Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Position statements list: summaries

Sarah777 has written a 680-word statement opposing option F. She has tacked on a 27-word sentence recommending people to "vote for (1) Ireland (State) and continue on down the list". This is being summarised on the statements list as "in favour of option C, A, B, D and E, against option F" - or was, until I reverted. The summaries have to summarise. They do not have to be "isomorphic" if that makes them misleading. Please let us continue to focus on informing the voter. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a mistake to try to evaluate the content of any of the statements the way that you have. That should be a matter for the voter to decide after reading the Position Statements. We ought not offer the voters pre-digested arguments. I have plenty of misgivings about including this material next to the names at all and I think that they should be neutral, and therefore isomorphic, rather than evaluated as you have done. -- Evertype·✆ 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Further: It's not "truer" as you put it, Scoláire, to omit options which Sarah777 favours, even if most of her statement opposes one option. I've restored the original, and added explanatory text about the order of the items in the summaries. This material must really be neutrally presented, or it should be removed entirely. -- Evertype·✆ 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
It is truer! The statement is an argument against option F. That is what it was meant to be. There is no argument whatever in favour of any option, just "vote for them all except F". It has nothing to do with neutrality. A statement is in favour of something, or against something, or (an actual argument) in favour of something and against something else, or a general statement. We say what it is. There's no bias there. I will not edit-war, but that summary is plain wrong and it needs to be righted. Scolaire (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This is why I asked questions previously about trying to summarize position statements. I believe the editors who write the position statements should also write the summary, with a limit of say one line or 24 words or 128 chars or something like that. --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's fine in principle, HighKing, but what if an editor declines to write a summary? Are we obliged to leave it blank? Or what if someone writes "Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia:Naming conventions & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (not that anybody actually writes like that, of course)? Are we obliged to leave it? Certainly, since Evertype is determined to continue editing it to suit himself anyway, there's no harm in giving it a try. I don't want to change my own summary. What about you? Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I certainly oppose people making up their own summary which appears on the position statement page. The current method is reasonable and fair, simply stating what its Pro / Against although in certain cases it may be slightly confusing where they have supported several options and some more strongly than others. This is the reason i only chose to support one option, i had planned on putting at the end "and the only reasonable alternative is..." but i didnt want that put in the summary BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
High King, that's what the Page in a Nutshell is for. Scoláire, climb down off your high horse. "It is truer!" I don't care. It is a judgement on your part to single out Sarah777's statement for special treatment. I don't want any of them to have special treatment. I don't want the summaries at all but if they have to be there I want them to be vanilla. I want them to be "in favour" first and "oppose" second. It doesn't matter what the emphasis is in the Statement itself. That's between the Statement writer and the voter. I want to see the statements be isomorphic as a matter of neutrality and style. -- Evertype·✆ 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"I want...I want...I want..." Listen to yourself! Scolaire (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I want to see those things, and I have given reasonable rationale for why. Neutrality, at least to put the popularity contest into context. "It is truer!" is all you offered, Scoláire. Listen to yourself! -- Evertype·✆ 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think "isomorphic" descriptions are best too. The current system enforced neutrality. Leave POV to the statements themselves.
If that means "in favour of option A, B, C, D and E; against option F" then fine. (I'd alphabetise the options, these are descriptions of what is in the position statement not a detailed summary of anyone's preference or a repetition of their vote.) If it means "against option F" only then that's fine too.
If Sarah's summary doesn't say anything in support of any option then the summary of it shouldn't misrepresent it by saying that it does. If her statement is only against an option (and there's nothing wrong with it if it is) then it only makes sense that a summary of her position statement should say "against option [whatever]" only.
But I think Sarah should have something to say on the matter before anyone goes removing anything from what she wrote - or at least notify her that you have. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this a bit of a storm in a teacup? I made clear in the statement that (a) the problem was that F was unacceptable; (b) that there were many acceptable alternatives (due to the permutations involved) and (c) that while I had favourite alternatives, some were no longer available but several of those still available were better than the status quo. In the summary I said vote against F in the order C,A,B,D,E. In the "nutshell" (which Bastun asked me to write) I said something similar. I'm not clear what I've done wrong. Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Sarah, if you thought I was saying you had done something wrong. You didn't and your statement is fine. And I should have asked you before I did battle with Evertype. Do you not think that "against F" is a better summary of what you say than "in favour of C,A,B,D,E"? That's all I was asking. Scolaire (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the whole thing not a storm in a tea cup? I don't think you've done anything wrong. If it's only "F" you comment then, for what it's worth, I think the summary should be "against option F" (because it's the statement that's being summarised, not how you intend to vote). But that's just my 2¢. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Eh? Her statement is not just "against F" if she specifies the order in which she favours other options. -- Evertype·✆ 23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Her statement only says why not to vote for ROI (and why not). It doesn't speak in support of any option.
Sarah may favour other options. She has even expressed a preferred order. But her statement doesn't speak in support of any of them. To say that it does is inaccurate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
To put it another way, if a reader want to read a statement "in favour of option C, A, B, D and E", does Sarah's statement fulfill that? Or does it only explain why they should vote "against option F"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
She specifies her preferred order in her statement. A person who has read her statement will understand what she thinks about option F, and will understand what Sarah thinks about the relative merits of the other options. The voter may choose to find out more about C, A, B, D, and E, but that's up to the user. It would be wrong for the summary to omit those statements. -- Evertype·✆ 09:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"She specifies her preferred order in her statement." She does? Where?
"A person who has read her statement will understand ... what Sarah thinks about the relative merits of the other options." They will? How? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) In the last sentence of her statement. (2) They will exercise their natural intelligence. -- Evertype·✆ 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) OK. In honestly, I didn't see that.
(2) Sure what the point in the statements at all in that case? Can't we just show them the ballot and let them "exercise their natural intelligence"? If someone what to read a statement in favour of option C, I think they'll be genuinely let down by what they read ("While by no means my favourite solution I recommend you vote for (1) Ireland (State)...") Never mind if they want to find some discussion of A, B, D or E ("...and continue on down the list omitting only the 'Republic of Ireland'"). 27 words out of 680? 96% deals with F. 4% deals A, B, C, D, and E combined? Would you change yours to read "in favour of A, B, C, D, E and F; against A, B, C, D, E and F"? Or is it the substance of your statement that is more important? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
So are we agreed to change it back to "against option F", then? I'd rather not be the one to do it, in case it looks like edit-warring. Scolaire (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No, we are not so agreed. I do not agree that it should be reduced to "against option F". Let it stand as it is. -- Evertype·✆ 22:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you agreed to change yours to "in favour of A, B, C, D, E and F; against A, B, C, D, E and F", then, to make it "isomorphic"? And can you answer me without shouting? Scolaire (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not agreed to do that, because unlike the other statements, mine is in fact general because it doesn't make a recommendation or say what my own preference is. That is, it's not "personal" as the others are. The text is fine as it is. -- Evertype·✆ 08:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Your is "the neutral statement that this project couldn't agree on." ... just like mine! :-P --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I see a 2/3 majority in favour of changing the summary of Sarah's statement, so I'm going to change it on that basis. Bear in mind that edit-warring on this could result in collapsing the poll just hours ahead of the deadline. You need to ask yourself it's important enough to take that risk? Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that you haven't addressed any of the points I have made; you have merely gainsaid me. Sarah's statement specifies an option she dislikes, and it specifies options which she prefers. It is wrong of you to insist on your position without addressing the argument against it. Your edit misrepresents Sarah's Position Statement. I don't believe that you have given a justification for doing so. -- Evertype·✆ 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"Sarah777 has written a 680-word statement opposing option F. She has tacked on a 27-word sentence recommending people to 'vote for (1) Ireland (State) and continue on down the list'. This is being summarised on the statements list as 'in favour of option C, A, B, D and E, against option F' - or was, until I reverted." You really are getting more like Domer every day, you know. Scolaire (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I’ve addressed your juvenile comments above already and I don’t know which is more amusing the fact that you keep trying to be funny, or how pathetic your efforts are? --Domer48'fenian' 12:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(snigger) Scolaire (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I like the way that one can't tell whether Domer is criticizing me or Scoláíre. :-) -- Evertype·✆ 13:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Scoláire, I saw your assertion. You didn't make a good case. I believe that it is correct to summarize here 27-word sentence as "in favour of option C, A, B, D and E", because that's what her statement implies. Thanks for the little bit of ad-hominem at the end though. ;-) Rannṗáirtí has reverted, however; so much for the 2/3 majority. Can we move on now? -- Evertype·✆ 13:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the anonymous editor not unconnected with a manufacturer of electronics products had a hissy fit, so you get to type "Copyright Tweedledum and Tweedledee 2009" at the top of the poll after all. Is that ad hominem enough for you? I concede defeat and I'm withdrawing from the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"o-o-o-k-a-a-y ... if it's an expression of preference, I'll reorder mine and put Sarah's back in - since she **does** express preference in her position paper" does not sound in the least bit like a "hissy fit" to me. -- Evertype·✆ 18:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thus you have the last word here as well! Oh, no, wait, that means I have the last word... Scolaire (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure. -- Evertype·✆ 08:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Phew! For a while I thought I'd deprived you. Oh, darn!... Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Supporting one's own statement

