Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyWaggers

Statement by Waggers

Statement

Assertion 1: "Ireland" is ambiguous

It could refer to the island, it could refer to the state, it could refer to someone with the surname Ireland, and I'm sure there are other uses too. Without knowing the context of the search, someone entering "Ireland" into a search engine, including Wikipedia's, could be looking for any of the above.

Assertion 2: there is no primary topic

Someone using "Ireland" as a search time is more probably looking for information on the island or on the state than the other uses of the term. However, between island and state, there is no established primary topic. I would hazard a guess that more people would be referring to the state than the island when talking about "Ireland", but that is just a guess.

Assertion 3: both the state and the island have alternative names

Both the island and the state have alternative English names.

• Republic of Ireland is a well known alternative for the state, and is currently where the state article resides on WP.
• Eire might originate from a different language (as indeed most English words do), but is in common use in English too as an alternative name for the island.
• The Emerald Isle is another alternative name for the island, but most would recognise this as a nickname rather than something official. (However, WP policy requires us to use the most commonly used name, whether that's "official" or otherwise).

Assertion 4: best practice outranks tradition

"Doing what we've always done because that's the way we've always done it" is not the Wikipedia way. We are striving to make the best encyclopaedia possible, and when it comes to decisions like this, that means ignoring the current situation and trying to figure out what the best way of doing things is, and then make the necessary changes. In other words, any argument along the lines of "changing the status quo would take a lot of work, so let's not do it" shouldn't be admissible here. We're looking to do what's best for our readers, not what's easiest for us.

Assertion 5: (less important consideration, but still valid) Country names are important to people; using alternatives to the official name causes disruption to Wikipedia

People get incredibly passionate about the name of their country and how their country is represented. It's that passion that has brought us to this situation. The lesson to learn from this is that people place more importance on what their nation is called than on what the lump of rock their nation sits on is called. So if either the state or the island has to take precidence, and if all other things are equal (and I'm suggesting they are), then I would argue that the state holds a bigger claim to the name "Ireland" than the island does.

People feeling passionately about something is, rightly, rarely a consideration on Wikipedia. In fact, rules like WP:CENSOR show that such things aren't really to be considered at all. But WP:IAR says that if the rules are getting in the way of improving the encyclopaedia then ignore them. So if putting the state article at "Ireland", or making "Ireland" a disambiguation page, stops the disruption we've seen then let's do it: it would improve the encyclopaedia.

The problem is, that last "if" is quite a big one too; personally, I think the probability is fairly low that the disruption would simply stop by moving the state article to "Ireland", so this consideration is a minor one in relation to assertions 1-4.

Assertion 6: Ireland should be a disambiguation page

If there was a single primary topic, then that should reside at Ireland with a hatnote to a disambiguation page. But there is no primary topic (or, more precisely, there are two primary topics).

Ignoring assertion 5 for a moment, if precisely one of the primary topics had a commonly used alternative name, and the other didn't, then it would be reasonable to have the article with no alternative name at Ireland and the other article given the commonly used alternative name. But in this case, both entities have commonly used alternative names, so there's still no way to decide which, if either, should sit at "Ireland". If we bring assertion 5 into play, the argument for having the state article at Ireland carries more weight than having the island article there - but that weight is insufficient to tip the balance away from the need for Ireland to be a disambiguation page. Indeed, assertions that "Republic of Ireland" is a more common alternative for the state than "Eire" et al are for the island may be enough to put the balance firmly in the centre, meaning that having a disambiguation page at Ireland is the only way forward.

Users that endorse this summary

1. Bazza (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Rockpocket 01:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Off topic text added by Redking7 was removed from this section by Gnevin. This may lead to a confusing flow in this section's text. Redking7 (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
4. ras52 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
5. MusicInTheHouse (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Daicaregos (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
7. --Snowded (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Off topic text added by Snowded was removed from this section by Gnevin. This may lead to a confusing flow in this section's text.
8. RashersTierney (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
9. 86.44.111.162 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
10. --T*85 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Except Assertion 3 --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Users that oppose this summary

1. Mooretwin (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Fmph (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
4. ~ R.T.G 01:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)