?MITH 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
What point are you trying to make? If the article in question said Republic of Ireland, the meaning would be clear. Currently the meaning is ambiguous, and the link to Republic of Ireland is unhelpfully disguised. Mooretwin (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The introduction mentions all three entities (ROI, NI, and the island), therefore Republic of Ireland should be used. Readers shouldn't keep having to click on links to find out what entity is being referred to. ~Asarlaí 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. I've made the edit. Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
That is an excellent rule of thumb: if the reader needs to click the link (or hover over it) to know which "Ireland" is being referred to then we need to use alternative wording. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the article on the state currently has a good wording to that effect. It reads something like, "Ireland is a state in northwest Europe. It covers five sixths of the island of Ireland." Reads very well, is succinct and clear. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a good proposal. I agree with it too. --HighKing (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Me too. I guess we are not going to discuss where those instances are piped to? Fmph (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Consideration should be given to republic of Ireland, that is republic all in lowercase font. I'm not happy with uppercase, as it adds confusion. Readers are pretty smart, and can work that out. ''Tfz'' (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be of the opinion that we should use Ireland where possible. In the event that we can't then there is little to be gained from using republic of Ireland over the well-established Republic of Ireland, except to avoid using a capital that we might not like. That seems to part a little from NPOV IMHO. Whatever our opinion about Republic of Ireland, it exists and it is used. Avoiding it like that seems a bit "sneaky". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing 'sneaky' about using republic of Ireland. What's sneaky about it? The name of the state is Ireland, and I took a compromise position on my input here. My first option is Ireland. ''Tfz'' (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Republic should always be capitalised when writing Republic of Ireland. That is the state's official description as declared in the Republic of Ireland Act. ~Asarlaí 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, your quite right, Republic of Ireland is the states official description, but not the name. Don't agree it should always be capatalised, as it would depend on context. In the meaning of the 1949 Act, I agree, it should be capatalised. Tfz 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Just as a comment from your friendly moderator, I believe that this sets a good standard for how to reference the island, ROI, and No. Ireland within the body of articles, and should be part of the final result from this project. We still need to come back and address the names of the various articles that conflict at "Ireland", and potential effects on other article names, but this helps towards the complete solution. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If we can now formalize the establishment of a consensus for this approach, it would be a huge step forward. Or am I missing something? If not, could we poll the participants? --HighKing (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have created a diff to show the difference between the current IMOS and the proposed change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The example that the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland" was weak and controversial. I propose it should be changed to something like an increased number of shoppers to Newry should be described as coming from the Republic of Ireland, not Ireland, when referring to the state. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Much of this confusion is just a myth, and the danger is more confusion. The border is generally known as the Irish border. Why choose neologisms, especially invented for WP. "Republic of Ireland" should be totally avoided for naming purposes. There is little excuse for not being able to rework wording to avoid that term. A much better option would be to rename the island to "island of Ireland", and work around that. I seriously think that Irish editors might be in danger of being overgenerous in what is conceded here to a 'particular' pov element, who resent the state using the name Ireland. Tfz 11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep that border bit is wrong. It was admitted that the example was a bad one. Another example should be given for the ROI/NI case as the border should actually be referred to as the United Kingdom - Ireland border.MITH 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the motives of many (if any) contributors here is any kind of resentment towards the name of the state.
BTW What neologisms have appeared during in this issue? What ones have been invented for Wikipedia? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's one Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border, Republic of Ireland being used for the name of Ireland is another. "I don't think that the motives of many (if any) contributors here is any kind of resentment towards the name of the state.", this has actually been 'said' by some of the editors involved in these discussions. Tfz 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither "Republic of Ireland" nor "United Kingdom" nor "border" are neologisms. Much less made up for Wikipedia. See here for examples.
What have contributors said? That they "resent" the state using the name "Ireland"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this what you are looking for. RoI for name of Ireland is neologism in my book, Roi refers to a description of Ireland as a 'republic', as opposed to a 'monarchy'. It's akin naming UK as Monarchy of United Kingdom, instead of United Kingdom. Tfz 12:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And Irish Border gets the hits. Tfz 13:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"I think this what you are looking for." It is identical to this - and in both case the match is for "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border".
There is only one return for Monarchy of United Kingdom". It is and index entry for "monarchy, of United Kingdom".
"Irish border" is the common name. I don't know why the article isn't located there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the article should be renamed "Irish border". There shouldn't be any confusion since it's the only (international) border in Ireland. ~Asarlaí 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
When referring to the population of "Ireland" but in meaning the republic, it is always 100% correct to say republic but never 100% correct to say that the republics population count is that of Ireland, in the choice between 100% or less accuracy 100% should always be taken, no? Saying that the state in the south will have the full title (Ireland) in all counts is not always right. If there were no acceptable term of distinction it would be a dilemma but there is... Republic of Ireland, official description of the state (Republic of Ireland Act 1948). People may be of the opinion that Ireland "should be used as much as possible" but such as the case that "population of Republic of Ireland is 3.5 million" and "population of Ireland is 5 million", one should do anything possible to clarify, yes? It is not so much the case to decide which is more important, politically correct or most often used. It is the case to decide when and how to make the distinction between these two different entities. Maintaining only one requires the disposal or obscurity of the other. When describing geographical location, the terms are ambiguous, either can be used. When describing population, infastructure and politics, Ireland can only be 100% correct in reference to the whole island. Use of the term Republic of Ireland can be correct 100% of the time. ~ R.T.G 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there agreement on the proposal to alter IMOS as mentioned above? If not, why not? If this is the thing stopping us from moving forward then we need to be clear whether there are any issues. As I read it, there aren't many, bar sorting out how it applies to one or two one off circumstances such as Cork below.MITH 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Under whose authority is consensus being sought? Have users been notified? When were we asked to agree or otherwise? Who is entitled to make this decision? What process is in place? Mooretwin (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(entering comment chronologically) I support rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's rewrite of Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, as stated at the beginning of the section.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Two further points are needed to say that
  • where titles of potentially-ambiguous articles such as "Flag of Ireland" used "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland", the lede needs to explain that the (in this case) flag is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, and not that of Ireland (the island).
  • where there is any risk of ambiguity, or of readers being misled, Republic of Ireland should be used, e.g. "RTE One is the oldest television station in Ireland" (which is quite untrue). Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Position argument summaries

