Talk:Counties of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Style for counties created after 1997[edit]

Is it common usage or just OR to state: "In Ireland, the usage of the word county nearly always comes before rather than after the county name; thus "County Clare" in Ireland as opposed to "Clare County" in Michigan, US. The former "King's County" and "Queen's County" were exceptions; these are now County Offaly and County Laois, respectively. The abbreviation Co. is used, as in "Co. Clare". A further exception occurs in the case of those counties created after 1994 which drop the word county entirely; thus "Fingal" as opposed to "County Fingal". In informal use, the word county is often dropped except where necessary to distinguish between county and town or city; thus "Offaly" rather than "County Offaly", but "County Antrim" to distinguish it from Antrim town. The synonym shire is not used for Irish counties, although the Marquessate of Downshire was named in 1789 after County Down."? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you any reliable references to back up your claims about the new administrative counties? Snappy (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
What, in your opinion, is the proper style of the new counties? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That's my point, its not my opinion or your opinion, its what reliable sources say. Snappy (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
You must have had a reason for assuming that the style as contained in the above paragraph was not the proper style. What was the basis for that opinion and the reversion? The reversion must have been based on some prior knowledge. What was that knowledge? Clue us in. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Snappy hasn't actually reverted, just inserted a 'citations needed' box. But I absolutely agree that the new admin counties aren't prefaced with the word 'county', and Snappy is not actually contesting that. It would be tedious to reference it but it could be done, e.g. by linking to the new county council websites; I'd rather that Snappy backed down and removed the citations prompt, it is not a good use of time to hunt out sources for every single statement. Brocach (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
If you think it would be tedious, you don't have to do it. However, you can't simply remove the tag: either leave the tag or remove the contentious statement. Linking to county council websites would not suffice; it would be WP:PRIMARY. You would need to find a secondary source that actually describes the usage. The same of course holds for the outer claim that the usage is County X for traditional counties. Most cites for that would predate the 1994 counties. This problem would not exist if the article was split, since the usage para would be in the Traditional Counties article, not the Administrative Counties one. jnestorius(talk) 09:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
User:Brocach does not seem to know how wikipedia works, if an editor inserts info into an article, it must be backed up by reliable sources. It might seems obvious that the Sky is blue but if you want to put that into wikipedia you need refs, and if you look at the Sky article, you'll find not one but four. As User:Jnestorius states, you must reference it or remove the contentious statement. Snappy (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
No need for the patronising, Snappy, I know how Wikipedia works. I am merely saying that it is not sensible to demand a time-consuming search for citations for every single non-contentious statement. If anyone contends that the statement is incorrect, that's different. jnestorius, there is no prohibition on careful use of primary sources. Brocach (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you? Do you really? You put in statements but you not prepared to back them up when asked. Furthermore I am not demanding citations for every single non-contentious statement as you claim, I am asking for one contentious statement to be referenced. Snappy (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there was anything contentious there. No-one has contended that what was inserted is incorrect. You seem to be demanding sourcing for a non-contentious statement. Brocach (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't beat yourself up over it Brocach. It has nothing to do with correct styles and even less to do with WP:PRIMARY. It's all about who inserted the statement. Let's just say that we have previous. Shouldn't be like that I know, but that's Wiki for you. May this serve as a warning to any other editors that might have been sucked into playing Snappy's petty games. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Asking for citations is petty now, is it? At least you're not edit warring with Brocach anymore. Snappy (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Snappy, unless you can point to what is contentious in there - meaning, something that you have a reason to think is incorrect - I propose to delete the 'citations' box which interrupts the flow of the article. Brocach (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, its the opening para of the article, specifically the bit that asserts the new administrative counties don't use 'County'. Snappy (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Pretty sure they do, at least on roadsigns - definitely seen "Welcome to County Fingal" ones. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
On further checking, both "County Fingal" and "Fingal County" are in official use, but "Fingal" alone is used at least ten times more frequently. Have amended the passage accordingly and referenced both general web search results and the local authority website. That is surely enough effort to expend on this point... Brocach (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I was after. Thank you for clarifying the point regarding the usage of 'County' in relation to the post 1997 counties, and for providing a reference. Snappy (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me like pure original research:

thus for example internet search engines show many more uses (on Irish sites) of "Fingal" than of either "County Fingal" or "Fingal County". There appears to be no official guidance in the matter, as even the local authority uses all three forms.