Tfz has done this. I think that it is ridiculous to support one's own statement; it's just meaningless padding. I deleted. He valiantly reverted, claiming that there was no "rule" to prevent him. For my part I don't think people should be signing support for their own statements. -- Evertype·✆ 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we all support our own statements, there's really no change on Tfz's Position-statement. I've no problem with his repetition. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The voter will see that a person has supported their own statement, so they won't exactly be fooled into thinking he's two different people. Isn't this just something over nothing? Jack forbes (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems daft to me. -- Evertype·✆ 21:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the logic Goodday. Evertype, I cannot understand your objection, as it's only a blip in the 'big picture', and doesn't change the balance of probabilities in the least. My second reason for doing so, apart from the obvious, is to make a start on my support paragraph. Maybe no one will ever sign under, one never knows. Really, it's a small item to be getting hung up on. If there are any problems, I might just delete it altogether, especially if no one has signed 'support'. Tfz 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Don't people do that on RFC, etc. Anyway people can see it clearly so I don't think it adds anything (or takes away). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Evertype, its silly for people to sign their own statements in such a way. I cant see that it ads anything, on the otherhand if some statements have not been signed by anyone (including themselves) it may mislead some people. We should either all sign or none. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that. You should all sign then there will be no argument over it. Jack forbes (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Daft? Silly? Quite frankly I don't know what the words mean. Can these two gentlemen, Evertype and BritishWatcher, give me some more examples of Silly and Daft? Tfz 21:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, Tfz supported my statement. So I guess we must respect his judgment. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Umm, the President of the United States hosting a Beer summit would be one example. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
No, BW. He said something silly. Now, any President of the USA hosting a summit on world peace, that would be silly. Jack forbes (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Position statement now removed, nothing to fight over now. Tfz 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not a teen? Gosh, to me it seems as though you've just cut off your nose to spite your face. The controversial part was where you thought it a good idea to support your own statement. That's daft. Just as daft as opposing your own statement would be. But deleting your statement is even dafter. -- Evertype·✆ 23:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I was only calling the need to sign our own statements silly, not the statement itself.. dont know why you needed to delete the whole thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Look folks, you are driving Tfz away. I think he should restore his statement and support it if he wishes. I'm just a bit concerned that if I support someone who says "A" and then someone who opposes "A" but favours "B" (because either are acceptable to me), will this not cause confusion? Should I support all the statements which oppose or don't support "F"? That is reasonable if I support several alternatives to "F". But then I end up saying I support statement #1 which supports "A" and opposes "B" and also I support statement #2 which supports "B" but opposes "A" - because to me both "A" and "B" are better than "F". Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'm going to support anyone who opposes "F" - so long as their suggestion is acceptable. So I'll be supporting the chap who advocates "A" and is opposed to "B" and also the chap who supports "B" but opposes "A". On the grounds that both oppose "F". Sarah777 (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do I (suddenly) have a craving for alphabet soup? GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Ballot

I know the vote hasn't started yet, but could someone tell me where the Ballot page is to enable me to find out which option goes with what letter. Jack forbes (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also a "Reminder of the options" on the statement's page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, rannpairti. Jack forbes (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a cutoff for amending one's own statement?