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Participants:

Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because Ireland is the state's common name.
Counter argument: Not all articles on states are located at their common name (e.g. China)
Summary: While not all articles on states are located at their common name, almost all are. If not they are located at their official names. The article is unique in that the official and common names are the same and Wiki ignores both.
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because that is the state's official name.
Counter argument: (1) Most articles on states on Wikipedia do not appear at the official name of the state (e.g. France vs. French Republic); (2) The state's official name is ambiguous as it is also the name of Ireland, the island.
Summary: Most articles on states do not appear at the official name of that state instead they appear at their common names. Most states' names are not ambiguous.
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland (state) because the Irish Constitution refers to it as a State.
Counter argument: Some people think that a state is a subset of a country.
Summary: Using Ireland (state) could mislead readers as to the state of the state, but then Wiki isn't designed to cater for IQ's below 80 nor is it written to be accessible to the average three-year-old.
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland (country) because country is the common word for a sovereign state.
Counter argument: Ireland-the-island is also commonly called a country, there may be confusion between the two.
Summary: The entire island of Ireland and the state of Ireland can be considered countries by different interest groups, for example NI is called a "country" on Wiki though nobody in RL actually considers it to be one. Thus opposition to Ireland (country) is purely political POV.
Argument: The island article should be located at Ireland because the island named Ireland goes back much further than the state.
Counter argument: Using Ireland for the island prevents the current state from having an article under its Constitutionally-defined name and common name.
Summary: Both the island and the sovereign state have justifiable reasons to using the title "Ireland".
Argument: The current Ireland article should be located at Ireland because it is the primary topic. It is about more than just the island in a geographic sense.
Counter argument: Expanding a geographic article more to include non geographic information leans towards satisfying a certain POV as there is no identifiable obvious primary topic.
Summary: Some editors see the island as the primary topic, while others apply it to the sovereign state; but statistics clearly show that the average reader who searches for "Ireland" mean the State.
Argument: The article on the state must be moved from Republic of Ireland because Republic of Ireland is not the official name or most common name of the state of the state.
Counter argument: (1) Nearly all articles on states on Wikipedia are located at a title that is not the official name of the state (e.g. Germany not Federal Republic of Germany, Australia not Commonwealth of Australia). (2) There is no such obligation to move any one of these articles just because it is at the title that is not the name of the state. (3) The article cannot be moved to Ireland, because that is the name of the island, and Republic of Ireland is the official description and a commonly-used alternative name.
Summary: Republic of Ireland is a once off case. Articles are usually located at their common names and if not, they are located at their official names instead. In the Republic of Ireland's case neither is the case.
Argument: The title should be away from Republic of Ireland, because while use of the term Republic of Ireland could be declared as relatively common, its use is erroneous and is mostly done by the British media who have not changed their practices since the Belfast Agreement.this argument needs to be rephrased to avoid "negative arguments"
Counter argument: The phrase is used by books, academic journals and TV, radio and press in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide. There is nothing unusual about the of either Republic of Ireland or Ireland to refer to the state by the British press. Neither is it "erroneous" - it is not erroneous to call France France instead of the French Republic. The Belfast Agreement was a wide ranging agreement between two states: neither Wikipedia nor the press is bound by it.
Summary: While some believe its use to be erroneous, others believe that it is a perfectly correct term to use.
Argument: While the term Republic of Ireland was invented by the Irish Government, the Irish Taoiseach who passed it, John Costello made it clear it was not to be used as a name (here or here). Use of the term only spread as the British government refused to recognise the constitutional name of the country making ROI more common in the UK until 1998.
Counter argument: Republic of Ireland is commonly used by books, academic journals, TV, radio and print media in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide. It is not certain how Costello intend it to be used, but, whatever his intentions, it has widespread use as name for the state today.
Summary: While officially not meant to be a name, the description Republic of Ireland is sometimes used by people instead of its official and common name in circumstances where context is not clear.
Argument: The title Republic of Ireland may suggest to a reader that it is the name of the country, as every other country article either uses either an official name or the most common short form name; of which Republic of Ireland is neither.
Counter argument: Republic of Ireland is a common name for the country in question. Whether it is shorter or longer than the official name is of no consequence. The opening line of the lede and/or a hatnote can explain to the reader that the "official name" is Ireland. Doesn't really argue the point that ROI is not a name, nor the most common one even if it is deemed as one regardless of the facts.
Summary: If readers are likely to be misled by the "ambiguity" of such as Ireland (state) or Ireland (country) they will certainly be misled by the title Republic of Ireland into thinking that is the name of the state.
Argument: The title should remain at Republic of Ireland because it is commonly used by government, media and the populace whenever necessary to disambiguate between the state and the island, and the island article is already at Ireland.
Counter argument: Republic of Ireland is not the state's name nor is it the most common name, nor is it commonly used by government media and populace when disambiguation is not necessary. Also the location of the island article (currently at Ireland) is also subject to change under this process.
Summary: Republic of Ireland is usually only used when disambiguation is necessary and it isn't even the most common dab in use.
Argument: Wikipedia is supposed to educate and enlighten readers, and not confuse. A pretence by Wikipedia that 'Republic of Ireland' is the name of the state has no educational value whatsoever.
Counter argument: Some editors claim that readers might not be able to understand the complexity of one of two states on an island assuming the name of the entire island.
Summary: The notion that the name "Ireland" will confuse them but that "RoI", oddly, will not mislead them is disingenuous POV supporting.
Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because the state owns 85% of the island.
Counter argument: The state does not control or claim 100% of the land surface of the island. The remaining 15% is Northern Ireland.
Summary: Area covered by Northern Ireland or the republic has nothing to with any potential article names on Wikipedia.
Argument: There is clearly a need to disambiguate between the island and the state, and use of the real-world name of the island and the real-world official description of the state allows us to do so without use of artifical disambiguators such as [Article (state)], [Article (island)], [Article (country)], etc.
Counter argument: It is better to change to our own article names by consensus or an agreed process.
Summary: We can use either real-world article titles or come up with our own. In many cases Wiki uses names not in common use, thus Ireland (country) or some variant is both unambiguous and not misleading to the average reader.
Argument: The current name is unacceptable as it is a political imposition; it is neither the common name nor a legal or official name (unlike PR China).
Counter argument: The current name is acceptable as it is an official description introduced in legislation by the Irish government.
Summary: The current name is acceptable to some and unacceptable to others, for example, it is obviously acceptable to those imposing it for political reasons.
Argument: The name should remain at Republic of Ireland because that's the official name as denoted by current UK legislation
Counter argument: The rest of the world as well as every international organization from the UN to NATO to the EU recognizes the country by the name it choses for itself - Ireland.
Summary: So what. We should continue to use less confusing terminology. The notion that British legislation should take precedence over another state's official name, WP:COMMONNAME and the state's actual common name is bizarre.