jnestorius(talk) 12:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing search engine results is about as far as it is possible to get from "pure original research" - it is no more than the crudest quantitative analysis of earlier internet publications. A source is given for the assertion that Fingal council uses all three forms, and no source is required for the assertion that there "appears to be" no official guidance, given that, logically, such statements are only capable of being disproven. Brocach (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Web search results.
I can't tell the difference between "there appears to be no X" and "I couldn't find any X". If the "I" in question is an expert whom one might trust to be familiar with all relevant sources, that would be citable; but not if "I" is just a Wikipedian like me. jnestorius(talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
On the propriety of citing relative frequency of usage, I've responded as per link above.
On the point of "X appearing not to be the case", no huge amount of subject expertise is required, rather a determined effort to track down information showing whether or not "X is the case". I gave more time than it was probably worth to trying to find whether there was official guidance on using Fingal with or without "county"; there "appears to be" no such guidance but if anyone knows otherwise, please share. Brocach (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"…it is no more than the crudest quantitative analysis of earlier internet publications." Yes, original quantitative analysis.
"There appears to be no official guidance in the matter, as even the local authority uses all three forms." — Jnestorius' reference above would appear to give official guidance:
  • Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown (Dún Laoghaire-Ráth an Dúin)
  • Fingal (Fine Gall)
  • North Tipperary (Tiobraid árann Thuaidh)
  • South Dublin (Baile Átha Cliath Theas)
  • South Tipperary (Tiobraid Árann Theas)
I suggest we avoid use such as "FInal County" or "County Final". --RA (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged (above, end of single table section) is persuasive on this point: the Order gives grounds for dropping Contae for these five (as I am now doing in the table), but does not set out an official version of the English names. Brocach (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Seems to me that the new administrative areas don't prefix the word "County" as a deference to the traditional counties. I wonder was the name discussed at any council meetings of which the minutes would survive? --HighKing (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this anecdote about "County Fingal" which might provide a lead to follow up on. My impression is that "County Fingal" scans well enough to be potentially viable, where "County South Dublin" or "County North Tipperary" don't. Another reason why Brocach's earlier OR is unacceptable. jnestorius(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said before, looking at how often particular forms of county names appear in search engines is about as far from original research as it is possible to get: all that search engines do is trawl already-published material. A more authoritative piece of evidence than someone's "impression" of how a name scans... Brocach (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The furthest from OR you can get is citing peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals. Can you find any featured article which uses a Google-search in its references? Your previous Googles seem to have been entirely done on "Fingal", which is not representative of the other new administrative counties. I agree that my critiquing this is not a reliable source, but this is a talk page, not an article page. jnestorius(talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Do many people imagine that totting up search engine outputs counts as "original research"? I have hired a few researchers in my time and might need to tighten up my interview questions. And don't assume that I just looked up one admin county, in one search engine, because I just cited one example. Brocach (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure your hiring practices are sound, but they have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. "Original research" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia which may differ from its meaning in other contexts. Why do you think {{google}} has a warning "Do not use in articles"? jnestorius(talk) 07:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Utterly irrelevant - {{google}} is about creating Google search links, which I didn't do and which has nothing to do with citing frequency of usage of county names, which in turn does not meet WP definition of original research. Please stay on the topic and stop accusing me of violating the OR rule. Brocach (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Is internet search engines show many more uses (on Irish sites) of "Fingal" than of either "County Fingal" or "Fingal County" supposed to be (a) an assertion requiring proof or (b) the proof of the preceding assertion? If (a), you have not provided any proof, and how would you propose to prove it? If (b), it does not prove it, as the preceding thus, for example admits. jnestorius(talk) 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The list of counties and improving this article[edit]

Right as the above discussion has snow-balled with Brocach deciding to work with a 1-man consensus disregarding everyone else - i've decided to reopen it afresh where we can all try to work out what to do with the article and tables.

Several editors have mentioned why do we have the newer administrative counties of the Republic in this article and that this article should focus solely on the traditional 32.

So two questions:

  1. Should we focus this article specifically on the historical/traditional counties and let the newer administrative ones be dealt with where they already are?
  2. Should the table of counties be listed in a separate article to furhter help the readability of this page?

In regards to number 1, focusing solely on the historical and traditional counties would help remove the redundancy in this article in regards to administrstive counties which is already dealt with at Local government in the Republic of Ireland. That article also already has a table list: Local_government_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#County_and_city_councils. It would also help trim the article.

In regards to number 2, we already have List of Irish counties by area and List of Irish counties by population, so why not a List of Irish counties? Would seriously help trim this article. The design of the table could also be seriously altered to improve readability and the information it contains.

Whether the table is kept in this article or not, it does need reworked. For example do we need the coat of arms when List of Irish counties' coats of arms covers it? Do we need the Irish or Ulster-Scot names mentioned at all seeing as their articles deal with them.

Heres a few quick examples of what could be done to the table (assuming administrative counties are omitted from the article):

  1. User:Mabuska/Test_Articles/List_of_Irish_counties (split by provinces as in the coat of arms article but still not that nice)
  2. User:Mabuska/Test_Articles/List_of_Irish_counties_2 (nicer and includes land area)
  3. User:Mabuska/Test_Articles/List_of_Irish_counties_3 (my favourite so far)