Just wanted to outline that while I favour F, there are others I could live with, and some I oppose... --HighKing (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Amend away. -- Evertype·✆ 23:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Ahem! High King, weren't you favouring option E? Jack forbes (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Jaysus - yes! I mean No! Anything except F. Obviously some gremlins stole the bits off the bottom of the E to make it look like an F.. ahem. --HighKing (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
:-) Aye, amend way. If you substantially change something, though, it might be an idea to let those who've already endorsed your statement know that it's changed? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That'd be Jack then. It's still the same, except I also don't mind C or D, and don't support A,B or F. --HighKing (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I was wondering if there was another HighKing out there. Jack forbes (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There were two Redking* editors arguing opposite points on the same page (possibly even an RoI-renaming issue) at one point - now that was confusing. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Just need to control this amending. Otherwise we'll have folk amending their statements to account for amendments in other statements which impact on them. Etcetera. There is a typo I'd like to remove from my statement though. Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead. Edit it. Maybe Masem is trying to work on pro/cons but he can use a diff if he needs a particular date. -- Evertype·✆ 09:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Aye. Noone is going to argue with fixing typos, formatting, etc. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
aaaah .. just messin' with ya, HK. Here's the bottom of yet E back: _ --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative perspective

Do I have to add my John Hancock to those 'alternative perspective' sub-sections of others Position statement pages? GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You might choose to add it to Tfz's and mine, since your statement rejects the option that we are arguing for, but you don't have to. BTW if you do, it's not your sig you add, it's a link to your statement i.e. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements/GoodDay|GoodDay]]. Scolaire (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Nay! I won't add it. I'll be so giddish when 'any Position statement' is adopted, I won't mind which is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ballot page: a couple of minor things

Just a couple of minor comments on the ballot page:

  • Having the TOC half-way down the page seems a bit strange. Any reason it shouldn't be at or near the top?
  • There are two sections headed "Ballot" and "Balloting area". It was the same in the mini-poll and I couldn't get my head around it. Shouldn't the heading "Ballot" be reserved for the voting area, and the list of options have a different heading (such as "Options")?
Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with those changes. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've changed "Ballot" to "Ballot options"; the following section is about "Ballot options" anyway. As far as "Balloting area" vs. "Ballot"... well, "Voting area" would be better perhaps, or "Ballot". I can't decide. ;-)
Changing the title of sub-sections may break the within-page links, but that's nothing that can't be fixed again after. I have no problem with any of those changes either.
(So you know, I put the TOC at the bottom to begin with. It wasn't laying out correctly with all of the included bits and pieces, particularly the subheads in the "intro". It will prob still have to be explicitly placed. I would have left it off altogether - and still would - but I thought maybe, depending on how comments go, it may be useful there. If you want to include it higher up on the page, you may have to place the TOC magic word inside the ballot paper "template" rather than on the ballot page itself.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I fixed the within-page ("back up") that was broken. As far as the TOC goes, I don't see why it needs one. -- Evertype·✆ 15:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I took the TOC out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The place for voting is a long, long way down the paper. With a TOC at the top, you can click on it and go straight to it, without it I think some people will give up looking and go home. This was also the reason for my comment about section headings. If there is only one section heading with the word "ballot" in it, people will navigate to the voting area easily; with two people can get confused. Scolaire (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"The place for voting is a long, long way down the paper. With a TOC at the top, you can click on it and go straight to it..." Without even reading the what the six options are? :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What can I say? Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've put it at the very top - somewhere, I hope, will invite people to browse the entire page before voting. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Better, ish, but I'd just as soon not have it at all. We want them to read all the way down the paper, Scoláire... -- Evertype·✆ 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! If they can't be bothered to use their scrolling skills, there's no hope for this. --HighKing (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
God, the two of you! You still think you're going to force the voters to take classes! Trust me, they will read. Because they want to, not because we require them to. Then they will look for the place where they vote, and they will find it, because there was a Table of Contents at the top to help them. Yes, I would like to change "Balloting area" to "Voting area" because that way the TOC is crystal clear, and they can read about the options, and then vote, and the TOC will show the way, because that's what a TOC does. Scolaire (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This "article" is not long enough to need a TOC. "A long, long way down the paper"? I don't believe this is a credible "problem". -- Evertype·✆ 22:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If it's not a problem, then don't go on about it! It's a simple suggestion, that's all. Scolaire (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
To paraphrase your good self, don't ever tell me what to go on about or not to go on about.... :-P -- Evertype·✆ 08:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ballot area → Voting area was a good edit. -- Evertype·✆ 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

Just wondering where the poll was going to be "advertised", more specifically will there be links at the top of each involved article page (The actual article rather than the associated talk pages). Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The following was agreed and has been stable for a long time:
Proposed locations for advertising of poll
Projects
Articles
Noticeboards
Miscellaneous
Users
Certainly the poll should be announced on the Talk pages, at least. -- Evertype·✆ 07:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fáilte roimh Lá Lúnasa!

Hurah! ... today is the first of August. We're kicking off so are we? Masem, you cool to go? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to get your dancing shoes on... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we should put back the vote for a month to enable us to......Nah, just kidding folks. Jack forbes (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oo You almost had me there, Jack... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pro/Con list

Barring any suggested grammar/spelling edits, either inclusion of these are a go or a no-go: (Some aren't specifically addressed outside of Evertype's reiteration of the ones that were previously attempted:

Option A: (Merge to one article)

  • Pro: Like Tasmania, the island and country are often considered synonymous with each other, sharing the bulk of history and culture, and would avoid the disambiguation confusion.
  • Con: Merging information from respected source articles would be difficult to organize and would possibly require more splitting per Summary Style.

Option B: (State at "Ireland")

  • Pro: The internationally recognized name of the country would suggest giving preference to using it as most common English use of the term "Ireland" per naming conventions.
  • Con: The island has been known as "Ireland" for longer than the country itself; this option would reverse the natural order of the country being part of the island.

Option C: (General "Ireland" article and separate island and country ones

  • Pro: Like China, a common "Ireland" article can be used to introduce the common history and culture of the island and country, with separate articles for specifics, and would remove disambiguation on the two uses of the name.
  • Con: There would be difficulty in determining what text appears in what article, and may also introduce some overlap of information.

Option D: (State at "Ireland (state)", island at "Ireland")

  • Pro: Removes the potentially contentious use of the term "Republic of Ireland" (see Option F) in favor of a disambiguation title and will likely not lead to further editing problems.
  • Con: Breaks the current status quo and would require a recheck of all incoming links.

Option E: (Disamb page at "Ireland")

  • Pro: Neutral option without deciding whether the island or country has more "right" to the name.
  • Con: Will require editors on other pages to include the disambiguation subtitle for all links back to "Ireland".