Proposal to move forwards

Latest comment: 15 years ago78 comments22 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.
This proposal failed to achieve moderator support within the alloted timescale

The general opinion I'm getting from the comments above and on the arbitration amendment request that, although some users might like the Arbitration Committee to choose a particular choice of article title, most users believe that it is highly unlikely that the ArbCom will do this as doing so would be tantamount to settling a content dispute, something they have traditionally been loathe to become involved with.

It also seems that the moderators do not propose to force a particular means of settling this dispute on us. Originally I thought that this was a failing by the moderators, but after consideration I no longer think that. I expect that the moderators feel that by not endorsing one scheme over another they remain perceived as less biased. On reflection, I think this is beneficial.

Therefore we are left having to find a way of solving this ourselves. What I propose here is, I hope, the start of that process. It is not a specific proposal on how the articles should be named, nor is it even a specific proposal on how to decide that; instead it is an outline of how the whole process should work, and a mechanism by which we chose the way forward. It also seeks to establish ground rules and the start of a time line. What I am suggesting below may sound unnecessarily bureaucratic, however I don't believe it actually is. Partly the verbiage is because I have tried to spell out in detail how this should operate in an effort to avoid subsequent wikilawyering.

Ground rules (proposal)

Accepting this proposal

  1. Users should indicate below whether they support or oppose this proposal.
    1. IP addresses may not participate in this poll.
    2. Users may change their vote at any point up to the close of the poll.
  2. This poll closes at 23:59 (UTC) on the evening of Sunday 14th June. After the poll has closed, this proposal is deemed to have succeeded if:
    1. more users vote to support than vote against it; and
    2. at least two moderators vote in favour of it, and none vote against it.
  3. Any discussion of this should be made in the relevant section.
    1. Comments interspersed with the votes may be deleted by any user.
    2. As a corollary, a vote to accept this proposal cannot be conditional on a particular amendment.
  4. In addition to voting, users may propose amendments to these basic ground rules, an example of which is given below.
    1. Amendments must be proposed no later than 23:59 (UTC) on the evening of Thursday 11th June and not altered after this date.
    2. Amendments are decided by vote and are subject to the same rules as the main vote, including the closing date.
    3. As an exception, there is no requirement for any moderators to endorse or not oppose any amendment for them to take effect.
  5. In the event of several seemingly-incompatible amendments being accepted, the moderators shall, at their sole discretion, resolve the incompatibility; they may do this in any manner, including (but not limited to):
    1. by deeming each of the incompatible amendments to have failed;
    2. by only accepting the amendment with the most endorsements;
    3. by synthesising a combined amendment combining the key properties of all the seemingly-incompatible amendments.
  6. The moderators' decision (whether by unanimity, majority, or unopposed unilateral action) can only be overruled by the moderators themselves, or by the Arbitration Committee.
  7. If this proposal has been endorsed, any successful amendments shall be applied to these ground rules and the result published here.

Selecting an on-going process

  1. Any user may propose a process by which we decide how to select the names of the articles.
    1. A user may not propose more than one process.
    2. All processes must be proposed by 23:59 (UTC) on Wednesday 17 June, and not modified after this date.
    3. Proposals may be made before the adoption of these ground rules (on 14 June).
  2. A user may abandon a proposed process in which case it shall be removed from the poll unless another proposer can be found.
  3. The rules above regarding comments and protracted discussion apply here too.
  4. A process is only deemed admissible if, in sole opinion of the moderators:
    1. it is not unduly biased towards any particular outcome (with that the status quo may be prefered in the event of a tie break);
    2. it must clearly set out how the whole remainder of the process will work, including setting out a time scale for the process; and
    3. it should yield a result no later than 1 Dec 2009, preferably earlier;
  5. Processes may choose to address a wider range of issues than simply the names of the two Ireland articles.
    1. However it should be noted that the Irish Collaboration Wikiproject only has a ArbCom mandate to make a binding decision on the names of those two articles.
  6. The process to be adopted will be determined by single transferable vote, with each user ranking the possible proposals in order.
    1. Users may choose to only rank their top few proposals, and not need to rank every proposal; there is no way of choosing a 'worst' choice without ranking all other proposals.
    2. IP addresses may not participate in this poll.
    3. Users may change their vote at any point up to the close of the poll.
  7. The moderators' decision (whether by unanimity, majority, or unopposed unilateral action) can only be overruled by the moderators themselves, or by the Arbitration Committee.

—ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support / Oppose

Poll closes at 23:59 (UTC) on Fri 12 Jun. Comments made in this section may be deleted by any user

  1. Support —ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support -Fmph (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support -GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support -BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support --HighKing (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. 'Support --Snowded TALK 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support - Daicaregos (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support - BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support - -- Evertype·✆ 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of ground rules

Any thoughts? —ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were !voting on whether we should accept the "ground rules" or not, and not subject to them already? Anyway, here are the reasons I gave on why I opposed the IP proposal above: "(As a former long-term IP and writer of WP:HUMAN) If this is to be a vote then IP votes should not be counted in the result, however they should be able to !vote and contribute to discussion at the same level as everyone else." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would it take until December to have an outcome! This process has already been going on for months. Any way, nothing new is proposed above. The statement process has already taken place. The arguments have been put. What was needed was a decision. December 2009! Is this process a ruse!!! I think so. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We're getting some leadership at long last, if it takes to December then thats how long it takes. --Snowded TALK 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Why wait until December? Well we're not necessarily. I hope it will be resolved well before that. 1 Dec 2009 is really more of a backstop than an actual deadline: a proposal that is likely to have everything fully resolved by August would be accepted under these ground rules, whereas a proposal that faffed around until sometime next year would be disqualified. The last thing I want is for editors in favour of the status quo to force a proposal through that will, literally, run for ever (e.g. a proposal that says let's wait until we have 100% agreement). But equally, I'd rather take a while to do things properly and not rule out wider consultation simply on grounds of time. December is a compromise between the two extremes. —ras52 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the "amendment" simply an example, rather than a specific proposal? Who is the proposer and why is everyone supporting or opposing it? Rockpocket 07:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was intended as an example, and as such I had deliberately chosen something that I thought there was broad consensus against. However I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to express support or opposition to it. At least that way we've thought about it before any future issues involving IPs come to a head. –ras52 (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As a supporter of the status quo, can I say 1) I resent the implication that supporters of the status quo would try and keep this going on indefinitely - I've sure I've argued previously that we need a final decision to stop the pro change people from continually bringing up move polls every couple of months! 2) 1st December is too far away. We've been at this particular process since last year. 31st July would be more preferable, 31st August probably more realistic. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I apologise if I in any way implied that any specific pro-status quo user might choose to manipulate the process in this way. Perhaps there are users who would do that, and perhaps not; I'm certainly not suggesting that you or any other specific user would. The point of the deadline is to reassure users opposed to the status quo that the procedure cannot be railroaded in this manner.
On you second point, yes I agree that 1 Dec is too far away. I'm intending shortly to propose the process suggested above by BrownHairedGirl. Her process involves four stages: statement consolidation on problem 1, a vote on problem 1, statement consolidation on problem 2.1 or 2.2 (whichever is relevant following the previous step, and a vote on problem 2.1/2.2. My initial thoughts are that the statement consolidation steps should take a fortnight each, and the votes a week each. This would have the whole matter tied up by 3rd August.
However, others may have different opinions on how this should be resolved, and I wouldn't want to prevent someone from proposing a longer, slower process. That said, I shan't be voting for a process that drags out until 1 Dec unless there are very clear benefits to spending that long over it. 1 Dec is the point where we say: that's unquestionably too long—you're not even allowed to propose that.
But if you still feel I've got the back-stop date wrong, feel free to propose an amendment to change it. That's what's the amendment mechanism is for.
—ras52 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. If we could finally resolve this by 3rd August, that'd be great. I'm wondering, though, if you're aware of this proposal to amend the prior Arbcom ruling, and this poll which was recently moved to a subpage of this project? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
And of my objections to the completeness of that poll (see its Talk page)? -- Evertype·✆ 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Amendments (proposal)

