Template talk:IrishR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Ireland	(Rated Template-Class)	IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Ireland portal v • d • e This template 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.  Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

I've replaced a link that was added to Ogra Shinn Féin with a link to the category all the youth wings of Irish political parties. If we add in one then people will start adding in them all individually and an already large template will become unmanageable. It is already very large, though given the topic it needs to be. This template is very much a work in progress, so it will undergo some tweaking along the way. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Size and layout (August 2006) 2 Ifrom Irish wikipedians notice board 3 Copy of template 4 GAA 5 Culture and songs 6 Size and layout (March 2007) 7 Use of the Flag of the Republic of Ireland 8 SDLP 8.1 Template:IrishL 9 Size and layout (April 2008) 9.1 Green border 10 Size and layout (March 2009) 11 Size and layout (October 2009)

[edit] Size and layout (August 2006)

Copied from WP:IWNB

Hi Fear Éireann. I'm afraid I have to agree with Scolaire. I think the box is too big. (Seriously). While - as you say - it may be worthwhile to have a template which draws some of the issues together, I don't think it's appropriate to draw ALL the issues/nuances/impacts together in one box:

Templates are not appropriate for that purpose. That is what Catgories are for!

It is - frankly - WAY too big, and completely interferes with the articles in which it is now inserted! If you were to insert this into every article to which it links, (which I suspect is the intent) then it will completely eclipse the majority of content of those articles. Take for example Enda Kenny. If you insert this template here (which I understand is the intent), then the concept of "Irish Republicanism" will overawe the ENTIRE article, and draw a suggestion (to the casual wikipedia visitor) that Enda Kenny is somehow deeply involved in Republicanism. Which - as you and I know - is not the case. I think you seriously need to reconsider your approach, and consider using a MUCH smaller template (or a series of smaller templates) and/or work within the catgoery system instead! Le meas. Guliolopez 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on all points. Firstly it is a draft. Secondly it is not put on all the pages listed, just the major ones. Thirdly there are many larger templates. Fourthly categories are useless in this context. (Frankly most WP categories are a tangled mess and should be deleted.) Major topics like this use templates, not categories. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think the template is too big to be useful. Whether or not you like categories, they seem to be the most appropriate vehicle for this type of information, and the standard practice on Wikipedia. Can you give is an example of another major topic which has a template that is as large and wide-ranging?

If it's to be retained, I would suggest that a horizontal template to be used at the bottom of pages would be more appropriate. --Ryano 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Topic templates run down the side of pages. You'll see that on all the royal pages, on socialism, christian democracy, etc etc. They never run at the bottom of the page. That is a different type of template. Running this horizontally is not an option, any more than running dynastic templates, or templates on the major political topics, can be run that way. So the answer is 'no. Not an option.' And how many more friggin' times do I have to say it: it is a friggin' DRAFT!!! It is not the finished template, and when a set of them are ready info will be moved between them. Draft templates start off long by their nature so that a full list of options is put together. They are then edited down. That is how it is done. Have some cop on. It isn't finished. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think that, as it is now, it is by far too long to be useful. Rather than have every possible related topic and sub-topic included, it would be better to only have the major headlines ones, which will then have information on the sub topics. As the socialism template was mentioned, please note that it includes a link to "list of socialist", but does not include the name in the template, whereas this template does. Could you please update the template to use a more summary style, as templates are useful as a signposts, yes, but signposts only give pointers to major locations until you get closer, and this should be in the same manner. As it is a draft, please consider not adding it to articles until it has overcome these problems and is in a more usable format. Regards, MartinRe 18:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ifrom Irish wikipedians notice board

• Fear Éireann has created a template called Irish Republicanism which he is now sticking onto a number of different articles. The infobox is several miles long, longer than most of the articles he is inserting it into, and is rambling in the extreme, taking in Robert Emmet, Fine Gael, the Northern Bank and songs like Boolavogue. Articles are being totally messed up by the insertion of this infobox, with huge gaps appearing where it conflicts with other, more relevant graphics, and in inserting the template he is making no attempt to re-format the article to make it readable. In a couple of articles (Easter Rising and Easter Proclamation) I substituted the template with a scaled-down version, keeping the original characteristics, but he has now reverted both articles, without any comment on the relevant talk pages.
  

I think that Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, and the articles on Ireland in the main are very balanced and well-written, but this thing is now making all articles on Ireland totally unreadable.

Please view Template:IrishR and the articles that link to it, and tell me if you think they are destroying the character of the articles, or if I am just being paranoid/self-osessed/whatever.

