Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 8

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Evertype in topic WP:POLLING vs WP:CONSENSUS
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Proposed new article for Republic of Ireland

This is a proposed article for the Republic of Ireland with a disambiguation hatnote on the top for Republic of Ireland Act 1948 . Wikipedia is directed at the readers, and this article which is completely referenced has not been challenged by anyone on either WP:V, or WP:NPOV. It directly relates to the subject of the Article title. That we are again moving forward is to be welcomed. --Domer48'fenian' 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

When I said an "Emerging consensus" I did not say there was one. I based in on the comments of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, MITH, GoodDay, Deacon of Pndapetzim and MickMacNee's suggestion in addition to BigDunc, Tfz and CarolDonegal. There are Editors here who are normally polls apart so was I not correct in saying "Emerging consensus"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs)
I think it's coment would be better integrated into Names of the Irish state. (Also, I hope you don't mind me sectioning off this proposal from the one above.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid we are talking about the RoI, why would we section off comments on the RoI? --Domer48'fenian' 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite remarkable that there hasn't (yet) been a rejection of this beyond the ROI redirect issue. In reality, this is not a sticking point for ultimate goal, which is to find a home for the articles on the island and the state that is agreeable. I would urge editors not to get too hung up on this one issue. If we can get anything near consensus for the other 4 statements we should be very, very close to a resolution. Rockpocket 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If fact, I would even go as far to propose that statement (4) be scratched from the proposal and left for discussion later since it has essentially no impact of where the article for the state would go. Domer was very keen to discuss this on the article page and - the reason why we couldn't - was because it would require moving the article that was already there. Once that is resolved by moving the current contents, the contents of ROI can be discussed without restriction. Rockpocket 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with the content at Republic of Ireland? That article is alright, it's just the name that needs to be changed. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Which is my I sectioned Domer48's proposal off. We can take the two parts separately. If there is consensus to move Republic of Ireland -> Ireland (state) then, after that move, we can discuss whether Republic of Ireland should become something else (be that a redirect to Republic of Ireland Act or a new article about the term). But for now, if there is consensus on everything else, let's solve one bit of our problem at least and have it redirect to Ireland (state) - at least for the period immediately after the move. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lets park it for now! --Domer48'fenian' 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - I see no emerging consensus of the kind described. I see a consensus about holding a Single Transferrable Vote on Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I support that, completely and unreservedly. I do not favour any process which tries to winnow without STV. And I oppose any attempt to take parts separately. 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see no emerging consensus. And I'm wondering why Domer's proposed article is ok now, but when I put it in mainspace a week or so ok it first got prod'ed then deleted as a POV fork. What's changed in the meantime...? BastunnutsaB 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

  • GoodDay, Bastun, Evertype, could you please state your detailed objections to the "emerging consensus" in less than 100 words each? Thank you. Tfz 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The current article named Republic of Ireland, is about the independant country called Ireland (the one that broke away from the UK). All I've ever requested (concerning that article) is to change the title to Ireland (state), I've never requested change or gutting out the content. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, I can't see any fundamental divergence in what you write, to what many of the other editors who want to move forward, have been writing. Tfz 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Where, here? OK, but, I'm not limiting myself to 100 words. I did see an "emerging consensus" toward a particular type of inclusive poll, with Single Transferable Voting. I supported this, and have also assented to Mooretwin's and Scoláire's comments that we do need to acknowledge that some sort of use of the description Republic of Ireland ought to be used and usable within articles for disambiguation where warranted. I saw a lot of consensus about STV polling. Then I come back and see the rug pulled out from under that, with this new "emerging consensus" where inclusive options (which allow everyone to express their genuine preferences even though it is clear some of those will not end up as chosen options) are being abandoned. This jumps the gun. I object to it. I think Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll should be run, and if some RoI needs to be added to satisfy Mooretwin and Scoláire (who have a point) then that should be considered. (163 words) -- Evertype·✆ 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Now there is more stuff below. Tfz, was there any point in my writing my 163 words? -- Evertype·✆ 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes there is a point, and very enlightening. There seems to be a need by some editors to use the string 'Republic of Ireland' as a "proper name", instead of its intended use by the Irish government, who created the term to be used as a "proper adjective". I cannot see any problem with 'republic of Ireland' for disambiguation in certain limited circumstances as you propose, but to allow "Republic of Ireland" onto any sentence where there "might" be disambiguation "needs" in the "subjective opinion" of an editor, is a licence for mammoth and unimaginable disruption at Wikipedia. All one has to do is visit Scouting Ireland in order to get a tiny glimpse of that scenario. Tfz 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with that Tfz, --Domer48'fenian' 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not find the word "republic" or "Republic" on Scouting Ireland. I agree that there are some POVs which would wish to "disambiguate" aggressively and I agree that this would be inappropriate. Why? Because there would ALSO have to be an equally aggressive disambiguation to "island of Ireland" if that practice were to be consistent. (Having said that, isn't the legal "description" a proper name? The Act does not say "republic of Ireland", but rather "Republic of Ireland". Let's not be disingenuous.) But what remedy would you propose to the problem of over-use of "Republic of Ireland" as a disambiguator? -- Evertype·✆ 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Again i strongly oppose this idea of creating a new article at Republic of Ireland, i will support the country article being moved to something like Ireland (state) but it will only be on the condition that Republic of Ireland remains a redirect. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
'Republic of Ireland' is a proper adjective, that's why it's capatalised. And as for the Scouting Ireland, did you read the 'talk page stream'. The whole episode was a complete waste of editors' energies, and that scenario can be multiplied by 1,000 by "nailing everything down". Wikipedia hasn't worked in the past by nailing everything down, and I can't see anything special in this case to warrant such an extreme stricture. Also, I can't see that Wikipedia will be nailed down by any such agreement or package, as every case is quite unique, and there can be no embargo on initiating any changes into the future. It's a non-runner. Tfz 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What will we do next? (polling)