Example amendment: Anonymous users

Although given as an example, if a proposer can be found, users may vote for/against this as with any other amendment..

Replace the rules barring anonymous users with: IP addresses may participate unless an administrator deems them to be a sock puppet of another account that has already voted.

  1. Oppose —ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support -Fmph (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --FF3000 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose --Snowded TALK 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Daicaregos (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - BritishWatcher (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - -- Evertype·✆ 06:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. Oppose --FF3000 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (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.

The poll itself (proposal)

First, I do able setting up some ground rules makes sense, and thus applaud the above effort.

As for the poll itself, reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Ireland article names community poll (this suggestion version), I don't think this will solve all the issues, or at least in the best manner.

I suggest that the poll we need will be a three question poll - all other issues should fall out of that: (DO NOT VOTE YET I'm only seeking input)

Question 1: Which of the following options should be used to name the island of Ireland, the nation-state of Ireland, and the disabmiguation part for "Ireland"?
a) Ireland for the island, Ireland (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, and the answer to Question 2 for the nation-state.
b) Ireland (island) for the island, Ireland for the disambiguation page, and the answer to Question 2 for the nation-state.
c) None of the above
Question 2: Which of the following should be used to name the nation-state of Ireland, presuming that Ireland is used either for the island or the disambiguation page and thus unavailable as an option?
a) Ireland (country)
b) Ireland (state)
c) Republic of Ireland
d) Ireland (sovereign nation)
e) (other possible choices?)
f) None of the above
Question 3: In articles relating to the nation-state of Ireland in which other uses of Ireland (such as the island, Northern Ireland, or the like) may be used or confused with the meaning of the world "Ireland", what term should be used to describe that nation-state? (This would apply to both article titles such as "Economy of (name)" and within the body of such articles.
a) country of Ireland
b) state of Ireland
c) Republic of Ireland
d) (other possible options?)
e) None of the above

These three questions, as best as I can tell from reading, are the core dispute, and smaller issues (such as the most recent discussion of when it's necessary to spell out the name of the nation-state of Ireland (per Q3) in articles) will fall out from that. This also reflects the fact that there is minimal to no consensus to have Ireland be the nation-state.

Please note if you have any other valid choices for Q2 or Q3, now's the time to voice them. This will be a straight-up poll; there will be discussion on a talk page but no need to discuss votes here.

If, for some reason, "None of the above" receives majority votes, then we'll need to come back here, but I think this poll (with announcements of it on WP:VPP, WP:CENT and elsewhere) will resolve 95% of the issues, the rest of sweeping the last bit of dust under the rug. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the poll itself