Scolaire 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fear Éireann has now posted to me to explain that the lack of formatting was due to internet connection problems. I must therefore withdraw some of my earlier comments. My feelings about the infobox are the same, however, and I would still appreciate input from other Irish Wikipedians. Scolaire 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• The reason the box is large is because the topic of Irish republicanism is large. The idea of the infobox (one of a series) is to act as a crossroads whereby readers can, in one move, go to a series of topics, from the intellectual ideas behind Irish republicanism to names of prominent republicans (and not just Sinn Féin/Republican Sinn Féin, which is where a lot of stuff on Irish Republicanism on WP tends to be located), to cultural aspects (e.g., republican songs from the 19th century to today). The box is a work in progress, as are two others (which won't be anyway near as large) and when completed will then be changed a bit to edit out some areas. As to the box impacting on pictures in articles, all large infoboxes do that and there are tons of them (a lot of royalty ones are massive). All you do in that situation is instead of putting in [[image:name|thumb|sizepx|caption]] you use [[image:name|thumb|left|sizepx|caption]] and that places the picture on the left. That is what is done Wikipedia-wide when pages have infoboxes on the right. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fear Éireann. I'm afraid I have to agree with Scolaire. I think the box is too big. (Seriously). While - as you say - it may be worthwhile to have a template which draws some of the issues together, I don't think it's appropriate to draw ALL the issues/nuances/impacts together in one box:

Templates are not appropriate for that purpose. That is what Catgories are for!

It is - frankly - WAY too big, and completely interferes with the articles in which it is now inserted! If you were to insert this into every article to which it links, (which I suspect is the intent) then it will completely eclipse the majority of content of those articles.

Take for example Enda Kenny. If you insert this template here (which I understand is the intent), then the concept of "Irish Republicanism" will overawe the ENTIRE article, and draw a suggestion (to the casual wikipedia visitor) that Enda Kenny is somehow deeply involved in Republicanism. Which - as you and I know - is not the case. I think you seriously need to reconsider your approach, and consider using a MUCH smaller template (or a series of smaller templates) and/or work within the catgoery system instead! Le meas. Guliolopez 16:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on all points. It is not too big. Major topics use large templates. There are many larger. Secondly it is not put on all topics in it, merely the major ones as a signpost. Thirdly categories are a user-unfriendly mess. On major topics, and Irish republicanism is one, templates are always used. Categories offer next to nothing, except constant jumping between categories and subcategories to try to find the relevant link. Many users find categories utterly useless. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's overly large. Could it not be slimmed down a little and adapted to sit at the bottom of a page, rather than down the entire right hand side of it? In some articles the infobox is over twice the length of the page. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 19:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No.

How many times do I have to say this?

It is a draft. Drafts put everything in and then edit them. That is how it is done. Wait until the flaming thing is finished. When it is finished it will be far smaller. But right now a series of templates are being prepared and things are being assembled which is why the list is long right now. As variations are prepared things will be moved around. That is not the intended final size.

And no, a bottom template is not an option. These type of templates are always put in as sidebars. Just look at {{Socialism sidebar}}, {{Communism sidebar}}, {{House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha}} and all the many others. They are sidebar templates, not bottom templates. That is how they are designed. They never go at the bottom. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it shrinks down to the size of the Communism or Socialism templates I for one won't have a problem with it - they're quite concise. My suggestion would be to remove at least half of the organisations and events and remove the songs altogether. --Ryano 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup - I agree with Ryano - If the template can be reduced down to the same size as the "good practice" examples you cite, then I expect the template would be much more appropriate. Consider (possibly) removing all the "rebel songs", and replacing with one link to "list of rebel songs" (or similar). And then try something similar with "list of publications", and/or "chronology of struggle for irish independence" etc.

Also - FYI - I don't think it's correct for you to blankly state that my suggestions/comments above are "Wrong on all counts". I am entitled to my perspective. As are you and the other contributors here. Your response suggests a lack of the collaborative spirit which is absolutely required here. Le meas (arís) Guliolopez 09:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've plenty of co-operative spirit and have had for four years here. It would help however if some users bothered to check their facts first. If you had bothered to check, or ask, you would know the process by which these templates are produced, the structure they follow, their design and content. I am a tad fed up constantly having to point out the bleeding obvious to people. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 12:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright - apologies if my comment pissed you off. I may have been reacting myself from a position of "defensiveness" given that I interpretted your response as being completely dismissive of my perspective. Lets move on: Can you confirm that you are going to consider further reducing some of the "list of X" aspects of the template? Per my and Ryano's and Stumason's and MartinRe's and Scolaire's suggestions? (Please) Guliolopez 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have been ill with flu for a few days so I haven't been able to finish it. I am working on a group of templates. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Talking of Communism, I see there is also a portal, Portal:Communism, which has lots of stuff in it. Would it be worth your while creating an "Irish Republicanism" portal that could have all your links and more, and then linking to it from your (much reduced) infobox?
Scolaire 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now found that there is an Ireland portal, Portal:Ireland as well, and it actually has space to put all the Irish Republicanism stuff. Might that be an option? Scolaire 21:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy of template