Number 3 i believe works good, however i'm open for discussion on should we cut the administrative counties right out of the article and what should or shouldn't be in a table so fire away with any ideas on how to improve this article. Mabuska (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Your first question: no, this article, being entitled "Counties of Ireland", should cover all the current counties of Ireland, whether or not they are used for a particular purpose such as local government, and it should have cross-refs to other obsolete senses of "Counties of Ireland".
Your second question: so long as there is only one table on this page, it's perfectly readable.
Your third question: I can't understand why, if you want a more readable table, you are reinstating a column of questionable Ulstèr-Scotch names for a few counties.
Your fourth question: we don't really need coats of arms but in the current unified table it adds to the visual distinction between the trad 32 and the new counties. They also add a bit of colour and on the whole I'd keep them in, but as ever will bow to consensus.
Your fifth question: I would certainly keep the Irish names, given the status of the Irish language in both jurisdictions. But we certainly don't need a whole column for a few purported Ulster-Scots names, which in many cases are the English names or transliterations of a Ballymena accent. Neither do we need untruthful allegations about other editors ignoring everyone else: even if decorated with strike-throughs, that is still an unwarranted personal attack. Brocach (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Pots and kettles Brocach. But then again as i stated in my edit summary when i striked my comment and made it small - i'm going to assume good faith. Why? To help steer this discussion back on track. And on that i'll ignore your disparaging "Ballymena accent" remark. Mabuska (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
On the administrative inclusion - there is no reason for so much space to be dedicated to the modern administrative units of the Republic in this article. Other than the fact more than one editor has made mention of removing the modern administrative units out of this article - this article is titled "Counties of Ireland" as in the island not the state. This article deals with the historical and traditional counties of the island and what became of them within Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Whilst that leaves scope for what replaced them in the Republic, i.e. the modern administrative units - it doesn't mean we have to devote so much space to them - for example compare the size of Counties_of_Ireland#In_the_Republic_of_Ireland to Counties_of_Ireland#In_Northern_Ireland - we already have articles that focus specifically on them and a couple of paragraphs could do the job for this article. Likewise we don't need the administrative county council table either as it's already provided in here - and on that table - it looks far better in my opinion than the various versions this article has had.
On Ulster-Scots names i'd be happy to get rid of the column if we got rid of the Irish column - we don't need either of them in it regardless of what status they allegedly have throughout the entire of Ireland - and advocating one over the other no offence intended seems to me like political point-scoring. Each county article can deal with names - rather more useful information should be provided instead as in my example 3 above which Local_government_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#County_and_city_councils also implements - area size and population figures. Also note how it and the NI counties article don't bother with other language versions? Probably because as they aren't really needed.
Mabuska (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
We could also add a column to this table stating when each county was first created such as over at Counties_of_Northern_Ireland#The_counties. More applicable to this article than other names in other languages that never applied to these counties for most of their history. Mabuska (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Pressed for time so just dealing now with one issue - your suggestion Mabuska that the mostly-empty column headed Ulster Scots (and bizarrely including standard-English names, purporting to be Ulster Scots) should go, but if and only if the column giving the original, uncontested and authentic Irish placenames also goes.
It is entirely wrong to suggest that there is some sort of equivalence of status between the Irish names and the supposed Ulster Scots ones - objectively and in legal terms, the Irish language and Ulster Scots have completely different status in both jurisdictions, and I struggle to think of any reason other than a political one for insisting that it must be both or neither. In this context I have repeatedly drawn attention to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: the Council of Europe's official assessment of the UK's compliance with this instrument has insisted that the objective differences require different treatment.
My reason for wanting the Irish names to stay is not, as you imply, political point-scoring: it is because because (1) the information on Irish names is useful, (2) it is authoritative, (3) it is comprehensive; (4) information in the column headed Ulster Scots is partial (mostly missing), (5) it is contradictory in places, (6) in 11 cases it gives the standard English, (7) in all 11 cases this is the Anglicised version of the original Irish; (8) no-one but you has ever objected to dropping the Ulster Scots column; (9) no-one but you has suggested dropping the Irish column; (10) it is plain from your earlier comments that you were unaware of the relative status of the Irish language and Ulster Scots, having imagined that they had been given equal status. Enough reasons?
When I first removed the Ulster Scots column (on 4 May), as you may remember, that was a direct response to your own sensible observation that the table had too many columns. I don't understand your crusade to keep it that way. I really think you should give way on this. Brocach (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
To first question: no. All counties, past and present should appear, including obsolete ones like Cross Tipperary. To second question: one table is readable. To third question: the readability would be improved by excluding the a column of Ulstèr-Scotch names. The preceding paragraph can alert the reader to their presence in the articles on individual counties. Unless it could be authoritatively populated for a majority of column entries, it should not be retained. To fourth question: I like the colour of the coats of arms. To fifth question: I would keep the Irish names, given the status of the Irish language in both jurisdictions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Coming back to Mabuska's remark about "names in other languages that never applied to these counties for most of their history" - the English language has been spoken by minorities, and subsequently by large majorities, in every county listed here, so the English names - in the vast majority of cases, Anglicised Irish names - should remain; the Irish language has been spoken by large majorities, and subsequently by minorities, in every county listed here, and even in those counties where it was more or less extinguished for a time, the Irish county names remained in use by Irish speakers; Ulster dialects of the Scots language were formerly spoken by minorities in some Ulster counties, and some Scots words and phrases (but not county names offered here such as Owenslann or Airmagh) survive in the English spoken by very small minorities in some areas of some of those Ulster counties. Thus, the names of the counties in the English language and in the Irish language have always applied to every county since the concept of county arrived in Ireland. There are no names in other languages, or in Ulster Scots, that have any comparable status. Brocach (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Seeing no support here for inclusion of made-up or obsolete county names in "Ulster Scots", I have removed them to declutter the table. Brocach (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see why a case could be made for excluding Scots names for counties in the Republic, but an outright removal of the entire column – especially seeing as the language is legally on the same level as Irish Gaelic in NI – is silly. Whether or not Tyrone was called Owenslann by Scots speakers hundreds of years ago is irrelevant. JonC 21:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, I'd support the deletion of both tables detailing foreign names, if we're really worried about the width of the thing. JonC 21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Ulster Scots is not and never has been "legally on the same level" as the Irish language in any part of Ireland - please research the very different status accorded them by the UK government under the relevant international standards applying to what you refer to as "NI". I do not know what you mean by "foreign names" - the Irish language is native to Ireland, and some Scots words have been used in several counties for several centuries. Neither is, at this stage, foreign. My reason for decluttering the table by removing largely obsolete/unsourced/spurious/English names that appeared for only a small minority of counties in the "Ulster Scots" column is to address previous comments to the effect that the present table is overly complex - a comment which your last remark seems to support. Brocach (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Just because you keep saying they're "spurious" and "obsolete" doesn't make it so, and they're all referenced to reliable sources (the ones that aren't directly ref'd on this page are on the respective county pages). When I say "foreign names" I mean non-English names, as this is the English Wikipedia. As I said, I'd support the removal of both columns with non-English (better?) names, but not one over the other – remember the GFA and its "parity of esteem"? Both are recognised minority languages in Northern Ireland. JonC 23:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Ulster Scots does not have the same status in all of Ireland. I can't help but feel that perhaps this should be dealt with more fully at IMOS, and not edit warring on individual articles. There may be a case for places in Northern Ireland to show Ulster Scots wherever the Irish Language is being shown, and not in the rest of the island. --HighKing (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to lose the Scots names for the counties in the Republic if it's felt that strongly about, but not those in the North. It's entirely appropriate that Ulster-Scots names are shown alongside Irish Gaelic ones in matters pertaining tae tha "Säx Coonties". JonC 10:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's unreasonable is we were solely listing the counties of Northern Ireland. Don't think it works here. --HighKing (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The Ulster variant of Scots has nothing like the same status as the Irish language, in any part of Ireland. In terms of county names, the Irish versions given in the table have official status and are in daily use in various contexts; the names proposed as Ulster Scots (e.g. Owenslann for Tyrone, Armagh for Armagh, Antrim for Antrim) are mainly obsolete, made-up or English. This column, unpopulated for most of the countries, adds clutter and nothing of value to the page and should go. This, Jonchapple, is not "the English Wikipedia", it is an English-language version of Wikipedia with no particular need to bow to political sensitivities in any part of the island of Ireland; the sole purpose of this article is to give useful, reliable, verifiable encyclopaedic information on the topic of the counties of Ireland. Brocach (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ulster Scots[edit]