Can I just clarify, are you proposing this as one possible way forward per the Selecting an on-going process section (above)? Or are you using your position as a moderator to say that this is how it will be done? I've no problem with either, but it would be useful to clarify things. If you're doing the latter, then we can abandon what I started above as it no longer have a role. —ras52 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I am asking, as a moderator, does this poll make sense as part of the on-going process. I am not saying this is the poll. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally I would add one more option to Question 1:
(c) Ireland for the nation-state, Ireland (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, and another option (Island of Ireland or Ireland (island)) for the island.
(d) None of the above
Fmph (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Understandably, that's the logical third choice, but in reviewing all pass input to this project, it's the one with the snowball's chance of passing (this is a moderator opinion to simplify matters). But this is why I've left a None of the Above option - if for some reason everyone involved here has misread the discussion and people really want this option, then ok, we can go back and discuss this. If others think the nation-state option as Ireland should be included before the poll, then it's possible. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to use STV, then we shouldn't be presuming we know which options have a snowball's chance. IMHO, that will be most people 2nd choice, and will therefore end up as as the preferred option. Lets give people the choice, otherwise there's no point. We might as well ask the mods to make a decision. Fmph (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point, that should then be an option, but I would have trouble justifying "Island of Ireland" as a renaming option for the island since I don't see any support for this; if we did include that, we'd basically need two more questions in the same manner as Q2 and Q3 for the nation-state. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Island of Ireland is used quite a lot, relatively speaking. Fmph (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I definitely wouldn't go for 'Ireland (country)' for the state's name as there are at least 700,000 people in Northern Ireland who claim that their country is Ireland, the whole island. That is why they are called Irish nationalists. I think, if anything, 'Ireland (country)' should be one of the options under Ireland, the island. Odd how it has not appeared given that even all the Protestant churches are based on an all-Ireland structure. 'Ireland (state)' is my preferred option for the state, and 'Ireland (country)' or 'Ireland (island)' for the whole country. Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) @Masem: I probably didn't express my question very well. What I'm trying to establish is, are you suggesting this poll as one of the options in the Selecting an on-going process section above, or do you not wish to carry out the process I mentioned above? Clearly if one of the moderators doesn't wish the process I was proposing above to make place then it is not viable. That would strike me as a bit sad as it is the only suggestion that I've noticed that has received (so far) unanimous support. Nevertheless, as one of the moderators how you continue this is your call, but it would be nice to know. —ras52 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Consider it as a user-proposed option under #1 of the ground rules. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Question 3 should definitely be included, but I think it should be more detailed. Participants should be offered the same options, but the vote should be on rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal. ~Asarlaí 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This would be part of the cleanup after counting the results that I offer. The core of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal above is that there are set names for the nation-state, island, and other factors, and once those are set, it describes the appropriate choices when to use them in articles. The latter aspects are important to recognized but less critical to the issue of the naming scheme here. If there is dispute that rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's suggested scheme is inappropriate, then we can work some more, but for this core poll, which, as noted, is 95% of the issue, let's keep it focused on the basic goals of the collaboration to get that resolved. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
1 December is a total joke. No decent reasons given why it would take until 1 December to decide the titles of 3 articles! Perhaps you should see my posting from months ago calling for an April or May deadline etc....1 December! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
ps...who is the joker proposing "Ireland (soverign nation)" or looking for "other possible choices". Adding in options like that is simply pretending matters are more complicated then the are. The real choice is very simple:
  1. Dab/IRL(island)/IRL (state) v
  1. status quo.
Why the desire to throw out the months of "process" and pretend we are starting from scratch. The arguments have been well had and thrashed out. Lets get to a poll. Have the propsers even read the project page with its statements. Lets have a conclusion at the end of the month. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Superfopp that Q 3 needs to be thought about more. For example I'm not sure why "Economy of Ireland" could be considered ambiguous as geographical islands don't have economies (At the moment it's just a redirect). For actual ambiguous titles I thought that applying the state article title was the obvious solution. eg. History of Ireland (state) or whatever it turns out to be. Rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal also needs to be brought in somewhere.MITH 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider Republic of Ireland used as the nation-state of Ireland as out of contention considering the overwhelming evidence which prevents its use. I would suggest that our policies of WP:V and in particular WP:NPOV would also prevent us using this option. I hope that helps move the discussion along. --Domer48'fenian' 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please can we keep focused on how we are going to decide this rather than reiterating the arguments for and against specific choices? If the arguments are so clear-cut against a specific choice then let's assume good faith and assume that people won't vote for it. —ras52 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Re.: "Please can we keep focused on how we are going to decide this rather than reiterating the arguments for and against specific choices?" - It will be decided by way of a poll - The arguments have already been had out. Agreed. Lets get on with a poll. Regards. Its:
  1. Dab/IRL(island)/IRL (state) v
  1. status quo.
Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The community needs a free and full choice of options under STV. That way we will get a true picture of which is the most acceptable option. Fmph (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that if STV is to be used, all reasonable options are to be considered. This will minimize future ambiguity on the results of the poll. (And yes, we're not talking about what options are best supported, this is just to outline what the poll should look like). --MASEM (t) 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ras52 you say that " if [I] want to put additional requirements on proposals, propose an amendment to ground rules to require them" I placed my suggestions under the title "Proposed amendments" could you explain were I should propose if not under "Proposed amendments." Masem I'll accept all "reasonable options" as long as they are not in conflict with Wiki Policies. That is, they are fact based supported by our policies of verifiability using reliable sources and subject to neutral point of view. This will remove future ambiguity and command the support of the Community and no group of editors. This will in my opinion Fmph give a true picture of which is the most acceptable option. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Example amendment: Anonymous users" section was intended as an example of how to submit an amendment. If you do something similar and append it to the "Proposed amendments" section (i.e. immediately below the example), you won't go far wrong. Make sure you make it clear which rules you are amending, or if inserting additional rules, where they belong. We can then vote on it in the same way as the example one. Also, if you have several orthogonal changes to propose, if they can logically be separated into separate amendments, that might be useful, especially if some proposals are more likely to be accepted than others. —ras52 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ras52. Can I just clarify, is it the opinion of all, that a polling is the only solution being considered as part of the Selecting an on-going process. Is there any alternative to polling and what are they? --Domer48'fenian' 07:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer48, So far as I'm concerned you can propose any process you like so long as it isn't overtly biased and will yield a result in the alloted time frame. I'm not quite sure I can see how a process without polling will work, but perhaps that's just lack of imagination on my part. But if you have any ideas of how a process without (or with less) polling would work, please go ahead and propose it. Irrespective of whether it is process finally chosen, it will be interesting to see how such a process might work. —ras52 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I stongly oppose this type of poll as a means of resolving the problem, as it is still dependent on dividing up the issues and voting separately on them. As I have stated many times previously, the only way to achieve a fair and stickable compromise is to agree EVERYTHING as a COMPREHENSIVE package. The solution - it seems clear to me - lies in a compromise: change the title of the ROI article in return for an agreement that ROI can be used within article texts when disambiguation is appropriate. If there is to be any poll, therefore, it should be on a comprehensive package as was proposed on the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force. By dividing up the issues, we invite the majority (even if it is only a narrow 51% majority) to "win" on every issue, leaving a disgruntled minority; whereas a compromise means 100% win something but 100% also concede something. Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Mooretwin's POV on this. There's no point on having a "comprehensive" package just to make sure some editors aren't unhappy. This process is about deciding what is the most NPOV and best solution. What makes editors happy or unhappy is irrelevant it's all about deciding what each individual aspect is best for the reader.MITH 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, why is a poll being proposed at all? Mooretwin (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Different editors think different solutions are best for the readers. Thats what this all comes down to.MITH 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. And there is no consensus. Hence the problem. Consensus will not be achieved by a poll, which basically comes down to one "side" winning by force of numbers. If we compromise, however, we can achieve a consensus whereby we all gain something but also concede something. Mooretwin (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
At the end of this, this is a compromise. When all the issues and their resolve are put together and laid out, I very much doubt that any editor without an active interest in the area will find the results to be 100% in their favor, but instead will find a number of results that he or she is satisfied with, and a number that they are ok with and a few that they disagree with but understand the consensus process. That's the whole point of consensus is to find a solution that the bulk of involved editors can agree they can work with even if it is not their preferred choice. There's a reason that the call to use STV here makes sense, because we can at least consider editors' second and third options should they choose to provide that. If we were to try to define the "comprehensive" plan, there would exactly one possible option for each involved editor, and we'd never get anything done that way. This type of poll (the one I proposed) is the shortest route to establishing the baseline issues and closing this issue done for the long term. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a compromise if you separate out the issues to be decided upon separately, because all you achieve is a "winners takes all" scenario, and it does not encourage compromise. A "winner takes all" is not, by definition, consensus. If such a poll occurs, for example, I will vote for the same outcome in all three polls. In a package solution I would be required to compromise. Again, I ask: what is wrong with IDTF proposal which gained more support than any previous suggestion? Mooretwin (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mooretwin on this, there needs to be a reasonable compromise which will lead to both sides concerns being addressed. Certain options are only acceptable to some people if things in another of the questions are accepted. Perhaps it would be better to combine the 3 questions into one just with a far larger number of options which people could rank. So for example, people could vote for...
1) Change title from Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) using a pipelink of Ireland in most articles and text except for when there is a clear case of ambiguity because of Northern Ireland or the Island of Ireland, in which case... Republic of Ireland and "Island of Ireland" is used.
2) Keep title at Republic of Ireland using a pipelink of Ireland in most articles and text except for when there is a clear case of ambiguity because of Northern Ireland or the Island of Ireland, in which case... Republic of Ireland and "Island of Ireland" is used.
3) Change title from Republic of Ireland to Ireland and ONLY use Ireland in articles and text when talking about the sovereign state. Move the article on the island to Island of Ireland and always use the full title in articles text to avoid confusion with the state.
Ofcourse if we did something like that there would probably be more than a dozen options to choose from but atleast it deals with the whole problem, not splitting them into questions when certain things like the title and how to talk about it within articles is linked. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, IMO you have hit the nail on the head above, "establishing the baseline issues and closing this issue [down] for the long term." The base line issues have not been clearly defined. Any proposal must begin by clearly defining the problem to be resolved, and then providing a rational for the proposal which attempts to address the issue. I don’t think there is much support for a poll, and it appears that it is seen as a last option. Likewise, consensus on what the problem is has not been established. Some attempt at defining the problem was attempted here at the “Index of statements”. The statements can be divided into two clear groups, those statements which addressed themselves to the possible solution without defining the problem and those which addressed themselves to the actual problem, but not the solution. Would it be possible for the moderators to present what they define the problem to be, or ask the editors who put forward a solution/problem to attempt the opposite. --Domer48'fenian' 13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is really only one problem. Ireland is ambiguous, but i know thats something you do not accept. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on the contributor.--Domer48'fenian' 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm i think you will find i did comment on content, i answered your question. You asked the mods to define the problem, i simply answered the question in its simplest form.. Ireland is ambiguous which is why all of these problems arise. My comment about you not accepting it wasnt meant in a nasty way, just recognition that you have disagreed with this point in the past. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is no more or no less ambiguous than the use of IRA and PIRA in Articles and we reached a solution. So your assumption is wrong. Likewise NI is no more or no less ambiguous than IRL. As ras52 has said “Processes may choose to address a wider range of issues than simply the names of the two Ireland articles.” I’m trying to formulate a process that a) clearly defines the problem, and b) provide a solution that attracts the support of the community and no one group of editors. Consensus seems unlikely, and polling does not command much support. The solution is based on what’s good for Wikipedia, not to prevent disruption. Now you suggest that Ireland is ambiguous, and that is the only problem? Would you like then to be first to set out to clearly define the problem, using diff’s to illustrate the point. I’m sure every editor involved would benefit and would provide the moderators the opportunity of entering in on the ground floor so to speak, instead of having to pull together a number of strings in a process they inherited. --Domer48'fenian' 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you proved my point about you not accepting that Ireland is ambiguous, I have told you the problem very clearly. Ireland is ambiguous That is why there is a dispute about where the articles belong and how to describe the different things in the text of articles across wikipedia. Until you are prepared to accept this i dont see how you are going to be happy with anything that takes place here, because it goes against your core belief. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