I've copied the template onto my (User:Scolaire's) user page. I invite anybody who is interested to come and edit it there, with a view to arriving at a consensus. If you're not comfortable editing templates, you can just say "please delete x and insert y " on my talk page and I'll do it for you. Be bold! Do whatever you feel (other than plain vandalism). There is only one rule: any edit that makes it shorter is good, but any edit that makes it longer than the most recent edit will be immediately reverted, at least until it's down to the size of the {{Socialism sidebar}} box.
Scolaire 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that the template has been reduced in size. But I do still think that publications, songs, strategies and symbols might usefully have infoboxes of their own. Please do see my current edit at the above link and tell me if you agree.
Scolaire 20:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As Irish republicanism is not the equivalent of a party or even something like Christian Democracy, for example, but is shaped by cultural aspects (history, culture, strategy, symbols) they are a must include. Without them there is no point having a template. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Leaving the 'cultural aspects' as you say, and deleting some of the other long sections, has produced a far better infobox. I salute you! Since nobody has come to my page to play with the template there, I think we can take it that our colleagues above are happy with the changes. Well done!
Scolaire 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAA

Their is no way in hell the GAA should be on this template. I'm removing it (Gnevin 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

It was not suggesting that the GAA was a republican organisation, but that it was an organisation that included and influenced republicans. (If you read the new biography of Eoin O'Duffy you'll see the impact his role on Monaghan GAA had on his politics in the War of Independence.) It was intended to link the GAA to the Nationalist template too as both Nationalists and Republicans were impacted upon by the GAA (and other societies that themselves weren't necessarily Republican). The idea with this (and the other templates on Nationalism, Monarchism and Unionism) is to link topics that people interested in the area should go to. It isn't saying that something on the list is republican, or nationalist, or monarchist, or unionist, merely that the issue gives context in understanding the topic. And the GAA as a mass membership organisation involved in stoking up a sense of Irish identity did play a part in increasing the demand for separation from Britain. That alone was the reason for the GAA's inclusion. But the template was still a work in progress. If you see a problem with its inclusion, as clearly you do, then I won't include it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the GAA deserves a spot here. Erin Go Bragh^talk 04:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture and songs

I've removed the "cultural organisations" as none of them were organisations soley dedicated to the creation of an Irish Republic. The Hibernians and the IRA were actually violently at odds with each other in 1919-22, and by htat I mean beatings and even killings, especially in the north.Likewise Irish Ireland, some of its adherents may have been repubicans but the movement was not. As for the abbey, it is nonsense to say it is a republican organisation, I don't know here to start with that one.

Re the songs, (a) there are far too many to list. (b) Is it not rather trivial for a template like this anyway?

Jdorney 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size and layout (March 2007)

The IrishR template has become somewhat bloated. I've started work on {{IR topics}} to potentially replace it. The "Topics on..." style of template has several advantages, one being that it doesn't conflict with an infobox, that it sits at the bottom of the page with all the other navigational templates, and especially in this case, that it is a lot more organized. Please join me in discussing the matter at Template talk:IrishR. Erin Go Bragh^talk 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the Flag of the Republic of Ireland

A more appropiate image should be used for this template- the use of the Flag of the Republic of Ireland is inappropiate for a list of terrorist related articles. Astrotrain 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

These aren't terrorist related articles. I've restored it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You could use that Green Erin flag which is associated with Republicanism- the Irish flag is a sovereign flag. Astrotrain 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you learn more about the history of the flag in question. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the Erin flag and it looks so much better Astrotrain 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a case of looks, it's not as appropriate. I see you don't have any problem with the Ulster Banner being used on a list of "terrorist related articles"? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not appropiate? Where is the Ulster Banner used like that? Astrotrain 14:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The current flag directly ties in to most of the topics, please learn the history of it. As for the Ulster Banner, see {{IrishL}} One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As per One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ regards --Domer48 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's simple - this is the Irish Republicanism template, the tricolour is the flag of Irish Republicans and has been since almost 100 years before it was the national flag, and the Erin go Brágh flag was the flag of Irish Nationalism, not Republicanism - end of story! Scolaire 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a bit like using the Union Flag on a British National Party template if one existed. Astrotrain 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, why are you so determined to miss the point? The BNP adopted the national flag. The IRA did not adopt the national flag, they used it, and their predecessors used it, before there was a recognised Irish nation. The Irish Free state, and later the Republic of Ireland, adopted the Republican flag because it was proud of its Republican heritage. There is only one flag to represent Irish Republicanism, everybody in the land associates it with republicanism, and only you have any reservations about its use here, so why not let it go? Scolaire 10:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The flag of Irish Republicanism since 1848! --Domer48 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this, the flag is the tri-colour, [1] and anyone who knows the history could tell you that. --Domer48 12:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SDLP