Latest comment: 15 years ago43 comments17 people in discussion

OK, I think this is probably going over old ground, but, since Tzf has closed his proposal above, let's summarise what came out of that discussion with a poll. I think we were close to something in that so let's just take a head count. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid we are moving away from polling and moving towards a solution based on consensus. What we need to do now IMO is have a straw poll to gauge the current consensus. Editors opposed should be asked to outline their objections? --Domer48'fenian' 09:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the point of this poll (or "straw poll" if you prefer). It looked like we were close to/had consensus above but that it got lost in the details of discussion. A head count will show if there was a consensus or not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Not actually closed, but a step forward on the path to resolving the issue/s. The poll below is a bit elaborate, and a simple straw poll as suggested by Domer would be easier to handle at this stage. Tfz 13:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree --Snowded TALK 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I agree below seems a bit elaborate for a straw poll. BigDuncTalk 13:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
How could it be simplified? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the poll be handles on one central location rather than on either Ireland or Republic of Ireland, seeing as any proposed moves (or retention of status quo) would effect at least two pages? To put this to bed once and for all, if and when a poll happens, it should also be advertised as widely as possible - including one of those banners you see occasionally when something major is on such as Arbcom elections or the poll on licenising. BastunnutsaB 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Where? Here? I don't think participation here is wide enough (even despite being advertised). At least Talk:Ireland is a well visited page. (Talk:Republic of Ireland has as much going for it in that respect but I thought Talk:Ireland would be more "central".) Maybe a subpage of the ArbCom page that led us here?
Agree totally course it should be advertised widely. A big "ArbCom" banners would help. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put together a sample Straw poll which I hope has simplified it? I agree that all decisions should be advertised for imput from the community. --Domer48'fenian' 08:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Question A: What will we do next about the page moves?

Poll on Question A

Comments on Question A

I think its fairest to have a vote with all the options available. ~Asarlaí 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Asarlaí, and I think that Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll is quite comprehensive. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a tad confused (my brain is over-loaded). Which of these options would best match my previous comments? GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BugDunc, I don't get what you mean by "No redirect of ROI to Ireland" (probably obvious, but I don't get it). Can you explain? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep it is the obvious ROI should go to the act with a dab to the country. contary to the fine bit of OR by Rock above we don't know what editors are looking for when they type into their search bar so lets educate thats what an encyclopedia does. BigDuncTalk
Ah ... yes ... obvious! Why though did you !vote against Option A1 here but say you would !vote for it below? The option in the poll by Domer48 would also redirect ROI to Ireland (state), no? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that is what I have done. BigDuncTalk 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Then the distinction between "The China solution" (with discussion of what to do with ROI left until after the move) and A1 above needs to be explained to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Question B: What will we do next about the use of terms in article?