Sorry for being away so long, busy work life.

Brocach please abide by how Wikipedia works and stop making spurious claims. For example: Seeing no support here for inclusion of made-up or obsolete county names in "Ulster Scots", I have removed them to declutter the table - you are either blind or ignorant as i quite clearly objected to their removal. Secondly they aren't made up or obsolete - they are sourced to the North-South Minsterial Council which is far from obsolete. Decluttering the table? The coats of arms are a bigger source of clutter than anything else. Your arguments for their removal whilst retaining Irish are based on convolutions.

Also it really shows your demeanor that when you are "pressed" for time, rather than focus on the many other points on how to improve this article you instead focus on pushing your anti-Ulster-Scots POV. Since then you've just focused on that one issue - do you really care about improving this article or just want to push?

As i said before, i will support the removal of the names if the Irish is also removed. Some of your arguments for their inclusion is just as valid for the inclusion of the Ulster-Scot names.

Oh and by the way Brocach please abide by WP:BRD. The discussion isn't over so you shouldn't be pushing your POV on the article until it is over and a consensus arrived at. No consensus so far to remove something that's been in the article for a good while now - something a mediator at dispute resolution would also remark on.

At least Laurel actually provided responses to my questions above. Maybe you could focus on them also rather than POV push. Mabuska (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also what does jurisdictions really have to do with this Brocach? Is Wikipedia not above them? Is Wikipedia not meant to be a source of informative information not constrained by jurisdictions? If we followed that line of thought Brocach then surely you should be backing renaming this article to it's official name. I somehow feel that you won't so this ad hominem argument i'm presenting is quite valid IMO. Mabuska (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a source of information, but it isn't a source for every piece of information on a subject. We have to be careful to balance informative from trivial, and we have to draw a line somewhere. You're trying to equate the relevance and importance of the Irish Language with that of Ulster Scots. But it's clear that they're not equivalent - I believe we can all accept that, right? --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not in one state on the island, no – but in the North they are. Brocach, in what way do the Irish names add something to the page where the Scots ones don't? Is it because there's some missing? You still haven't given one reason as to why they should be removed other than your own personal prejudices. JonC 12:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It is utter nonsense to claim that the Irish language has the same status as the Ulster variant of Scots. The United Kingdom has entered a binding international treaty commitment giving Irish a very much higher status. Scots is merely recognised. If you are not familiar with the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages, please look it up before bringing absurd claims of equality to Wikipedia editing discussions. Brocach (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thinking about this a little more. I agree with the suggestion by JonC above to remove all names other than the English language names in the article. I don't believe including the names adds enough to the article and the local language names are still available in the individual county articles. --HighKing (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - Irish is the first official language in most of the counties, long-established Irish names exist for all, and in most cases the "English language names" are nothing more than transcriptions or bastardisations of the Irish names. The Irish-language names are still in daily use. Keeping them in the table serves a real purpose. This bears no comparison with the purported Ulster Scots terms offered for a small minority of counties, such as "Owenslann". Brocach (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that the Ulster-Scots ones aren't in daily use? It is more of an oral language than a written one so what proof do you have? None.
In regards to JonC and HK - I've already made it clear i will happily support the removal of both languages. I further would like to suggest what i did at the start of this discussion - the altering of the table to look more or less like this: User:Mabuska/Test_Articles/List_of_Irish_counties_3 - far less clutter, more readable, sortable, and far more informative - and yes we can add in the modern administrative counties to it seeing as their is no consensus for their removal. Mabuska (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
On principle, I'd support the inclusion of Ulster-Scots on "all-island" type articles like this in this way, so long as thee spelling, etc. can be supported. The Ulster-Scots Agency is an all-island body and the GFA provides that:

"All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."

The three "native" languages/dialects of Ireland are English, Irish and (Ulster) Scots. --RA (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tiring of Mabuska's insistence on retaining a near-empty column, and considering the above more reasonable intervention from RA, I will no longer object to the inclusion of properly sourced versions of Ulster Scotch names for Irish counties. Brocach (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that unsourced names that I removed have been reinstated. The text as JonChapple would have it implies that most if not all the names in the Ulster Scotch column are used by an intergovernmental body. Plainly they are not. JonChapple feels that adding a source for e.g. "Dinnygal" would add "clutter". I feel that the entire Ulster Scotch column is clutter, but if it must stay, the purported county names in it should be sourced so that users can judge how credible and/or current they are. All of the English and Irish names are certainly current, agreed, and in official use; that cannot be said of this additional column, and if it remains, in its barely-populated form, each name in it should cite at least one authoritative credible source. Brocach (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
One more time for effect: THEY ARE ALL SOURCED. I even left you a message on your talk, which, along with my edit summaries explaining this, you've chosen to ignore. Click on County Antrim and you'll see refs for every name. If you really want them doubly-sourced on this page too, copy the refs over, don't remove the names. Jee-zus. JonC 10:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
PS: Dinnygal is used by Tourism Ireland (or Reengin Airlann, if you'd prefer). JonC 10:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Jon i still think it's better to explicitly state the source for each name here regardless of whether they are on the individual county article especially as Brocach will use any excuse to remove them without even following WP:BURDEN to find a source himself before removal. And kudos to RA for pulling out that quote from the GFA in regards to this issue. Mabuska (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
And as Brocach keeps ignoring, the North-South Ministerial Council is an existing, current, group and can be judged to be a reliable source. Mabuska (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Blank footnote[edit]

No. 24 is an invalid link which leads back to this page. Either what it linked to moved or was mistyped. Perhaps someone can look into this 86.45.50.218 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless it has been changed since your post, No. 24 links to Derry/Londonderry name dispute. RashersTierney (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That old chestnut[edit]

Just to say, surely it is more appropriate to list the current counties of Ireland first, then it's history.

I've been meaning to bring this picture of a sign located on the Rock Rd to your attention. Let's not forget what a county actually is.

Add caption here

As for the 6 counties that became Nothern Ireland, I never forgot about those. It really came down to establishing when the names of counties such as Laois and Offaly got their names. I still can't prove when that happened. One thing for sure, as recent as 1898 they were called Kings and Queens county. They had existed as those names for a very long time, i.e. 1556. So just what are we calling 'Traditional Counties'? The current list of 'Traditional Counties' only means those that would appear to have existed from 1922 to 1972. Remember that the counties in Northern Ireland were abolished in 1972.

So, what's a county? What is this article trying to say? If it's about a county and it's history, then it is surely taking about government. We then have confusing, but clearly different usage of the old counties in sports and postal. It might say County Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown on that sign, but the postal area the sign is in is County Dublin, if I am not mistaken. I think I will post a letter to myself in County Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown to see if it gets the postal correction stamp from An Post.

Also, recently I heard that there is a desire to expand the Dublin City lines.