Cant find any reference to republicanism in their history. BigDunc 16:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BigDunc and One Night In Hackney that inclusion here is dubious. The SDLP are a nationalist party. However, they are not a republican party per sé. Their inclusion in this template therefore is probably inappropriate. (Beyond that, repeat additions by an apparently single purpose anon, (based on POV, possible COI, and without discourse or citation), is bordering on 3RR.) Guliolopez 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Could not have said it better Guliolopez I think with this in mindWP:AGF that someone is pushing a POV on this. BigDunc 18:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out page 9 of their 2007 election manifesto: http://www.sdlp.ie/assets/uploads/sdlp_manifesto_2007153.pdf -

"...as a truly republican party, we stand by the will of the Irish people, North and South, who voted for it."

It isn't a POV- they've declared repeatedly that they're republican. Surely that's the key to inclusion rather than subjective view.

Independent commentators don't describe the SDLP as republican, and neither do they generally speaking, and I'm definitely not convinced by a single use of "republican" in that context. They are an Irish nationalist party, not an Irish republican party. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to step in. Can you please provide evidence of these 'independent commentators' having said this? As yet it's Evidence for the SDLP being Republican 1- Evidence against the SDLP being Republican 0. At what point will it be conceded that the SDLP is actually republican? ElBlogador 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Some more evidence of the SDLP being Republican:

SDLP Leader Mark Durkan, April 2005: "We in the SDLP, as true republicans and as true democrats, do that." (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/sdlp/md200405.htm)

SDLP Leader Mark Durkan, April 2003: "The SDLP is proud to call itself a party of true republicanism. In the twenty-first century Irish republicanism must not be allowed to be used as a synonym for a narrow nationalism. Rather it must be a by-word for the relentless pursuit of equality, for the unflinching defence of social justice and the promotion of unity, peacefully and by democratic consent." (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/docs/sdlp/md260403.htm)

Just as it is fair to call Provisional Sinn Féin 'nationalist' even though they are normally described as 'Republican', likewise it must be accepted that the SDLP is republican although it is generally referred to as 'nationalist'. Its manifesto and its leader have repeatedly referred to the SDLP as 'republican'. Anyone who says otherwise without adducing evidence to support their claim is clearly peddling a misinformed or biased line, and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. I'm adding the SDLP back to the list- if people can provide compelling evidence (rather than hearsay) as to why it oughtn't to be included, then this can be revisited. ElBlogador 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is against inclusion, the onus is on you to provide evidence they should be on here. As before, how the SDLP like to see themselves isn't relevant. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The SDLP, an Irish Republican Party? Where in their history do they say that? What strand of the Irish Republican tradition did they come from? Wolfe Tone, Emmett, Mitchel, Stephens, Clarke, Pearse, were? Was it a policy change? --Domer48 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And you want evidence? With pleasure: [2][3][4][5] [6][7][8][9][10][11]. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Think you have hit the nail on the head there ONIH with those links. BigDunc 19:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ONIH- I have provided the evidence. By definition it's a party's positioning in terms of policy and phraseolgy which places it on the political spectrum. That's the only objective way to ascertain its ideology. Let's look at the definition of a republican: "a person who favours a republican form of government." Does the SDLP fit this bill? Clearly it does. As for your links, I'm not quite sure what they are supposed to prove.

Domer- are you saying that if a party launched tomorrow, whether it be unionist, republican or whatever, it would have to be able to trace roots to claim adherance to an ideology? I didn't realise there was a cut-off date after which no one could independently call themselves a republican without having to have had direct links with someone from the past. How ridiculous. Apart from that, one of the parties from which the SDLP was formed was the REPUBLICAN Labour Party. Is that the kind of thing you're looking for? Indeed, founder member Gerry Fitt used to electioneer with a starry plough and unveiled a plaque to Connolly on the Falls Road before he went off in his own direction.