  • Option B1: Place a proposal like "Blue-Haired Lawyer's MOS change" at WP:IMOS, advertised it in the usual places and poll on it
  • Option B2: Something other than Option B1 (please leave a comment when !voting)

Poll on Question B

Comments on Question B

I'm a tad confused (having a brain fart). Which of these options match my previous comments? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what your previous comments were. Please study the options; they are pretty clear. -- Evertype·✆ 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
which ever method is used to decide this matter, it should be done before any of the articles are moved around following the results of question one. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLLING vs WP:CONSENSUS

Latest comment: 15 years ago36 comments11 people in discussion

We’ve had three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. It has been broken down by Tfz above into five points, reduced to four leaving discussion on the RoI till we have gained consensus on the other four first. Those who have expressed a positive view for this solution include:

  1. We could list the editors who have commented in a positive and supportive way to the suggestion, or
  2. Use the support or oppose heading and ask them to sign.
  3. We could then do the same with the editors who oppose this solution.

It would look something like this: This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look based on Editors responces.

Support:


Oppose:


I’m not sure whether they support or oppose this solution?

  • Bastun
  • R.T.G
  • Redking7
  • Rockpocket
  • Evertype


--Domer48'fenian' 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Evertype

I don't know what you are talking about. I would like to see progress made on Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I really would. I don't believe we will ever get "consensus" by argument. This has gone on too long. I believe that a vote where people can rank what they CAN support and what they CANNOT support in Single Transferable Voting will lead to a workable solution. -- Evertype·✆ 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is Evertype, consensus is starting to form, and not by argument but by agreement. Now I not two editors did not read my post before they said I was voting on their behalf, maybe if they did they could remove their notes to indicate that they have now read it and were mistaking? I thought this comment on the end This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look" coupled with my comments above would have been enough. --Domer48'fenian' 22:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Erm, no, it is not. It is a vaguely put hint about something you said somewhere about China (indeed your only link is to China, fat lot of help that is to us). There are no specifics. There is no precision. There is therefore no remedy. I don't agree to vague and imprecise "agreements". I want this nailed down, in terms of sets of options that people can rank freely. It's unlikely that anything on the two ends of the spectrum will win out, but there will be genuine remedy to this nightmare. Your sample straw poll was offensive in that you were deciding what people's opinions were, and innocent as you might have thought it, we have seen some people take offence, so don't defend yourself—take the criticism on board. For my part I remain convinced that Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's process is the only one that has a snowball's chance of getting us from here to there. I have seen nothing else which has its merits. -- Evertype·✆ 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Evertype if you were reading the discussions you would have seen it discussed here and that it was Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's suggestion, it's a pity you found the link to the China article a "fat lot of help" a number of us did find it useful. Again if you had been following the discussion you would have noticed that it was Vinny who suggested a Straw Poll which I supported along with editors Tfz, Snowed [12] and BigDunc [13]. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid asked "How could it be simplified?" so I showed them. So you see it's not "my" Straw Poll, and you may wish to reflect that in you post above. That you found a straw poll offensive, is strange, but far from deciding what editors opinions were, you'll notice I added diff's which expressed their views on the suggestion and not mine. Editors I don't think took offence, they just did not read what I had said. Now please don't feel the need to defend yourself, just correct your criticism of me will be fine. Thanks, and I hope that helps,--Domer48'fenian' 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This all needs to be agreed at once not dealing with one point and then coming back to do the others at a later time, i agree we need a clear set of proposals that everyone is committed to. I only intend to support the renaming of the country article IF Republic of Ireland remains a redirect. Now i dont know what method or process is simple to ensure but some form of vote on all the issues seems more reliable than a written consensus on certain points. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You say "I only intend to support the renaming of the country article IF Republic of Ireland remains a redirect." Can you please be exactly precise as to what you mean? (1) Renaming of the country article to (options here) and (2) redirect to (option here). Ta. -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Renaming the article on the country to Ireland (state) i will support only aslong as Republic of Ireland is a redirect to that article. This idea by some to create a new article at republic of ireland talking about an Act i cannot accept. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
For what it is worth I agree with you. Your view is common sense, and more neutral than the "avoid RoI at all costs" view. -- Evertype·✆ 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of polling vs consensus

We have two completely different proposals operating at the minute. One based on polling and the other based on consensus. It’s a very clear choice IMHO as to which one I’d prefer.--Domer48'fenian' 20:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're lucky, folks? The consensus & polling will come out 'the same'. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