Option F: (State at "Republic of Ireland", island at "Ireland")

  • Pro: Status quo, and "Republic of Ireland" is consider the proper descriptor for the country, and is used both internally by Irish government and externally by other countries in reference to the country. The existence of the alternate name provides a clear path through disambiguation.
  • Con: "Republic of Ireland" was used strictly by the UK during the two countries' previous hostilities to refer to the country, and despite its use today, implies a UK-nationalistic bias. Use of "Republic of Ireland" has likely led to much of the editing warring over such articles due to this.

Yea/nay? --MASEM (t) 12:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Very quickly:
  • A: Why Tasmania or all places? Why no Iceland? Or Cuba? "Merging information from respected source articles would be difficult ..." Hardly. There such over lap between the two islands.
  • B: Add that island at Ireland is also "per naming conventions".
  • C: "There would be difficulty in determining what text appears in what article..." ? Isn't that the situation we are in now (i.e. what info goes in "island" article, what info goes in "state" article)?
  • D: The "con" is a bit weak. Maybe a better one would be to say that "Republic of Ireland" provides a clearer dab phrase than "Ireland (state)"
  • E: Describing any option as the "neutral option" is a definite 'no, no'. Con: it is not only the island that would need to be pipe linked but also the island (unless, presumable, Republic of Ireland would redirect, in which case we have to ask, why move it at all?) Also, think "readers, not editors" - our readers will have no article at "Ireland" any more if this happens.
  • F: "...implies a UK-nationalistic bias" Nonsense. Source please?
--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Adds: overall, I would say Nay. What we have now is just fine and a pro/con list IMHO will only lead to more discontent. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Masem I can’t see how you could have made it any more biased even if you tried. You really are setting a new standard in Moderating; let’s face it there is not much chance of reaching a lower one.--Domer48'fenian' 13:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nay: it's not an improvement on Evertype's statement. "Republic of Ireland was used strictly by the UK during the two countries' previous hostilities to refer to the country" may be an accurate representation of the "anti" position, but it's completely untrue as far as I'm concerned. Scolaire (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nay: I appreciate the work Masem put into this, but I think on balance we are better off not trying to assimilate this into the ballot at this time. Let's lock down the last bits that need locking, and prepare to start the poll tonight at 21:00 UTC. -- Evertype·✆ 13:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nay: Per Scolaire and Evertype. Too many problems with them to fix before tonight. But your efforts are indeed appreciated, Masem. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nay: The advance tickets have been sold, the arena lights are being turned on for latter tonight. GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Tasmania is a bad example. The island and state of Tasmania are no different on a map. And, on option F, you should know that, before the UK courts used the term republic it was produced from the Irish. Pobhlacht na hEireann. The existence of the seperate country is based on that. If they didn't name it a republic themselves history would have been a lot different so be warned that things you read on this debate that sound well sourced may be biased toward some undefined goal. The viewpoint of the minority folk in the north who have always considered themselves to live in Ireland is still poorly represented in this debate. ~ R.T.G 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Nay - As someone that wanted a pros/cons list that isnt enough and doesnt focus on all the main points, some of the user statements are pretty good and the warning tag on the ballot saying make sure to read the statements are pretty good. Thanks for trying masem but its going to be impossible to get agreement on it, there for lets go ahead with the poll tonight, and may the lord have mercy on our souls if the wrong option is chosen because all hell may break loose in phase two. Before the poll opens, i would just like reassurance again that the moves will NOT take place until after the other stuff has been sorted out (like when to use Republic of Ireland in article text) and even if the option to move state to Ireland wins, nobody is to go around removing Republic of Ireland from text before agreement here??? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, BritishWatcher, your assertion is correct. Moves are NOT supposed to take place until the other stuff (is there more then the one example you give? Please specify.) is sorted out. Modulo, of course, good faith on the people who work to sort that out. There is no question of taking another six months or a year to "sort it out". The keyword is collaboration! -- Evertype·✆ 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorting out how we say Ireland, Island of Ireland, Republic of Ireland in text across articles is the only thing i can think of. We need clear guidelines on when we can and cant use Republic of Ireland because i have seen articles where Republic of Ireland should probably be used instead of just Ireland and a couple of cases where it probably doesnt have to be used.
The only other thing ofcourse is if certain options win that require alot of work on (Ireland / Republic of Ireland merger or a general article at Ireland). That would have to be sorted out before the move. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I reckon you'll find that in most cases, Republic of Ireland will remain as an appropriate disambiguator. Just so long as the article title somehow reflects the correct name... Either way, I think it's be a job well done by 4 or 5 specific individuals, so Thank You. --HighKing (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I figured, generated pro/cons will just be too much of a burden, and I think we're going to need to rely on the position statements and other points on the case for the vote. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Con: Failing to give equal weight to Irishness of the north. If the EU said, "The German vote takes precedence over the Nederlands because they are all Dutch and the German number is far greater." the Nederlands Dutch would only be part of the EU through coercion and opression. This is an example with close comparison. I don't really feel that Ireland will ultimately be designated a republic only article but this example is one of the most important:- Is there a minority? What is the balance in terms? Can we weigh that in any "final" descriptions? ~ R.T.G 13:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Present day state and history before 1920s

This may have been raised before and I realise there is an ongoing debate about the actual name of the article... but I'm intresting in collaborating on the article on the modern day state and think it should include history from before the 1920s. A general overview, rather than a bureaucratic starting point of the modern state. Ireland as a nation-state. This is the only internationally recognised country on Wikipedia which has this sort of harsh "castrating" in place. For instance;

  • Germany - the modern state was only founded in the 1800s, yet it had a general history of entities which existed before it in roughly the same area. The Holy Roman Empire's borders were well beyond the modern day borders of Germany, yet in that FA it is treated as an integral part of the countries history. This could be regarded as similar to the Kingdom of Ireland having borders which were beyond the modern day borders of the Irish state.
  • Turkey - ancient Anatolian history is included in this article even though the modern Turkish state begins in the 1920s.
  • Italy - the modern state only begins in the 1800s, like there is controversy over Northern Ireland, Italian nationalists claimed and some still do wider areas with a historic connection to Italian states like Savoy, Corsica, Dalmatia, Istria, Malta and so on, yet Italy too has a full historic presentation.