BACK TO COMMENTING ON MASEM'S POLL

Masem, I agree with what you have here. I commend you for doing a very good job with difficult material, but like Fmph, I belleve that Q1 should contain "(c) Ireland for the nation-state, Ireland (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, and another option (Island of Ireland or Ireland (island)) for the island." I agree with him that the Single Transferrable Vote will solve any dificulty that might arise, and consider that all three options be available in the spirit of fairness. Clearly the vote will winnow out that option if it is not preferred. -- Evertype·✆ 06:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Under Q3 you might add the Irish state and the Irish Republic which are terms that have some currency. -- Evertype·✆ 06:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Masem, imo Question 1 needs this option added:

  • d) Ireland: an article explaining the general topic of Ireland, introducing and explaining the current ambiguity and modern day divergence between the island and the present state in prose format, and detailing at top-level in summary style, all conceivable Ireland/Irish topics, such as History, Geography, Politics, Culture etc etc etc, with sensible formatting to fork to both all Ireland sub topics, and other specialist articles (Northern Ireland being the most obvious). This is similar but intentionally not being proposed as identical to, the treatment of the ambiguity of the word China. Ireland (state): in detail coverage of the modern state only, with the bare minimum background/history bloat needed to understand the present state, and a logical top level home port for truly ROI only topic forks such as education/post formation history. Ireland (island): in detail coverage of the geography of the Ireland, and in detail coverage of any and all feasible Ireland (island) topics, such as telecoms cooperation, trade and transport, all Ireland sports, sinking island conspiracy theories etc etc etc, that otherwise in too much detail would unbalance the main Ireland article. This does give rise to three levels of coverage for some topics like Transport, but invariably, for most, the bottom level is already split between ROI/NI anyway, so it's no big deal.

This is an option that gets significant support when more thoughtfull people come to the issue, and are allowed to see the wood from the trees, the wood being the options most sensible and plausible to outside observers, the trees being the interminably persistant but ultimately circular reasoning of some of the regulars, who of course can only see one end all option, their 'piss everyone off' solution as they often call it, which bizarrely defines the word "Ireland" as having two totally separate meanings, much like Georgia. If any neutral editor were writing Ireland from scratch, they would never come to that solution - it is the devil child of years of pov/tendentious disruption, and is the sad end product of argument fatigue, the lowest intellectual common denominator.

This option would hopefully provide the true dam breaking 'compromise solution' under the single transferable vote system to break the inevitable no consensus result between a status quo/simplistic 2 option dab page poll. The best minor advantage from this option is that nobody will ever be able to edit war over whether just Ireland is a sensible incoming link from other articles: if editors at the incoming article themselves can't decide using the context a more sensible target for an incoming link, it can be just left at Ireland - the reader is not disadvantaged by being presented with a meaningless 2 way dab page, they can *gasp* find out for themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen that option considered before (or if it was, it got drowned out), but seems like a potential sensible solution. We'd still need Ireland (disambiguation) as part of that. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Is a good option which shouldnt be left out yes. Very good point about editors on other articles not having to argue about which Ireland a link should go to in certain cases where it could be about either or both the island and the state BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_6&oldid=1142660956"