From where I'm standing, the consensus seems to be a poll where someone else places your vote. Fmph (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to explain what you mean? --Domer48'fenian' 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think they are talking about GoodDay with his what will I vote comment above. BigDuncTalk 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see two polls. Both polling on the same thing. Domer48, have you contacted the editors you added to Support/Oppose in "your" poll? There is a natural concern when someone speaks on behalf of someone else that you may not always get it right. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid did you even read what I wrote above? "This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look." We could list the editors who have commented in a positive and supportive way to the suggestion, or
Use the support or oppose heading and ask them to sign. We could then do the same with the editors who oppose this solution. Now do you want to remove your comment "Edit: Domer48, please do not !vote on my behalf --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá)" to indicate that you have read it? --Domer48'fenian' 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
You wrote "Editors can add/remove/or move their names accordingly". Please do not !vote on my behalf in future. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
During a Straw poll editors can "add/remove/or move their names accordingly" Now I've made this nice and bold This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look since you still must not have read it. --Domer48'fenian' 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I find Option A1, A2 & B1 confusing. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you GoodDay I really can't understand what editors have against the China solution it is simple and straight forward. BigDuncTalk 22:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Its not clear to me what the "China" solution is at this time, but I don't understand why editors (only Big Dunc, currently) are opposed to the STV option (A2) when it would allow such a proposal to be included. As it stands, it appears you are saying you will not tolerate ROI redirecting to Ireland under any circumstances. That generally isn't how compromise or consensus works. Put your preferred option on the table and, if it is a good solution it will fair well in a STV. Rockpocket 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The advantage of making RoI a redirect to the Ireland state article is that RoI will have moved a 'step away', and not be the state article any longer. The next step would be to discuss the contents of RoI article, and secure agreement to remove the redirect. In total, a 'two step' move, that editors would be able to handle more easily, and most here don't deny a 'consensus for change' exists. Tfz 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of this - we should know what a straw poll looks like, surely, without anyone deciding what names to add where. Including the name of a girl who doesn't seem to know the difference between northern Ireland and Northern Ireland after living in Donegal for 4 years. My preference, even though its probably unlikely my preferred option would "win", is a poll conducted under STV. BastunnutsaB 22:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you guys think the "China" solution is, please see to it that that option is available in Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll and that should cover it as an option. -- Evertype·✆ 23:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I'm opposed to polling for obvious reasons Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The China solution has been outlined above, re-read the discussion and let us know what you think? Am I correct in thinking you are in favour of WP:POLLING over WP:CONSENSUS? BigDunc has outlined his objections on a RoI redirect, however you ignore comments by Asarlaí, [14], BritishWatcher, [15], De Unionist, [16], Mooretwin, [17], generally isn't how compromise or consensus works.

Bastun saying that "including the name of a girl who doesn't seem to know the difference between northern Ireland and Northern Ireland after living in Donegal for 4 years" is a bit unfair. Carol seems to know exactly what she is saying, and the confusion with Northern Ireland. How do you feel about an editor, who unlike Carol has been blocked twice in the past number of days and not a wet day in the place? Now I consider progress is being made, Rock, Evertype and Bastun like Snowded, would you like to add your names to the Straw poll sample because I’m not sure weather you support or oppose this solution? Thanks --Domer48'fenian' 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Im opposed to the "Britannica" solution where there is asingle article which covers both the island and country. Im not opposed to a setup like China where we have a general article or one on the island which provides a link to the country article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not adding my name to your "straw poll" because it is ill-defined. You have said NOTHING here about what you are polling. You talk about the "China solution" as though it were well defined, yet all you link to is the article on China. This is nonsense. Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's solution is precise, well-defined, and reasonable. Do you oppose it? Why? I already asked for you to cast whatever it is you think "the China solution" is in the terms of Rannṗáirtí's poll, and you just ignored what I said, asking me instead to sign your poll. Why should I? It's a pig in a poke. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down! The discussion on this solution was outlined above, why not read it? This solution is exactly the same as Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's in the same discussion. It's a simple question, so why not just say No. --Domer48'fenian' 09:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm, thanks. You STILL haven't described this "China" solution in any detail. Saying "outlined above" does not tell me what you are talking about. -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you were following the discussion you would have seen it discussed here, although if you simply went to the China article which has been linked throughout the discussion you might have an idea. However if you were following the discussion you would have noticed that it was Vinny who suggested a Straw Poll which I supported along with editors Tfz, Snowed [18] and BigDunc [19]. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid asked "How could it be simplified?" so I showed them. So you see it's not "my" Straw Poll, and you may wish to reflect that in you post above. Thanks, and I hope that helps, --Domer48'fenian' 13:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, just so im clear about the china proposal. It is different to the Britannica one isnt it? Because its the Britannica one i find totally unacceptable, but quite like the China one. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's different to the Britannica one, the China solution will include sub-articles on each of the different sections. --Domer48'fenian' 14:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

