Talk:2010 in Irish television

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 in Irish television. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal[edit]

I'm proposing this article is split again into individual years articles because they was merged without prior discussion or consensus, and the merge has created an article that, at over 300K, would be considered beyond readable prose size. This is Paul (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone 60s to 2010s FIFO, will do LIFO (but) beginning 2000s. For now, I will leave the 2010s all-in-1 in a less than ideal state, at least until I've done what I owe on 2000s, 1990s, 1980s, ... As for the size, please consider that there is duplication yet to be deduped, for example shows that began in the 1960s and is listed time and again as still running. This is neither to agree nor disagree re splitting 2010s; the "Rome wasn't built in a day" idea can support either. Pi314m (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 300K, which I don't dispute: There seems to be some overhead: neither 2019, 2018 or 2017 were 10K bytes as standalone, so there is some technical information that this split discussion must include. Pi314m (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of this writing, 2000s is not perfect, but ...
- Observation(s): 2015 was 172K! 2012 was 52K!
  Why is 2012 larger than the total size os 2017, 2018 and 2019?
  Why is 2015 more than triple the size of 2012?
  Answer: items such as "Charlie, a drama about the private life of former Taoiseach Charles Haughey, debuts on RTÉ One. The first episode is watched by an audience of 724,000"
  If 300K is too much for a decade, then isn't 172K too much for a single year? Pi314m (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just a thought, but it's probably worth leaving the accountancy terms for their intended purpose rather than using them here, as it could create the impression that you're trying to be too clever by half, and are someone who's unwilling to engage in constructive discussion. I'd make the same point for your use of shorthand and unfinished sentences. While you may know what you mean, others may not. For example if you wish to make a "but" statement then do so rather than leaving an open ellipses. This is Paul (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Split. I think these annual articles should be split again; or, maybe more directly, the recent merges undone. The decade articles are cumbersome, and it seems far more convenient to move from one year to the next in different articles. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]