And with that, I'm off again, as I don't have much time available for Wikipedia this last while. Best of luck and hope this brings things forward. Surely getting there. DubhEire (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Some good questions and points there. I can't help but feel that the organization of the GAA teams have a lot to do with the way most people think of "counties" and believe these are then the "traditional" counties. And that gets reflected in everyday life (including Postal and telephone books of addresses, etc) which in turn becomes WP:COMMON. That's just an opinion. For King's and Queen's counties - just wondering - what were they called in Irish during those times? --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot of truth in what HK has written above. A conclusion that may validly be drawn from this is that just because something is common doesn't mean that it's correct. For us then, the question becomes one of whether or not we wish to perpetuate a myth or set out what is factually, legally correct. The photo of the "County of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown" is the smoking gun that this debate has been lacking up to now. IF user DE is correct, then the so-called traditional counties of (with their current name form of "Laoise" as opposed to "Queen's County") only existed for 50 years, not the time immemorial that other editors would have us believe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Note that the equivalent boundary sign for Fingal (on the M1, for example) Says "Fáilte go Fingal/Welcome to Fingal"... it is possible that the pictured sign predated, or overlooked, the official nomenclatuire established in the Ministerial Order. Brocach (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it. But user DE may have the answer as he seems to pass it regularly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's an old "Atlas and Cyclopedia" of Ireland from around 1900 listing the 32 counties. Noticeable differences from the list in this article. But I don't think there's just one "truth" to this either, as in let's just use the modern counties. --HighKing (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Were King's and Queen's County not renamed in 1921 with the establishment of the Irish Free State? Anyways HK, the problem for what were the Irish names throughout history for certain counties is a tricky matter for various reasons. In regards to Laurel, today we all know King's and Queen's County as Laois and Offaly. They are only their modern names and are still the same units for the point of "traditional counties". Mabuska (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The "chestnut" IMO is caused by a mixing of apples and pears. There are two things called the "counties of Ireland". One is the 32 ("traditional") counties of Ireland, which regardless of changes to local government, both North and South, are still notable and are the primary topic. The other are the 29 ("administrative") counties of the Republic of Ireland. The two have a common history but began to part company in the late 19th century and today shouldn't be conflated.
This article at times devotes too much space to giving equal voice to the two, when they are, IMO, two separate topics. I suggest a more rigorous split between:
This wouldn't mean any great immediate changes to the text of the article but, to provide a focus, I suggest adding a hat note to the article:
This page is about the thirty-two traditional counties of Ireland. For the twenty-nine counties used in the local government of the Republic of Ireland, see Local government in the Republic of Ireland.
--RA (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, I must concur with editor HK: "I don't think there's just one "truth" to this". As this debate has shown, there are many interpretations, each valid in its own way. To paper over the differences would be a travesty. Each truth must be stated, the differences pointed out and, as importantly, the similarities and shared history explained. In a nutshell, what we have here is not "two separate topics" as editor RA opines, but an evolving story of development, a rich tapestry which has preserved scenes from Ireland past and present. The county is a remarkable structure that has shown amazing flexibility over the centuries; that story deserves to be told in all its richness. Let us not shirk our duty to explain these truths by splitting the article into other articles that would give the impression of sunder as opposed to organic development which is what we have really witnessed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I have never seen a source that treat the 32 ("traditional") counties of Ireland in the same context as the 29 ("administrative") counties of the Republic of Ireland. Sources I have seen either treat (a) the ("traditional") 32 counties of Ireland, irrespective of their role in local government; or (b) contemporary local government in the Republic of Ireland. There is an overlap in history but, as subjects for an encyclopedia article, "32 counties of Ireland" and "local government in the Republic of Ireland" are two separate things. --RA (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a false dichotomy. The question before us is not "32 counties of Ireland" and "local government in the Republic of Ireland". We are concerned with the "Counties of Ireland" of which the 32 so-called traditional counties form a part and the modern counties also form a valid part. Would you have us pretend that Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown is not a county? May I refer you to the photo above to rebut that contention. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So two discussions up i make the same proposal as RA and no-one, even RA, makes comment upon it, as Brocach kept focusing on Ulster-Scots and yet it gets rehashed here. I support it none-the-less. Mabuska (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it. I made a similar proposal above as well (starting at 10:50, 2 May 2012) --RA (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I responded to RA's proposal of 2 May 2012 in the following terms: "The flaw in RA's reasoning is that it assumes that the pre-1922 counties had a function other than local government. They didn't. The only function of a county from Norman times to the present day is to demarcate aresa of local government. There were several points in their development along the way from Norman times. You could split the articles at 1608 when Wicklow was shired. You could split at 1838 when Tipperary was divided. You could split at 1973 when NI decided to invent another demarcation regime. You could split at 1995 when the new Dublin counties were created. And so on. 1922 is as arbitrary as any other date for splitting. Best not to split. There was no golden era, no apogee, only continual development. Today is as valid as any other period. All is flux; nothing stays the same.". I stand by my comments. I have seen nothing presented by another editor to convince me otherwise. Simply repeating that "32 counties of Ireland" are one thing and the modern counties are another is not good enough. That's not an argment, just a proposition. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
@Laurel Lodged, 22:41 - What we are faced with is disambiguation because what a person means by "counties" of Ireland is ambiguous. And even what they may mean by "Ireland" is ambiguous. They may mean the 32 ("traditional") counties of Ireland or (less likely) 29 administrative divisions in the Republic of Ireland.
You asked if I would have us pretend that Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown is not a county? I would first ask you, what do you mean by "county"? In one meaning of "county", Dublin is the name of a county and there is no county called Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. In another meaning of the word, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown is the name of a county and there is no county called Dublin.
Here are two lists, either of which could be described as a list of the "counties of Ireland": List A and List B. The two lists are different because they list two different sets of things.
So, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown? Is it a county? Well, which understanding of the word "county" are you referring to? According to List A, there is no such county of that name. According to List B, there is. So, what is this article about? List A or List B? --RA (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You all seeem to be re-hashing the 32 v. 29 arguments endlessly, and its going nowhere. Anyway, I have a question regarding the Newer "administrative" counties. Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford are listed are new administrative counties since they are minus their eponymous cities. (I note the complete lack of references for this). Prior to the Local Government act of 1898, the counties were run by the landed gentry of the grand juries but the cities had their own councils (borough councils or county boroughs). For example Galway Borough Council, governing the city/town of Galway got a comprehensive charter in 1484 which introduced the position of Mayor, though the council may be older still. So in what sense is Galway a new administrative county, if Galway city had had a separate administration since the 15th century? Also, Cork city got its first Provost in 1199, and then a Mayor in 1273, so it would appear that Cork city has been a separate administrative region from Cork County since the 13th century, so again in what way is Cork County a new administrative county? Snappy (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I believe the whole confusion is down to the Republic's government designating its newer administrative divisions as county councils and city councils - which have slightly different boundaries in some cases to the precursor counties. Mabuska (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor RA has (1) Refused to give his honest opinion about Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown (is it a county or not) and (2) Persists in the false dichotomy that it has to be either List A or List B. My position is that both are valid in their own way and need to be included. The "in their own way" part takes some explaining, but that's why we're here. And editor Mabuska is correct - we would not be in this pickle if the Govt of RoI had not chickened out on dissolving & creating new entities instead of leaving us in this morass. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What has RA's opinion about Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown got to do with anything? We know it to be a county because the Oireachtas created it in 1993, this is a fact, so let's not bother with editors opinions. I agree with Laurel Lodged that the article be kept as one and not split; and that it should give a history of the first counties, leading the fabled 32 and then onwards to the current situation. As LL has said it an evolving situation, e.g. in 2014 North and South Tipperary will be abolished and there will a new (or re-created) County Tipperary. Also, there is a newbie who insists that Fingal is not a county see here, but seems to have no problem with DLR or South Dublin! Snappy (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
List B is evolving. List A appears to be quite fixed (for what ever reason).
I disagree that it is such a morass. A similar situation exists for the Counties of England, which may mean either the historic counties of England, the ceremonial counties of England or the administrative counties of England. However, while what is meant by "England" is relatively unambiguous — and so the evolving meaning and muddy meaning of the word "county" in England can relatively easily be treated in one article — what is meant by "Ireland" is ambiguous. That presents a particular problem.
What is this article about: (a) the 32 "traditional" counties of Ireland; (b) the 26 counties of the (republic of) Ireland; or (c) the 29 "administrative" counties of the (republic) of Ireland? An article about (b) + (c) would be muddy enough, like Counties of England, but doable. An article that about (a) + (c), however, is too blurry. It not only combines different meanings of "county" in also different meanings of "Ireland". It mixes new units of local government in one state with former units of local government in another state and geographic demarcations that straddle both states.
This is not a false dichotomy. A Snappy points out, List B will be further altered in 2014 (and that list may lose a county: Limerick). However, List A will remained fixed. The contents of List B is entirely under the discretion of Oireachtas Éireann (if not the appropriate minister). List A, however, is not. That is why it has a life of its own and needs to be treated separately. Unlike, say Counties of England. --RA (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
On the modern county councils etc. i propose we truncate this section a good deal as it is already covered in its own article. We also have this - County_Councils_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Republic_of_Ireland - that would need looked at to ensure it has consistency with this article and that other link i provided. Mabuska (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Some points:

  • I think everyone agrees there is a difference between the 29-counties "county" and the 32-counties "county". That is a true dichotomy, not a false one. There is a dispute about whether they can better be explained in one and the same article or in two separate articles. I admit that it would be possible to present a coherent single article telling the whole story from Norman times to the present day, and someone reading the whole article from start to finish would understand things. (The current article is not that good, but that's a separate question.) Having admitted that, I don't think that point is sufficient. People may come to an article not with the intention of reading it all, but rather to search it for a specific piece of information. They may be directed to it from another article. They may be reading it because they were confused or intrigued by a reference in another article. Rather than requiring a reader to read the whole thing from start to finish, it is better to direct them early on to the part that will be of relevance to them. That is the problem I see with both presenting two tables of counties in one article and presenting one table with various footnotes or subcolumns.
    • IMO, there should be separate articles as follows:
(A) counties of Northern Ireland; post-1922 history (with preceding reference to #C)
(B) an article (call it (administrative counties and cities of the Republic of Ireland or LAU-1 units of the Republic of Ireland or whatever you like) which lists the 34 units and describing the functions of their councils (with reference to #D). Also covers post-1922 history (with preceding reference to #C) In fact the 29-counties are currently explained in three articles: counties of Ireland#In the Republic of Ireland, local government in the Republic of Ireland and county council#Republic of Ireland. All three should WP:SUMMARY to the hypothetical #B.
(C) a historical article covering the development from the Normans to 1922, with three WP:SUMMARY postscripts: post-1922 development in NI ({{main}} #A); post-1922 development in RoI (main #B)); current awareness/cultural significance of "traditional" 32 counties. This article corresponds most closely to the current counties of Ireland; whether it should have that name or another is another question.
(D) local government in the Republic of Ireland -- Unlike Mabuska 22:30 4 July 2012, I don't agree that is the "home" article for the 29-counties, because it must also cover higher and lower level bodies as in {{Local government in the Republic of Ireland}} and Category:Local government in the Republic of Ireland. It should of course reference #B (and #C in its history section)
  • There is a rather pointless article called Administrative counties of Ireland, which seems to be "counties from 1898 to 1972/2001". This does indeed seem to be a false dichotomy; an arbitrary subset of the whole historical development.
  • "Prior to the Local Government act of 1898, the counties were run by the landed gentry of the grand juries but the cities had their own councils (borough councils or county boroughs)" -- in fact the counties corporate had their own grand juries for the entire county of the town/city (municipal borough plus liberties — the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840 transferred the liberties to the county-at-large) as well as a separate corporation for the borough. Non-county boroughs like Clonmel and LDerry city also had corporations. The following towns/cities had charters specifically granting them the status of a county. See article county corporate for refs:
The only entirely new counties created in 1898 were the county boroughs of LDerry and Belfast. Carrickfergus, Drogheda and Kilkenny were abolished; Galway was also abolished, but recreated in 1986.
  • "North and South Tipperary will be abolished and there will a new (or re-created) County Tipperary." I don't believe that the merger of county and city councils will ipso facto mean the two geographical units will be abolished. Sharing a council does not imply being the same. Counties in the past have shared county managers, VECs, etc. Tullow was made a municipal town in 1902 but no town commissioners were ever elected; as a municipal town it was not formally abolished till 2001, in the interim Carlow County Council acted as town commissioners, striking separate rates etc. The 2010 report talked of "clustering smaller contiguous counties into joint administrative areas"; the term "joint administrative area" has not been pressed into service yet by the government, because the only decisions taken to date are within tradition counties. Wait for the legislation before seeing how it's described; it may be that "Limerick/Tipperary joint administrative area" will be administered by "Limerick/Tipperary joint administrative council".