@Domer: "How do you feel about an editor, who unlike Carol has been blocked twice in the past number of days and not a wet day in the place?" Sorry, no idea who you mean or what the circumstances are, and thus I've no idea of the relevance to this discussion. But as I'm sure you'd agree "incorrect" blocks have been handed out, so shouldn't preclude someone from participating here if they're not being disruptive. If we were to disallow anyone who'd ever had a block from participating - well, it'd be a lot quieter in here, I think... BastunnutsaB 08:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, "If you were following the discussion" (which you have slapped me with twice) is not very polite. I asked you what you meant by "the China proposal", and you STILL haven't been able to simply tell me. Your first link is about Britannia, not about China. If "the China proposal" were meaningful you would be able to summarize it here, rather than try to dazzle us with wikilinks. I asked for a summary. In fact I asked for a concise, and precise, summary in the style of Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll, so it could be evaluated as an option. I ask you for it again now. Can you supply it? -- Evertype·✆ 09:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is an official term in Eire

Latest comment: 15 years ago26 comments8 people in discussion

I don't blame her, have you ever lived in Donegal? --De Unionist (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


Seems The Republic of Ireland is an official term in Eire

A certain 'young' lady from the Irish Republic previously stated that they don't use the term Republic of Ireland down there! May I point out that they do:-

http://www.education.ie/robots/view.jsp?pcategory=10861&language=EN&ecategory=40244&link=link001&doc=14852

http://www.education.ie/robots/view.jsp?pcategory=17216&language=EN&ecategory=32518&link=link001&doc=29745

http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?p=154&n=254

http://www.nursingboard.ie/en/ab-board_functions.aspx

http://www.limerick.ie/Press/FirstInternationalFootballMatchforLimerick/

http://www.limerick.ie/VisitingLimerick/

http://www.marine.ie/home/aboutus/newsroom/news/fishhealthdirectiveinformationforshellfishproducers.htm

http://www.revenue.ie/revsearch/search.jsp


...and I particularly point out the following:- "Individual applicants must have been born in, or be resident in, the Republic of Ireland. ‘Residency’ is based upon the following definition used by the Revenue Commissioners (in which Ireland means the Republic of Ireland)" http://www.artscouncil.ie/en/fundInfo/funding_faqs.aspx.

Seems her country-folk differ in their outlook! --De Unionist (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Seems her country-folk differ in their outlook!" Agree with everything else but, just on that point, I believe the contributor was English - and, while she may have been a little geographically challenged, the general spirit of her contribution (that no-one really makes that big of a difference between "Irelands" unless they have to e.g. like to say what jurisdiction a person is resident in for tax purposes) is accurate of reality. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
They may not do so in the south but they do in the north. Out of curiosity, how do natives from say Dublin, Cork or Athlone refer to Northern Ireland in general conversation and formally? --De Unionist (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that it is verified that Ireland means the 'The Republic of Ireland' when properly referring to the 26 counties of the country, can we now seek a solution that gives such its proper place within the Ireland article. --De Unionist (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"They may not do so in the south but they do in the north." It was (from what he/she wrote) an English woman that made the comments you are referring to.
"Out of curiosity, how do natives from say Dublin, Cork or Athlone refer to Northern Ireland in general conversation and formally?" The North (capitalise or decapitalise at your preference) or Northern Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Just the reverse up here in Northern Ireland, we refer to all things in the 26 counties as 'The South'. --De Unionist (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"Just the reverse up here..." Quel surprise. You're at the other end of an island!joking! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent Are you aware that "in Eire" seems to be deliberately offensive? In the Irish language, the correct grammar is "in Éireann"; in English, this translates as "in Ireland". Thank you for your consideration.