It just seems odd that states with far more controversial histories have a full historic presentation yet Ireland doesn't. Obviously information about Northern Ireland after partition shouldn't be mentioned in the modern Irish state's article, nor should it be covered in geographic sections in said article, but a general overview of ancient Irish history of the entire island (which was before the Plantations so it isn't contentious), the Lordship of Ireland, the Kingdom of Ireland, its existence as part of the United Kingdom as a constituency country (like England and Scotland) before the modern era and partition should be covered in the article of the country which is a member of the EU and the United Nations IMO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is treated like the shits here on Wikipedia, mainly because British and Irish editors cannot find consensus, Irish editors 'never ever' speak with a unified voice, and vested British interests as in British Unionism it suits too, and didn't Oscar Wilde write that "the Irish are very fairminded, they never speak well of each other", you can tell by this page. I agree with your substantive point. Ireland is a nation, all thirty two counties of it, and a very ancient one at that. Tfz 22:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like Divide and rule hehehe. Anyway, How on earth is Ireland treated unfairly on wikipedia? what nonsense BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it was treated unfairly, nor am I complaining. You should digest what's written, not what you think is written. Tfz 01:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is an island Yorkshirian. Do you really believe you can completely rewrite the sections on culture, demography and infrastructure? You are replacing See Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland with See republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland but why not use See republic of Ireland and northern Ireland? You complain on the talk page that the intro is "mope"d with Ireland Vs. British domination as though that is all the history we have, and yet, that is all the history we have, friend. Apparently kings that ruled Europe were brought here to be crowned and man lived here ten thousand years before they lived on Britain but, when they conquered it, they pulled all the stone buildings down unless they were plain fortresses and made us to live in huts so previous history is based mainly on mythology and forensic science. You say that the Viking origins of Dublin should be displayed because, having captured the Isle of Mann, they were "obviously significant in cultural sphere" but didn't the Viking City of Waterford pre-date that by a thousand years and didn't those Vikings capture all these islands as far as Greenland? (a bit more signifigant than the Isle of Mann?) I think you are more interested in reading the book rather than writing it at the moment. Why don't you try seeing what all the debate is about here on this page and try to give an impartial view on that? The main concern is "What is Ireland?" and if you go through all the citations you will learn much about the history. I learned plenty of little things for this debate too. ~ R.T.G 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Please feel free to ignore this as I'm sure it's been gone over - I just don't want to go over the pages and pages of discussion but... Why isn't there an option to move the island article to "Ireland (island)" and make "Ireland" a disambiguation page with[out] move[ing] "Republic of Ireland"? Surely this would be a reasonable option for those who believe there isn't a primary topic but RoI is a better disambiguator than Ireland (state). Wouldn't be my first choice but wouldn't be my last choice, either - relevant in terms of the STV system. Surely since the status quo option exists, the idea that people could prefer RoI to (state) must be somewhat realistic and the idea that there isn't a primary topic is pretty much the basis of this process. Guest9999 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is Republic of Ireland is hated by some which is why we are here now, so if there was to be a change there would be far more support for Ireland (state) than Republic of Ireland, no matter what happens to the Ireland article. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
But by that logic there wouldn't be an option to keep the article at Republic of Ireland at all. I doubt the hatred for the term extends to a great proportion of the Wikipedia community outside of the participants of this project and fundamentally I don't think the circumstances I described above sound too unrealistic - especially since there are specific arguments against using (state) - including the potential confusion with subnational entities. Is it really that unlikely that a typical user coming from cent or the village pump or who just happens to click on an article talk page could think that there is no primary topic that should be at Ireland but have a preference for RoI over (state)? Guest9999 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Its possible i suppose, i dont know why it wasnt included in the options.. its certainly far better than some of the things there. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess it's a bit late to add in options. Guest9999 (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

Did we not say the poll was beginning at 21.00 UTC on 1 August 2009? What happened? No notices, no opening of the ballot page, no discussion even? Did everybody just go to bed? Was there a quiet decision not to bother because there was too much agreement on how it should be done? Is it me that's mad? Scolaire (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed too. I have some house guests and we went to the pub at 22:00 IST. Came back, erm, later and I noticed that no poll had begun. Well, fine. We need an admin to lock the ballot paper, and then once that is done I'm willing to send out ballot notices. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I was at a party last night - I clicked on my WP tab this morning fully expecting to see a bright orange line across the top and a notice on my userpage... Um... do we have an agreed notice text? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "lock the ballot paper"? I assume that's just protecting the ballot page so that only users with a valid account can edit there? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I mean fully protect it so that only admins can edit there. We don't want the ballot paper itself to be edited. (The locked ballot paper is then transcluded into the actual ballot.) -- Evertype·✆ 08:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Final Poll being held? am I missing it? GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice text

I'll go fetch the text we used for the Ireland (xxx) Poll and post it here. -- Evertype·✆ 08:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's that text:
  • A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).
First pass at revision:
Now I'll look at the intro text and see if there's anything from that that should be included. -- Evertype·✆ 08:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could go with the intro text:
I prefer the first revision, there's too much detail in the second and even then it doesn't cover all the issues and arguments involved. Valenciano (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the first revision also. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't #Poll on Ireland article names (Text for the ballot announcement) be the basis for framing the announcement? Note in particular this question and this answer which I took to mean that the "non-trivial sanctions" threat would be left out as unnecessary and off-putting. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thus:
Better? Shoud the Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Ireland (disambiguation) be bolded or wikilinked? -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Much better! I would say linked, but I'm not bothered either way. Scolaire (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Linked then. -- Evertype·✆ 09:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

42 days?

Is it too late to re-negotiate the 42-day time frame? It seems to me that that was thrown out by someone at some point and just became generally accepted. But 42 days is an awfully long time. Originally it was agreed to extend the time from the usual five days to 21 (which is a big leap in itself) because summer was coming, but then it was changed to 42 days because summer was here. By 13 September summer will be long over! Plus, unless we continue to send out notices at weekly intervals, the poll will be forgotten before the end of the second week. Even all those people who spend every August on Everest may not see the notice if a lot of other people have posted to their talk page in the meantime. Before those notices get sent out, I think we should agree to bring it back to 21 days i.e. a 23 August finish date if it starts today. Scolaire (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