jnestorius(talk) 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

County Flags[edit]

So someone was bold and added the County Flags column to the table with images of the GAA County Flags in it. Fair enough. I removed them stating that they are GAA flags and not official county flags, but they have been re-inserted. I'm not about to start an edit war on this, even though WP:BRD should apply here, so I'm starting a conversation (also to get the conversation off my talk page where it's of no use to anyone.) It's currently stated that the flags are the defacto flags, with an image of a different flag being used to back up the argument. I claim this is original research and even if the GAA flags can be claimed to be defacto county flags they need to be references, and other than a photo of a government building with different flags. So I request references that show these can be used as county flags and not just GAA Sporting flags (where GAA doesn't even represent all sports in a county.) Or they be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree they are GAA colours. More broadly speaking I think they call into the area of "flag cruft". The coats of arms too. Additionally, these arms of not of the "county" but of the "county council". There are also errors in the list. For example, the arms of Cork city (council) are given as the arms of County Cork. Cork County Council has different arms. --RA (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, so I am the user canterbury is referring to who was trying to improve the county of Ireland article/s by the addition of de facto county colours , I did already state their format varies, being de facto this of course will occur, for example the inclusion of the arms on top of the colours, as shown with their use in a totally non sporting context outside the government of Ireland buildings at Dublin castle which is hard to better as a reference in the following image

Dublin Castle Upper Yard county flags.jpg

. All variations will however incorporate the same colours which is an important point most of which are taken directly from those used on the arms, they are used in the county context on other non-English Wikipedia sites for example you can see here http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:ComtatsIrlanda and http://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condado_de_Westmeath who recognize this everyday fact. Being from one of these counties myself and knowing the usage of the county colours for example been flown alongside the European and Ireland flag at numerous buildings it is factual to say that they have long since outgrown the huge countrywide spectator GAA sports that gave birth to them (which I have agreed with RA) but today they are synonymous with the county as an entity as reiterated here [1]. Caomhan27 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If it goes in it has to be referencible and the inclusion has been contested by two users. Please provide actual references that they can be used to officially represent the county as a whole and not just the GAA or a council? If they are de facto then you will be able to reference them and not by pointing to a photo that contains different flags. Otherwise it's just original research. Remember WP:Verifiability. Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, Canterbury Tail, what might "officially" mean apart from the GAA, the county council, and the state government? That said, I don't agree with including the flags. This is not because they are unofficial or unrecognised (though I'm sure many Northern Unionists would not 'recognise' —in either sense— the flag of their native county), but because the designs are not standardised. That applies both to the pattern of the colours (horizontal, vertical, chequered; and the order of the colours) and to the arms within them (no arms; GAA county crest; county council; traditional county; county-town used unofficially for the county); and sometimes the name of the county is included above or below the crest, in English or Irish. So I think not only should the "flags" not be included on this page, but also they should be removed from GAA county colours replaced with the team strip (and perhaps a selection of different flag permutations for each county) to avoid giving the incorrect impression that each county has a single flag. jnestorius(talk) 10:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Monaghan Coat of Arms[edit]

Folks,

Why is it that the Monaghan Coat of Arms in this article differs from the Coat o Arms in the article about Monaghan? --Pinnecco (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Those are the arms of Monaghan Town Council not Monaghan County Council. I don't know who added the "Coat of Arms" column to that table but they didn't do their research. Plus the arms pertain to the *county councils* not the counties and some (such as Armagh) never had any arms. I think the best thing is to remove the column.Lozleader (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)