There is certainly alot of justification for having Republic of Ireland contain the information about the country. Be that directly or as a redirect to where ever the article gets moved for. I see very little justification for having Republic of Ireland cover the Act or something along those lines. If i was to be looking for the country, i would look up Republic of Ireland because thats how most people know it here. (rightly or wrongly). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's be perfectly honest about this. Naming the state by RoI is peculiar to sections in Britain. So that is a POV, no doubt. We have been over this so often, let's not start all this again. I think we need the moderator to tell us not to be ploughing the same ground again and again and again. Tfz 13:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Tfz, we can address this issue later as suggested by Rock. --Domer48'fenian' 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise let's move on and deal with that another time. BigDuncTalk 14:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry i find that unacceptable, we cant move on leaving a very important point about what happens with Republic of Ireland as has been mentioned before, if we are to get agreement we need the full package at once, we cant just put off debating about certain matters to another time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Was this discussion not supposed to be all about Ireland island, Ireland country. So why is it about the RoI article now? What has RoI got to do with this discussion? --Domer48'fenian' 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Alot because thats where the article on the country currently is. Ofcourse if the country article gets moved what happens to ROI must be decided as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The RoI article would then be freed up for proper editing. Naturally it would define the origin of the term RoI, and why the RoI 1948 Act was brought into law, and other instances of the term etc. Tfz 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The Republic of Ireland is not the same as the Republic of Ireland Act. If this is all going to be put to the vote then the future of the ROI must be included and i think quite a few people support the ROI being a redirect, short term or long term. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
And ROI is not the same as Ireland. BigDuncTalk 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
ROI is name used for the country Ireland. I know this is very hard for some people to accept but its true. Looking up ROI is far more likely to be looking for the country than some information on the Republic of Ireland Act. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
How do you know that? It is OR you can not say what readers are looking for. BigDuncTalk 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone typing in "Republic of Ireland" is looking for information on the state. Otherwise they'd type in "Republic of Ireland Act" or "Republic of Ireland Act 1948". In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is a pretty safe assumption that they're not looking for information on legislation from the middle of the last century. BastunnutsaB 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Then lets inform them ROI is not the name of the country and should not be used as if it were no matter what british pov pushers want. BigDuncTalk 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nearly everyone looking for the state will type in Ireland, and those are the true facts. Everyone knows the state as Ireland because that's what it is. Just look up Google, the vast majority of the hits link to the state. Tfz 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
lmao Tfz, look up Republic of Ireland. Do the vast majority of results talk about the state or the 1948 Act? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It is being stated as fact by a number of editors that when people type ROI they are looking for Ireland this is not proven and is OR, plain and simple. BigDuncTalk 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's highly likely, most people who type in Ireland, are seeking the 'country' (of course that's impossible to proove). GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A humble suggestion from your moderator

Latest comment: 15 years ago30 comments18 people in discussion

We're going back in circles again; no one is going to easily change anyone's mind about what is the "right" way to name these articles, and while I can guess what a consensus point will be, it is impossible to read for sure based on the amount of noise being generated.

I am going to suggest the following:

  • Stage 1: Prepare the Single transferable vote ballot that will address two questions; one is basically as already spelled out on User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox for what the island and 26-county state are to be named, and the second one to ask how should the 26-county state be called when it appears in article text but may possibly be confused with other meanings of the word "Ireland" - (basically with choices of "state of Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland"). I feel any other questions on this ballot at this time will be too difficult to address or are better suited to discussion after these two core issues are resolved. Unless there are any major objections to this step, I would like to see this completed by June 21, 2009 (We've been going over this enough, thus this is to try to get a time scale here).
  • Stage 2: STV Polling. STV polling on the above ballot will be open for 3 weeks (this allows it to go before and after US's Independence Day holiday). It will be announced at WP:VPP, WP:CENT, any ireland-related project and wherever else it should be listed. This would close this poll on July 12, 2009.
  • Stage 3: Vote evaluation. I believe that this can be done by the moderators but if someone has a problem, we can seek an involved admin to help. STV makes it rather simple but let's say this takes a week, so by July 19, 2009, we'll have the results.
  • Stage 4: Additional resolutions. The naming issue is 95% of the problems here. Other issues, like exactly when the 26-county state has to be resolved in article text, where ROI should redirect to (assuming it is not used by the winning vote result), what boundaries on content there should be if one of the "Brittanica" solutions are picked, etc. - these all depend on how the naming vote ends up, and doesn't make sense to talk about those under at this time. I think most of these can be done in a month without resorting to polling, so let's call this that by the end of August 2009 this project would have done its job of figuring out naming issues wrt to the island and country as much as we can expect to complete.