The SDLP is an Irish party and favours a republican form of government (i.e. where power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.) It also favours joining with the Republic of Ireland to form a 32-county republic. Can anyone dispute this? No. Therefore, going by definition alone, it is an Irish republican party. The skew of the debate here seems to be towards bringing in a haughty intolerance of the SDLP and its right to identify as a republican party (how unrepublican of you) rather than looking at the facts. Or are parties only allowed to call themselves 'republican' if they've advocated the use of violence at some stage in their history? ElBlogador 22:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You asked for evidence that the SDLP is described as an Irish nationalist party. It's been provided. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that the SDLP are describe as an Irish republican party. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone call Fianna Fáil a republican party apart from themselves? Where do you draw the line? On a purely academic front, if a party has an ideology and policy which favours a republican form of government, then clearly it is a republican party. True or false? Actually, the SDLP has taken this position throughout its history, unlike Sinn Féin which was a monarchist party for quite some time after its formation.ElBlogador 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant. We aren't including the SDLP by using original research. We don't take a dictionary definition and see if they fit, they are not described as a republican party they are described as nationalist no matter what false propaganda they peddle. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ONIH- "...no matter what false propaganda they peddle..." Now we get to the knub of it. What is false about the SDLP decribing itself as republican? Is it not by definition republican? Rather than look at the facts i.e. that it favours a republican (rather than a monarchist, theocratic, etc.) form of government, you simply and unfoundedly describe them as peddling 'false propaganda'. That says more about your apparent dislike of the SDLP than any care to be accurate. No wonder people accuse Wikipedia of being little more than a joke when compared to paper-based encyclopedias when this is the standard of 'academic rigour' applied. ElBlogador 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's where you would be wrong. To prevent problems we don't allow original research, which is exactly what you are trying to do. We don't interpret facts, or advance theories, we objectively report what others have said. And on this occasion, others say the SDLP are an Irish nationalist party. If you want to bring other encyclopedias into it then fine let's see what Brittanica say? Nationalist! What did the sources I produced say? Nationalist! Still waiting for your independent sources.....? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at that Britannia says! "...distinguished from the province's other leftist and Republican groups...". In other words it is a leftist, republican group too! Yes it's nationalist, as PSF is, but it is also republican, as PSF is too.ElBlogador 23:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no such party as PSF. Still waiting for those sources..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the SDLP is most definitely not a republican party; that's a fact. I would also argue that the current Ahern-led Fianna Fáil is not a republican party either, but I think that's more of an opinion than anything ;) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 16:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why Sinn Fein should have a monopoly on republicanism. It is a broad idealogy that can be traced back hundreds of years. The SDLP want the creation of a 32-county republic. They, in the correct sense, are more republican than nationalist in that the state they wish to create is not bound by an explicit national identity. nineteensixtyseven22:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems I am the only one who has bothered to adduce evidence in support of my position. Those who oppose it simply seem to rely on personal opinion rather than fact. ElBlogador (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but you've not produced a single independent source to show your two man band should go on there. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:IrishL

On a similar subject, should the UUP etc be in the loyalism template? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that would be gratuitously offensive to some people. I've certainly no objections to their removal. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size and layout (April 2008)

This is the new template box style, just because one user doesn't like the look of it isn't a good enough reason to revert. The new look is cleaner, takes up less rooom initally. There is no change in content, all the original links and headings are still there. Style changes happen all the time on Wikipedia. Snappy56 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing it on the talk page before reverting. Do you own this template? Do you decide how it should look? Well, me neither, so I'm taking this discuss to Irish Wikipedians noticeboard to let everyone have their say. Also, I have modified Template:IrishN, Template:IrishU, Template:IrishL and Template:IrishM to follow the same style. There has been no complaints on them so far. Snappy56 (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you own this template? You seem to think you can unilaterally impose your vision on a long standing design? I think it looks shabby on a lot of articles, therefore you should create one for whatever purpose you want to use it for. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And in addition, considering the when the templates are actually expanded they cause the formatting of pages to go all over the shop, it's a spectacularly bad idea. Sorry, but I don't think the reader wants the existing text and pictures jumping all over the screen really do you? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The style is based on the Politics of [Country], which are very widely used on Wikipedia, so your comments about it being a bad idea are way off the mark. Yes, I can change a template, its called being BOLD! Your argument seems to suggest that just because something has been here for a while it can't been changed, that's a pretty poor argument. Your suggestion that I should create another template is strange too, why would I create a duplicate? Let's see what others think, I'm going to abide by the consensus, are you? Snappy56 (talk)

I'd really like to see a consensus that says text should move around randomly on pages and screw up formatting. Unless your definition of consensus involves counting heads, there's no legitimate reason for it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not counting heads or looking for a vote, but I don't see why you (or I) should be the sole arbitrator on how this template looks, hence the wider discussion. Text moves around on the screen all the time. If someone views a Wikipedia page with an 15" monitor with a 640*480 pixels setting, it will look different to someone viewing the same page with a 17" with a 1280*1024 pixels setting, and if they have a 21" widescreen monitor, it'll be different again, so to say that the formatting is messed up is simply wrong. Also, what about the numerous pages that have a Politics of template on them, are they all messed up too? Snappy56 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