21 days seems quite sufficient. Valenciano (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not immediately comfortable about such a sudden re-negotiation. I am looking into when and what was agreed. Be back in a bit. -- Evertype·✆ 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't see any mention before this and this. It's restated here, and the next and most recent mention, as far as I can see, is in the Latest timetable section above us. (Disclaimer: I only did the search now, so the "thrown out by someone" earlier was not a dig at anybody) Scolaire (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not 28 days. That wouldn't feel as though it were dragging it out and could make those who think it should be longer due to holidays feel happier. I don't know about you folk, but when I go on holiday it's usually two weeks with three at a push. Jack forbes (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
But why not 21 days? "Three weeks at a push" in reality is nearly always 19 or 20 days, so even the hundreds of editors flying out tonight will still be back in time. Scolaire (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind 21 days. I was only thinking of those who think the holiday period could interfere with editors chances of voting. Jack forbes (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I find a suggestion of 21 days here on 23 June, 21 days is described here on 12 July, 42 days here on 20 July (and Rannṗáirtí was asked for a rationale for 6 weeks, and gave a decent one), and 35 or 42 days here 21 July. I think it's been set at 42 since then. I think 21 days is too short. It seems that Scoláire's reservation is only that it might need reminders be sent out, I can put that worry to bed by saying that I think we could easily send out the poll on 2 August, send a reminder a fortnight later on 16 August, and send one more reminder a fortnight later on 30 August. That will have the best chance of getting noticed by people who have been on holiday, and the point is that we really want to cast the net widely here, and I think that 21 days is really too little. I disagree with Scoláire's suggestion that the summer is "long over". The school year (in Ireland, according to citizensinformation.ie generally starts in the week that 1 September falls every year, so if we end on 13 September that's a mere two weeks into the school year. We might guarantee/guess/suppose/surmise that people will be back from holiday by 1 September, and I don't think that it is outrageous to let this poll run for a fortnight after that. My strong preference would be to leave it at 42 days, with 2 reminders to be sent out at fornightly intervals. -- Evertype·✆ 13:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I missed the one that said six weeks. Still, that is one person's opinion and nobody said "you're right" that I can see - apart from you saying it now, of course. My prediction - and I've participated in a fair few polls - is that we might get 30+ people voting in the first ten days, we won't get more than five in the next ten, and there won't be more than one or two after that, no matter how long it goes on. I sincerely hope the vote won't be so small or so tight that one or two votes will make a difference. Sending out extra notices will piss people off and won't have any significant effect on the vote - anyone who gives a hang will vote the first time. My strong preference is to close it after 21 days. Scolaire (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your crystal-balling of people being pissed off and it having an ill effect on the vote. People are away during the summer, and people will be back in the school year. My strong preference is to close it after 42 days. -- Evertype·✆ 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
21's a bit short (per previous "Summer time" rationale), but "42" was from way back in July ... or maybe even June. At time date, letting it run for longer than a month puts us into September, which is "normal" time again (and so depreciates the "Summer time" rationale). I think that gives reason to reduce it ... 35 days (5 weeks)? (Edit: 42 put us two week into September, which is a "decent" period.)
I'd err on the side of caution though. There is nothing to be lost from leaving it run for longer than necessary - but trimming days of risks trimming participants off too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a very good idea to let this run two weeks into September. That puts the end during the school period which ensures that people will be back from any summer holidays, short or long. -- Evertype·✆ 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
When this Final Poll starting? or has it already done so & I'm missing it. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Pretty soon, I believe. Unfortunately we now have Scoláire throwing up what I think is a pretty bogus roadblock about 42 days being "excessive". 42 days can do the poll no harm. 42 days ensures that people away until the school year starts will be able to vote. 21 days offers the serious risk that some people will not know about the vote. I find Scoláire's lobbing this grenade in to be really very disappointing. -- Evertype·✆ 14:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Its annoying that this is arising now. There's been plenty of time to discuss it and finalise a time period, before the day (well, the day after) polling is/was due to start. Let's leave it at 42. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's have 42-days. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer 21 days but it's no big deal so I would go with 42 for the sake of getting the poll started.Valenciano (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Pretty bogus roadblock? I wanted a discussion before it was too late, that's all. Could you not resist one last chance to have a go at me? Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who was annoyed by it being lobbed in at the last minute. I wasn't "having a go at you" and will be delighted to buy you a pint sometime. -- Evertype·✆ 18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo (not the website)

The Final Poll has commenced. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. -- Evertype·✆ 15:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
So who else is hitting refresh every few minutes? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Fifteen votes in the first 45 minutes. And on a Sunday afternoon. I'm impressed! Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