I think we need focus and while I don't want to force this project to go this way, I will point out that I've been watching everyone seem to approach to agree on a means forward and then suddenly break down. I don't know if everyone is amenable to a moderator-supported path forward, but here's my plan, so I'd like to know if there are any serious objections to the plan itself. (If you have an issue with the ballot or the like, that's a different issue). --MASEM (t) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. BastunnutsaB 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support —ras52 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Whilst i support the vast majority of the above suggestion, i can not support the idea of putting off certain matters until after the main issues have been decided. The issue of what happens to the Republic of Ireland article must be written into the voting options. I can only support renaming the article on the country IF it means ROI will become a redirect.. this really is a core issue and should be included in the main vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If the vote points to a choice where the state is not at ROI, then yes, it will need to be a redirect. Of which article, that point will need determined but I do not be it is a critical factor at this point to wait for a vote to progress. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Where ROI leads could be included in the main vote, this is a very important point which needs working out at the same time as there are several people above arguing for the creation of a new article on the term ROI or having it about the 1948 Act. If we put this off until after, then it could take a long time to get consensus on this matter. We should be able to choose like a sub option. 1) - Move country to Ireland state, 1a)- Republic of Ireland redirects to Ireland state, 1b) Republic of Ireland as a new article, 1c) Republic of Ireland rediects to Republic of Ireland Act. The Future of the ROI article is very important. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose opposeThe issue of redirects is very minor, not at all central as BW maintains. Once we know where the articles are, we'll know what to point to them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
First, the only strongly supported alternative name for the 26-county state seems to be "Ireland (state)" if ROI is not used, and to simplify matters, I personally believe that this option (as opposed to any other "Ireland (something)" name) is supported by other examples across WP, so any other possible names outside of "Ireland (state)" and "ROI" are unlikely to have sufficient support to be possible options. Now, if the country goes to "Ireland (state)", then we have to consider the fate of "ROI" which is fine in the 4th stage. But inserting what its fate may be in the current poll is adding just too much complexity to the issue. One thing I will add: I will urge no name changes on articles until Stage 4 is complete - in other words, if the vote is for "Ireland (state)", no one should move the current "Republic of Ireland" there until all aspects are closed and everything done in one mass block at least in terms of article names. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - Changing my vote to support your proposal as you will encourage no action to be taken until all parts have been agreed. I support the renaming to Ireland (state) but i think people are underestimating how important it is that if that change happens ROI remains a redirect and not this 3rd article idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support --Snowded TALK 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Masem all you keep doing is proposing a VOTE. WP:POLLING is not a solution. You have done nothing to encourage or promote a solution based on WP:CONSENSUS. --Domer48'fenian' 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If I had confidence from what I've read and seen happen here that a consensus could be formed, I would be channeling the discussion that way. However, it is very clear that there are at least two camps, if not several other isolated editors, that will make coming to consensus nearly impossible and an extremely drawn out process. I don't think anyone wants to be here until December still arguing the core points. A vote in this case, as long as it is consensus-agreed to be done, is an acceptable replacement for actually trying to build consensus where it will likely never happen. I will admit that the vote could end in a stalemate or "none of the above" type option meaning that more consensus is needed, but I don't believe that will happen. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a sample Straw Poll above, showing editors moving away from long held positions. Now a couple of editors have not expressed an opinion yet. Why not ask their opinions on the proposed solution? It would help clarify things a bit and sure that would not hurt the process. --Domer48'fenian' 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If editors felt that a drive towards consensus is working, they are free to reject my suggestion of going forward with a vote. I'm not forcing anyone to accept this solution but I do not a growing resentment for how long this process is taking and would like to see it resolved sooner than later, and thus presented a solution that should be completed in 2.5 months. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - As I'm basically willing to accept nearly any solution. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Broadly Support - Please also see suggestions by Fmph on the details of running an STV ballot on the question of the article titles, and suggestions I made to him in response. I don't quite know how a ballot on the second the question of what to call the Irish state in articles will work - or even if one is really suitable - since the nature of the question will not likely bear a single defined answer in all circumstances (as compared to the question of whether to move a page and where, which will result in one single defined answer). None the less we are going in circles here ... and not matter what we 15 or so here decide, we cannot dectate the outcome for the broader community who must be consulted on the matter. Since we are now as close to agreement on something as we every have been, I at least for one, would be happy to go back to the ArbCom and the community and say, "Here's what we found, now let's vote and end this once and for all." (FYI the tally from the poll above is currently 10/13 to run a ballot on the question of the page moves, and 6/8 to run a poll on Blue-Haired Lawyer's MOS proposal.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - as per Rannpháirtí anaithnid's contribution above Fmph (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - a plan for the article titles poll has already been laid out here. Most of us seem to agree with it, so let's get going already. ~Asarlaí 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - if there is to be a vote, then there has to be a compromise constructed around all the main issues, and a single vote on that compromise. The compromise is fairly obvious (RoI article name change in return for acceptance of RoI as disambiguator), but guidelines on the latter part of it need to be detailed (we had a fair effort at this recently). Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