" If someone views a Wikipedia page with an 15" monitor with a 640*480 pixels setting, it will look different to someone viewing the same page with a 17" with a 1280*1024 pixels setting, and if they have a 21" widescreen monitor, it'll be different again, so to say that the formatting is messed up is simply wrong" - what on earth are you talking about? I'm referring to the fact that the text and images move on the screen while the person is reading it, and it distorts pages when you expand the template. As you can't come up with a single legitimate reason why that should happen, there's little do discuss. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I created a compromise style here on my user page User:Snappy56/Template:IrishR. It is non collapsible. Let me know what you think. Snappy56 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems the user who most objected most has retired, so I'm going make the change. Relax, it's not collapsible! Snappy56 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The user who retired is not the only one. I think it looks crap, and prefare the origional. --Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The only difference is the green background is removed for readability and only left in the section headers, other than that it's the same. The newer version has much better contrast than the horrible low-contrast current version, where visited links fade into the background. Snappy56 (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the new version by Snappy56, because of it much-improved legibility. Domer48, if you dislike this version, please explain why: "crap" isn't an explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First of, we have a template which has been stable since it was produced. It functional, in that it serves its purpose. The changes do not enhance or improve any aspect in relation to its role or function. In fact, it looks crap. Now what you both can do is come up with answers to my issues outlined above. How dose it improve the role and functions of the template, and explain what is meant by “much-improved legibility”? The readability is not an issue, it is clear and legible. It is agreed that this is a new template, so it can, will and should be discussed first. I would repeat just one more time because it is also important, the current template is and was stable. This indicates clearly a consensus. --Domer48 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Domer48. I have stayed out of this for now because it looked like it was being resolved. However, seeing as you mention "this indicates clearly a consensus" based on the fact that "it's been like this for a while", I feel I have to chip in. I agree with BHG and Snappy56. Your assertion that the alternate is "crap" is unhelpful in gaining consensus. The point that Snappy makes about the green background making active/followed links difficult to read is valid in my view. An active/followed link shows as a kind of purple colour, which (to paraphrase Snappy) makes the text very very difficult to read on a green background. This (as you may note) is precisely why the majority of infoboxes of this type use a pale or neutral colour, and rely on the headings to add accent/contrast. I am firmly of the belief that Snappy's suggestion (which relies more appropriately on the standard infobox CSS class) is more appropriate. I believe Snappy's version (which you have twice now reverted for no clearly stated reason) to be more appropriate because:

• The pale background makes visited links more clearly visible,
• The accented section heads in green make the sections more clearly discernible,
• And the use of the standard infobox class in general allows for consistency with other infoboxes of this type.

Other than that (as the user notes) it seems to be pretty much the same as the existing. Please speak specifically to why you believe these points to be invalid. Or otherwise explain what the problem is. (And "it's crap" or "I don't link it" or other Lou and Andy style responses do not represent an argument - keep it factual and we can figure this out.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you detailed and reasoned observations. My view on the template would be that it draws the attention of the reader to the variety and scope of the subject. That no one aspect on this particular subject should be seen in isolation I consider to be most important. This new version blends into the background and doses not show the versatility and scope of coverage that wiki and its editors provides. I understand the point about the text fading into the background, but this only happens it the reader clicks on the link. Having gone to the linked page, has the template not served its purpose? It is therefore my opinion, that this fading, which I accept, is not an issue. I would also agree that “Crap” is not the most descriptive term and I hope I have elaborated enough to get what I mean. --Domer48 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I prefer the Snappy version, collapsed or not. I was never a big fan of the original (see the top of this page) and at least Snappy's version is more aesthetically pleasing. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire, nice to see you join the discussion. I more concerned with functionality than aesthetics, though I agree we all have particular tastes. As I have outlined above, the template lends its self to the overall articles above, by drawing its self to the reader attention, without being overpowering. This new template doses none of the things I’ve mentioned above. I think we all agree that drawing attention to the depth and coverage wiki and its editors provide should be highlighted, even if it is in a subtle way. Nice to here from you, check my recent edits, I’ll remain calm and reasonable. LOL, --Domer48 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Domer48 is the only objector, and there are 4 editors in favour of the change, I have restored the change.

The primary function of a navigation template is offer legible links, and the bright green background fails to do that, which we seem to agree on. Domer points out that if the link has already been visited, it doesn't need to be legible ... but I don't think that's true. There are many articles which readers may have briefly visited before, but may want to revisit, and with the green background it hurts the eyes trying to find out what those links are. This is particularly unfair on readers with impaired sight.

