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.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus, Pages not moved Ronhjones (Talk) 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(Relisting) Disambiguation is redundant in this case. The current titles are totally contrary to Wikipedia policies on disambiguation. No-one has yet provided evidence of a clash with similarly named articles or of an actual reader who has been confused by the current titles. Iota (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment During the last discussion, consensus was very much in favour of including Ireland in the title, on the grounds that most countries have constitutions, and therefore the title was imprecise and confusing. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - The current titles are more descriptive. It would be helpful for people who don't know about the subject to know what country those amendments to the constitution are for. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I opine that removing the "Ireland" tag creates room for possible confusion. I would support the change, were (Ireland) to be added to the end of the title. --Île flottante (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree - with Iota, as (Ireland) in the title is redundant in these cases. After all, Magna Carta is not "Magna Carta (England)", though there were many other and older MCs in Europe outside those listed at Magna Carta (disambiguation).Red Hurley (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for now. My usual preference is to place a high priority on using unambiguous names, and I share the concerns about possible ambiguity. However, in this case I'm not 100% certain: these titles are an intersection of xth amendment and year, which seems to me to be a less frequent combination. For example, I'm sure that many other countries had a Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill ... but how many of them had one dated 2008? If someone has evidence that the other countries which call their amendment legislation "Nth Amendment of the Constitution Bill" don't clash with any of the Irish bills, I'd support a renaming. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, there simply are no other countries that use the formula "Nth Amendment of the Constitution Bill". Arguably including the year is redundant in most cases, let alone the country. I've researched this as best I can but I can't prove a negative, so surely the onus is on those who support disambiguation to point to an actual naming conflict? It's a little frustrating that none of the opponents of the move has made any effort to do this. I'd be happy to stand corrected if I'm wrong. Iota (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Support move. We don't disambiguate unless there's an actual naming conflict, ie. two pages that could otherwise have the same title. Jafeluv (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see it as disambiguating, I see it as clarifying without being overly specific. It is also how legislation is referred to in many style manuals. The titles otherwise would all need to be opened to see where they belong.
With respect, on Wikipedia brackets/parentheses are for disambiguation, not other forms of clarification. This applies to legislation the same as to everything else. Iota (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Support. Article names don't have to be descriptive, just unambigous. The subject is already described in the article body. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Support - We only need disambiguation when there are 2 articles with the possible same name. Since there is no naming conflict here then no need to have disambiguation in title. Snappy (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Support. There doesn't seem to be a naming conflict here. Hibernian1 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Support. There is no need for this disambiguation, it just adds extra length to the titles. Hatnotes can deal with anyone accidentally ending on the wrong article. Fences&Windows 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Across the world many countries have had many laws/acts/bills/etc amending constitutions. For clarity leave "(Ireland)" in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd ask the commentors above to please think again about this. I think the current titles are against Wikipedia policy on disambiguation, the purpose of which is to deal with two different topics with the same name. Nobody has yet pointed to any specific clash between the above articles and other topics. It's also stated in Wikipedia:Article titles that:
Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Queen (London, England rock band)" over Queen (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred. However, because pages cannot share the same title, it is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article.
Skinsmoke, other countries have constitutions, but other countries also have laws on topics like criminal justice, healthcare, education, etc. If you look at the list in List of Acts of the Oireachtas almost any one of them could be a law enacted in a foreign country. Should we disambiguate all of them? And if not then why should we make a special exception when it comes to bills to amend the Irish constitution?
WikiDonn, I don't think that Wikipedia policy allows disambiguation solely for the purpose of making a title more descriptive. There has to be some clash between two different articles. And the first sentence of each of the above articles makes clear immediately that the topic relates to Ireland.
Not necessarily, if there isn't a problem. As I recall, the problem with the constitution articles was that readers were complaining that the titles were misleading, and that they were ending up at an article they didn't want to read (and only finding out what it was about when they were halfway through the article). Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers, not its editors, and if readers are finding themselves at the wrong article, that is generally our fault, not theirs. I'm always open to other suggestions of how we stop that happening. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the previous discussion (here) I can't find any example of a reader complaining that they reached the article accidentally (and only realised this halfway through the article). All I can see is some contributors speculating that this might happen, without any actual evidence. Personally I don't see how you would end up at the article unless you followed a link from another topic about Ireland. And given that the introductory section is fairly clear, I don't see how someone could remain confused halfway through the article.
But assuming that there is a genuine problem, can I suggest an alternative solution? We could put a line at the very top of each article along the following lines:
This article is about an Irish bill from 1958. For similarly named topics, see: Third Amendment.
Third Amendment is a disambiguation page for all of the 'third amendments' from different countries.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.