We could run the poll/ballot the other way around (to the way it is usually phrased at least) i.e. run a poll on the suggestion for in-article use that had pretty much consensus here then, presuming that that would pass with the community at large (I don't see why not), we could run ballot on the article moves afterwards. That way your would have an assurance that any change to the page locations would not affect use of ROI etc in articles. Would that satisfy your concerns? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It would satisfy my concerns - assuming I was content with the in-article guidelines - although it would provide no incentive for me to compromise on the article name, which is the whole point of my suggestion that everything be taken together. That is not to say that my inherent integrity would not lead me to compromise anyway, but the point is that such a process requires no compromise on the part of editors for they can vote twice for the same POV (for want of a better term). Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. I think there is a case though for this to be advertised to a wide audience on the watchlist banner, seeing as not letting unregistered users know about it is not going to be an issue. This is after all a binding solution per the arbcom, we cannot have people turning up saying they didn't know it was happening. We also need a serious discussion about what we can do to prevent the enormously attractive option of meat-puppetry (asking a bunch of people at a net forum to come and register an account and vote - not detectable as sock-puppetry, and not easy to prove without evidence). MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Anything to propel us from this Kafkaesque horror of a debate. I'm beginning to dream of the China and Brittanica solutions in my sleep despite still not having a f'ing clue what they are supposed to entail. I spent some time re-reading the above section to make sure it wasn't some elaborate parody. (Domer, do you realise you started a comment up there with Rockpocket, I'm opposed to polling for obvious reasons Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. .... and finished with .... Now I consider progress is being made, Rock, Evertype and Bastun like Snowded, would you like to add your names to the Straw poll sample) Poll the other one, it's got bells on! Rockpocket 03:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Rock, if you are not able to read the above discussion and the China article, and see what is being proposed explains alot. If you don't understand something you oppose it, or ask for clarity like Bastun did. That their was a number of editors who did understand it, lends hope to the process. In any proposed poll, as it stands, because of your lack of understand on the China solution, you'll be unable to support it, but will be able to oppose it by supporting other options. Which is really the same question I asked above. So while "still not having a f'ing clue what they are supposed to entail" you still would not offer an opinion either way. If your "beginning to dream of the China and Brittanica solutions in my sleep" you may need to take a break, you don't want to burn yourself out. --Domer48'fenian' 07:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Have spent the last 4 weeks compromising, and now we are to ask a crowd to compromise the compromise so as to water it down even more. A solution should be a distillation of the arguments on this page. Tfz 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Support per Rockpocket. If any compromise has arisen in the last 4 weeks it is for a ballot with Single Transferable Voting, as a credible method for determining what options can be supported by more people rather than less. STV also allows people to express their preference (even where we may surmise that those preferences may be too polar to lead to the solution). (As an aside, I am not sure why Masem is concerned about the US Independence Day Holiday, but I would like to ask that the poll close on 13 July rather than 12 July so that it can avoid association with the Orange Walk.) -- Evertype·✆ 09:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Per the comments above by Tfz who I 100% agree with here. BigDuncTalk 09:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Dunc ive seen one side prepared to compromise supporting the fact that the country article should be moved away from ROI to Ireland (state), i havnt seen the other side try to compromise by accepting that ROI should be a redirect to the country artice. that seems a reasonable compromise and yet some seem to think it should redirect to an Act or have a new article about the term instead. Hardly shows a will to compromise and unless that is accepted i dont see how this can be reached any other way than by vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've not followed the topic closely for many months, but my perception is that discussion has been going on for long enough and needs moving on towards a comprehensive solution. In a number of articles clarity and comprehensibility are beign sacrificed to ideology and people need to recognise that Wikipedia is here for people to build a better encyclopedia not for people to advance their own political viewpoint. Speedy progress towards a vote or other means of reaching a solution to this problem is needed and so I tend towards supporting this proposal even though I've not got a thorough enough grasp of the process to be sure that a bit more time won't help.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_8&oldid=1136050800"