There is plenty of scope for argument about how prominent templates should be, but the colour scheme used is similar to the default {{navbox}} template, and considerably more prominent than the standard {{infobox}} template. If there is a consensus that this template should be more prominent than the others, then one way of doing that would be to add a green border, as has been done with Template:YearInIrelandNav, used in 1948 in Ireland and the other year-in-Ireland articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an enormous fan of big borders (they tend to go against convention - see recent edit warring at Wales recently when a big red border was wrapped around a custom country infobox). However if we think it will meet Domer48's requirement to draw more attention to the side nav, then I'm OK with a compromise. (It shouldn't be wider than 2 or 3px though. "border-color:green; border-width:2px;" could be OK. But nothing more than that in my view.) Guliolopez (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't the Welsh forever warring? So unlike Ireland, with our 800 years of peace ;)

Anyway, my main concern is that we find some way of meeting Domer's desire that the box should be prominent, without sacrificing legibility through a low-contrast background. I hope it can be a win-win solution rather than a compromise :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm disappointed at BHG reverting yet again (edit warring), I'm not all together surprised. As an Admin, one would think they knew we do not base our decisions on a head count, but on the strenght of our arguements. I do not consider that the points I have raised have been addressed, and the arguements put forward, such as "with the green background it hurts the eyes trying to find out what those links are. This is particularly unfair on readers with impaired sight," is just indulging in amature dramatics. While I'm inclined to revert, I'm also trying to get away from that type of editing (a difficult thing at times) as its unproductive. Now a considered responce to the points I have raised would have been welcome, as an alternative to reverting an established template. --Domer48 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Domer, reinstating a change once consensus has been reached is not edit-warring. Your arguments have been addressed (at least once you stated making arguments rather than just saying "crap"), and you agree that there is a legibility problem with the green background, you just don't think it matters, a point on which everyone everyone else disagrees. I'm disappointed to see an accessibility problem sneered at as "amature dramatics". See Wikipedia:Accessibility, and in particular Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles:

"Many readers of Wikipedia may be partially or fully colour blind. Ensure that the colour combinations used in Wikipedia (infoboxes, navigational boxes, graphs, etc.) have an adequate contrast."

This isn't something dreamt up by wikipedia: it's part of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and it's a major issue for disabled people.

I have suggested that your concern about the prominence of the box could be addressed by a more prominent and coloured border. Do you want to consider that option? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green border

I did a demo of how the infobox would appear with a green border: see this version (which I self-reverted, since it was only a demo). The green border could of course be darker if editors prefer.

Any thoughts on this? Domer, does it help to restore some of the visual prominence for the box? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Guliolopez (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The green border look good. Though will Republicans accept the border? ;-) Snappy56 (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, in Domer's words, it "draws itself to the reader's attention, without being overpowering." I'd be quite happy with this. Scolaire (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On that basis, I'll reinstate the green edge to the navbox (avoiding a contentious word!), which I had done as a test version. I hope that Domer will return to the discussion to give us feedback on this, and we could of course tweak it further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size and layout (March 2009)

As some of you have already pointed out, this template is simply too long. I suggest we change the layout to match the other "Irish political history" templates (for example Template:IrishN), while keeping the green shade. Anyone willing to take on the challenge? ~Asarlaí 18:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it's been over two months without any reply (or any sign of opposition), I decided to go ahead and make the relevant changes. However, there's obviously been some objection to that. I'd like those concerned to post their arguments here ASAP and hopefully we can reach an agreement. ~Asarlaí 22:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the section above, if you had you would know there is significant opposition. Domer48_'fenian' 14:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read this entire page and I see no major opposition to making the template more compact. ~Asarlaí 15:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the section above and looked at the history of the template you would have known there was significant objection to an expanding sidebar template, something your initial comment here made no indication of you doing. Why not create a new template in a sandbox that goes at the bottom of the article? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The expanding sidebar format is used successfully for dozens of other country-specific navigational templates, including several other Irish ones such as {{IrishM}}, {{IrishU}}, {{IrishL}}. There doesn't appear to be any objection to those, so what is about this one that makes some editors think it should be treated differently? The only difference that I can see is that this one appears to be a lot longer than the others, so if expanded at the outset it pushes the categories several screenfuls downwards. I don't see how this helps the reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't a discussion previously, there was one or two editors who opposed change and refused to let any change this template because they didn't like it. This is despite the fact that expanding templates are very widely used throughout wikipedia. I am in favour of changing it to match the standard. Snappy (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop lying. This template was changed, just not to the shithouse version you tried imposing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ONIH, it's great to see you back from retirement, but I dunno why you bother posting if your only comment is to call something a "shithouse version" That just tells people you dislike it, nothing more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You've just proved my point again, Lou and Andy! Snappy (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to wait a bit and see if anyone actually has reason why this template should be treated differently to the others. I don't see any such reason so far, but i may have missed something, or maybe someone has a good reason which they haven't had the time/energy/whatever to spell out yet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two schools of thought here. One that the templates are too big, and the other that objects to expanding sidebar templates. Therefore the obvious solution, which I already suggested but was ignored by people intent on forcing their version through despite objections, is to amend the template (and the related ones) so they go at the bottom of the article instead of them being a sidebar template. Or are you not interested in a compromise that everyone is happy with? I note that the problems I identified with {{IrishL}} almost a year ago have still not been rectified. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that, sounds reasonable. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ONIH, if you have issues with {{IrishL}}, the place to raise them is at Template talk:IrishL. There would be a point in raising them here if they were relevant to this template, but I don't see why the inclusion or non-inclusion of an article in another template is an issue for this talk page. As to the bottom template, that's a possibility. But it has the disadvantage of less prominence, and in any cases bottom templates are themselves collapsed by default if there are one or more other bottom templates. So before going for that one it would be useful to hear why some editors believe that the expanding r/h-side format is inappropriate for use with this template, but not with others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I brought it up in a centralised discussion which you and the editor responsible for fucking it up took part in. And it still hasn't been fixed, what's the motto here? "Fuck things up first, fix them never"?