Will be people be allowed to change their vote after they've cast it? This could potentially affect the result if it's close and it would be better if we made a rule against that from the beginning. Secondly what happens if it's a tie? Valenciano (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Change their votes? sure (as long as it's before the 42-days are up). A tie? the status quo remains (like in boxing). GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't see why people shouldn't be able to change their vote, to be honest. What happens if, to use an example from above, HighKing were to mistakenly lose the bottom off his "E" again and voted for "F" as his first preference? It wouldn't be fair to say "tough, you're stuck voting for the option you dislike the most." I would say a dead-heat is most unlikely under PR:STV, but I suppose anything is possible. I would presume in that case a secondary instant runoff between the two tied options? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
We can't prevent people from editing their own votes. What we do need however is for some one to check to see that everyone who votes is enfranchised to do so. -- Evertype·✆ 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Theoretically there's no advantage to changing your vote using STV (so long as you properly expressed your preference the first time). If you see something winning/losing and are motivated change your vote in order to affect the outcome then (in theory) the only reason why you would do so is because you did not properly express the order of your preferences from the start. That's in theory. In reality people don't express their preferences entirely properly and it takes something like seeing one option winning/losing to make them realize where their priorities actually lie.
For that reason, I don't see any problem changing your vote as often as you like. However, when the vote closes, the page should be locked.
2. If there's a tie, we're fecked. I suppose ArbCom could have the casting vote? We do say that "[a] member of the ArbCom committee will adjudicate the result of the vote." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
We'd better think about it as it's already quite close. Valenciano (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Somehow, I'd say that's more of a reflection of the people who were standing by ready to cast their votes. We'll see. Scolaire (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There are rules on how to break most ties, but they can vary between the precise form of rules use ("PRSTV" is not a precise set) - usually it's looking at which option had a lead in earlier rounds and the difference is between whether you look at the start or most recent. And even that doesn't always work if two (or more) options poll equally well. At the bottom end of the poll there's the problem that some of the options are getting so few first preferences that there may well be ties for elimination. In all such scenarios we need clarity on how the ties will be broken. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a thousand and one variations on those themes. Choosing one would be hard, explaining it would be impossible. Be grateful we're not transferring surpluses! Odds are it's not going to happen or it won't affect the outcome.
We could just use random selection in all such eventualities (at least it's easy to explain), but then we'd all come up with different results. It's why I'm an advocate of a single, authoritative teller - and let them choose the method in such eventualities (or a single piece of software, that we all operate using a single, specified method).
But ... odds are ... it's not going to matter. Odds are...--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
(to TimRollpickering)That's my point. Currently 20 votes cast, at the second count it would be F 10 votes, E 5, B 5. What then? rannṗáirtí, there is a chance that lesser options will tie, we need agreement on how to deal with that. Seperating them randomly is a recipe for arguments, seperating on say, the basis of first preferences, then second preferences etc would be a better way. Valenciano (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Was the method of deciding the vote count not sorted before? it confused the hell out of me so i tried to avoid that debate. However say the result was those 20, with 10 for one option 5 each for the other two. Are we forced to go onto the second choices of everyone which would radically change the vote because the option needed 51% to win straight out and only got 50%? because that is going to make alot of people angry, these silly proportional / STV systems really do suck. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There's an off-chance, see the example below. (Your example above, is a real strange one. Imagine, A got 50%. After redistributing the votes of everyone else C got 50%, i.e. not one single second preference went to A. At that point, we would have a tie between C and A. The system for splitting "ties" - on the off-chance that they happen and affect the outcome! - that I am proposing below would declare that A was the winner.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahh i understand what ur saying about if its a tie, the one with the most 1st pref votes should go forward.. it certainly shouldnt be done randomly. Although i really dont like this system at all, its such an attack on the majority if im understading it right. The need for 1 option to beat ALL other options combined in order to win is so unfair. Especially if the pattern continues at the moment with the front runner getting almost NO second preference votes. Its going to swing the vote and overthrow the majority view. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. If things continue as they are now, F will win either in the first round or the second round. It has an unassailable lead right now for all practical purposes. "...its such an attack on the majority..." It's designed to be exactly the opposite. For example, suppose 40% of people want X. The remainder (60%) want 'anything but X' - but their vote is split between a number of options. Using first-past-the-post, X wins. Using STV, something other than X will win. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Instead of getting the option a majority wanted the most, it can end up with the option that had a small number supporting as their first choice.. i see that as an attack on the majority, i dont like this nonsense of giving people 2nd, 3rd, 4th choices. If you back a loser then you waste ur vote, u dont get to pick again.
But anyway, im still pretty confused and dont follow the system despite reading the stuff in the box further up the page. Say the vote stopped now but option F only got 49% of the vote, using this system would it win still or would D which seems to have a majority of the 2nd preference votes somehow over take it and win further down the line? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not counting, but going by the tally on Valenciano's page, D would require *all* of the second preferences to have a *chance* of winning. If F got *any* second prefs then it would be pushed past the point-of-no-return and would be guaranteed to win.
What the "majority wanted the most" is an very difficult thing to measure. It would require a ballot sheet where you not only rank your preferences but give weights as well. First-past-the-post gives us "what most wanted". STV (or, technically, IRV) give us "what the majority wanted". Neither systems give us "what the majority wanted the most". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm i think i see thanks, so if F didnt make the 51% in the first round and only got 50%, it would only need a couple of 2nd preference votes redistributed to it to push it over the 51% then its declared winner?
If you have one vote, u vote for the one you want the most. The winner is the one that a "majority of people wanted" although not the majority of all voters. I could never support STV or proporitonal representation lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Surely if F got exactly 50% of the ballots with the other 50% split it would mean F was declared the winner there and then? (Even if all the other ballots transferred against it, F would still win on the tie break.) Or is the result going to be counted all the way to get the "two option preferred" result? Timrollpickering (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Im not sure, above in the box on this they talk about 50%+1 i thought that meant 51% but i guess its 50% + 1 vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Most of the time, lesser options ting won't affect the result. Unless the sum of the tied options surpasses the different between the leading option and the quota (of 50% in this case), the outcome is unaffected. Many methods simultaneously eliminate the lower placed for this reason options to save time. Example: suppose A=35% B=30%, C=25%, and D/E/F are the remnants. Since the sum of D+E+F () is not greater than the difference between A and the quota (10%) they can be safely eliminated. It is unsafe to eliminate C because it exceeds the difference between A and the quota. The redistribution of D, E and F results in A=40%, B=30% C=30% then we will have a problem.
We could eliminate C because it has the lower number of first preferences, or because it trailed going into that round - or we could decide by random selection (among other criteria). If we were to go with system then I'd favour "first preferences", followed by "previous round", followed by "random selection". To avoid us all coming up with a different "random selection", we could use the letter assigned to each option to make the split (since these were randomly assigned already). So, in the case of a tie affecting the out come I propose:
Eliminate only one options at a time using this method: 1. Eliminate the option that had the least amount of first preferences; 2. If two or more options to be split had the same number of first preferences, eliminate the option (from that subset) that had the least number of votes before going into the "tied" round; 3. If two or more options (from that subset) are still tied, eliminate the option (from that subset of a subset) that is assigned the "lowest" letter of the alphabet (i.e. option A eliminated before option B, etc.)
This way can be done easily by hand and will result in definitive (and reasonably fair) result in the case of a tie. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm well i agree with 1 and 2, point 3 seems very unfair. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If 1 and 2 fail then what else could you use to split the two only random selection? (BTW in first-past-the-post, it would be the only option e.g. A get 40%, B get 40%, C gets 20% - who wins first-past-the-post? Either a casting vote decides - or it's random selection.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Voting template problem

Okies, looks like at least 3 people so far have run into a problem with the template - all involve a problem with their signature. Would it be possible/is it advisable to move the four tildes out beyond the last curly bracket to avoid the problem? Instructions would need to be updated too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's people that use CSS/font tags in their sigs. Damn, how come we didn't pick that up before? (The actual problem is the equal to sign in this kind of mark up e.g. <tag attribute="value">sign</tag>.) I'll see what I can do... --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've fixed it in my sandbox (see working example). The fix is that instead of just putting in their tildes voters will have to explicitly state "sign=xxx" e.g. * {{stv-ballot|A=0|B=0|C=0|D=0|E=0|F=0|sign=~~~~}}. No fix is "backward compatible", so votes that are already cast will not have to be "fixed".
I'll go request an admin to make the required changes. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
He made the change. -- Evertype·✆ 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What happens in 2 years time?