I'd ask for a refund from that Charm School you went to; oh, you didn't go to one, figures! What problem are you baaing about? Snappy (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is significant opposition to this (and related templates) being an expanding sidebar template, you yourself said they could cause problems for disabled users. My solution deals with everyone's objections, yet certain people are not interested in compromise only enforcing their views through.

As BrownHairedGirl pointed out, nobody has yet stated why this template should be treated differently to the other "Irish politics" templates, or why this format is unacceptable. Lets hear some arguments. ~Asarlaí 18:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, since you're too lazy to read the discussion or my comments above, I won't waste my time repeating myself so you can ignore me for a second time. As you obviously are not interested in finding a compromise acceptable to all editors, I suggest you remove yourself from the discussion. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

More territorial pissings. The real reason is that Lou & Andy don't like anyone changing Irish republican articles (including templates), is that nothing that upsets their viewpoints is allowed. They have been bleating with spurious objections to expanding sidebar templates but only care about the {{IrishR}}. The other templates which were changed; {{IrishM}}, {{IrishU}}, {{IrishL}} and {{IrishN}}, were not reverted because they don't care about those articles or templates. Anyway, this whole discussion is a waste of time, as you can mention about the widespread use of expanding sidebar templates all over wikipedia till your blue in the face, but they won't listen. They are probably too busy adding Volunteer before the name of some murderer or something. Later, lieblings! Snappy (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ONIH, I've looked at the arguments both here and above. In both cases, only yourself and another editor have opposed this format. Furthermore, you only opposed it for {{IrishR}} and not {{IrishN}}/{{IrishM}}/{{IrishU}}/{{IrishL}}.
I ask you again, why should this template be treated differently? ~Asarlaí 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you had read my comments in this section you would not have asked that question, as firstly it mispresents my view and secondly is not germane to this discussion. Are you interested in a compromise that is acceptable to everyone, yes or no? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't see any arguments being put forward here (or before) at all! It keeps coming back to "read what I said before". But what did you say before, other than that it is "fucked up", which nobody else seems to see? What is the need for compromise? Compromise between what and what? And what is this famous "compromise that is acceptable to everyone", and where did "everyone" say that it's acceptable? Why can't we put back Superfopp's version, which everybody bar two seems to approve of, and abandon the rearguard action? Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I will thank you not to mispresent my view either. Nowehere did I say any proposal was acceptable to everyone, merely suggested discussion towards such a goal. Some people object to the size, while others (more than two when I checked) object to expanding sidebar templates. However the latter do not object to an expanding template at the bottom of articles. Therefore such a template hopefully takes everyones problems into account, that was consensus building last time I checked. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Size and layout (October 2009)

The current layout has the "tactics" near the bottom of the box, and "armed struggle" is repeated twice. I think it's important to have the "tactics" and "concepts" right up at the top of the box. So, are there any objections to this layout?
~Asarlaí 16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Armed struggle" is not repeated twice. There's also a significant difference between a concept such as Physical force Irish republicanism and tactics used within it such as Armalite and ballot box strategy, and they should not be presented as equal. The notion that tactics used by certain organisations should come before the organisations in the template is a foolhardy one. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)