Does the discussion start again? (Much praise is due to many contributors to date). Kittybrewster ☎ 18:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ochó-ó-ó-ó-ón is ochó-ó-ón óóóóóóóóó.... -- Evertype·✆ 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Repeatedly call for polls on various talk pages. Run to ArbCom. "Discuss" for 9 moths. Have another vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the result of this poll. If, e.g., F wins by somewhere between a very good margin and a landslide, there'll be very little appetite (I imagine) for reopening the can of worms. If an option wins by only a small margin, then - yes, what both Evertype and Rannpháirtí said... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
see ya all in 3 years then! lol BritishWatcher (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Au contraire; if F wins it will merely prolong the trouble. Unless it has a landslide of editors who are resident in the "RoI". Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If F wins then all complaints and moaning about it can simply be ignored for 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
You reckon? Because if F wins it would merely illustrate that votes open to all merely result in systematic WP:BIAS when UK or US nationalism is challenged. Interesting that an editor called BritishWatcher is taking such an active part in the campaign to misname my country. Sarah777 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ireland is the name of your country. However my country shares the island of Ireland with your country and i think there is clearly a need to tell the two things apart. It is not my fault that your country decided to use the islands name when it doesnt control the whole island. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thus illustrating perfectly that misnaming the article about my country is a political project. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Your country (UK) shares the island with their country (Ireland). Yeah BW, goodness knows why they would call it Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes our country shares the island of Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps the United Kingdom should not of changed its name, we could of kept United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland just calling what is now Northern Ireland, Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Once again your unionist views are coming out. Ach well, I suppose you can't help it, BW. Jack forbes (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I never try to hide it, i think thats safer :). But u didnt address the problem.. Whhy couldnt the UK keep the name Ireland and just consider Northern Ireland "Ireland".. it is exactly the same thing except for the fact one has more land in Ireland than the other. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
There'll probably be a unified Ireland again in the next 30 years, that was the intention in 1922, and everyone screwed up. Tfz 22:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If that is the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland then i have no problem with it and if that does happen, in 30 years time we can all come back here and agree to have a single article on Ireland :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Now that nationalists are not being forced to leave that part of Ireland, it probably will happen sooner rather than later, and I fully support the Belfast agreement. Tfz 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Holy moly, let's wait until 2011 (before arguing this stuff). GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In 2 years time? Many of us will have found more productive ways to spend our time like the newest Total War game for example. Those still around will drag their decaying bodies, complete with several inches extra on the beer belly, back to the screen to refight the old battles. The United Ireland which will have happened by then will switch back to Dublin Mean Time and this will allow those unhappy with the result to claim that a lot could have happened in those critical 25 minutes and will gleefully seize the oppurtunity to put us all through another year of wikidrama. Valenciano (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we do not learn from this (history) we will repeat it ClemMcGann (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Urgent question on people changing votes???

Ofcourse people must be able to make changes if they make a mistake when voting. But are people allowed to change their vote at any point during the 42 days? i strongly oppose this, it will lead to tatical voting near the end with people changing their votes to fit in with the results so far so there is a different outcome to the vote. This seems unacceptable BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In a regular WP poll, such as an RM, you commonly see people changing their votes, usually with strikeouts e.g. "Support, this is the obvious choice Oppose, in the light of the discussion below". With a PR vote, yes, there is in theory a possibility of changing the outcome by manipulating your lower preferences, but I've been thinking about my own vote and how I might change it in order to affect the outcome, and I came to the conclusion that anything I might do in a month's time, I would do right now. In other words, it's not going to happen in practice. Trust me on this. Scolaire (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, people will look at the vote say 40 days in.. Calculate what will happen. If they see that their first and second options are going to be wiped out because they dont have enough support they can change it and have their new vote counted from the start, tipping the balance. That is just not fair, its cheating. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Tactically changes will only work if more than 50% are opposed to "RoI". If that is the case, tactical voting is perfectly legitimate. The issue here isn't what the best name is (there are valid differences of taste, style etc); the issue is that "RoI" is a political imposition and is unacceptable; inconsistent with WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME - after it is gone we can decide on the best alternative. Sarah777 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
See a strong British support for option F, and the 1949 Ireland Act. Tfz 21:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I can assure you, if I have to change my vote to change the article name I will. There are many who don't have a very strong preference for some of the options. What they do have is a dislike of the present article name, so it is very legitimate to change your vote. Jack forbes (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. -- Evertype·✆ 21:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
People are spectacularly missing the point of a preferential vote - if you express preferences for all those options which you have a view on then there will be no need to subsequently change your vote. If you don't like a particular option leave it last. Unless that option gains more than 50% then your vote will count against it. Tactical voting is totally unnecessary. Valenciano (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If you don't like a particular option, leave it off. Then you give it no weight at all. -- Evertype·✆ 21:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is the slightest chance that tatical vote changing could happen then it needs to be banned. Im not saying it will happen or that it will certainly have an impact, but i could see some doing it and i dont think its impossible for it to impact the vote. I cant see it impacting on the first round, but if the second round led to an option coming close to beating the front runner from round one, several people changing their 2nd vote to that option.. might give it the 51%.. Remembering some people may of voted for the original front runner as their 3rd of 4th option but dont engage in tatical voting so their vote ISNT counted. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't happen. I also don't think you really understand the system. The one we're using is basically the same as an election where people are eliminated in stages. The least popular option drops out after the first round, then the next least popular after the second round and so on until an option either has more than 50% or more votes than the second most popular option at the last count. Valenciano (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The PR system induces laziness into voters thought processes, thinking they can vote for 5 different scenarios at the same time. Tfz 21:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
But in proper votes people can not change their vote after seeing the result. I dont fully understand the system but there seems to be a chance of cheating if the vote is close. Can everyone here honestly say there is no chance at all of changing the outcome of the vote . If 5 editors decided to change their 3rd or 4th vote and put that option as their 2nd choice because they see their original options not doing well wouldnt that impact on the 2nd round? because other peoples votes who dont engage in tatical voting will not have their 3rd/ 4th counted if their 1st / 2nd are still in play. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
It's going to be fun watching 42 days of this hand-wringing. -- Evertype·✆ 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
For me,this will be enjoyable (as I'm content with any result Sept 13). GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Relax. Per Valenciano, that kind of tactical voting is impossible under STV. Vote according to your preference, that's all. If you change your mind later, change your vote, but "tactical switching" is impossible.
"Can everyone here honestly say there is no chance at all of changing the outcome of the vote ..." If people did not vote according to their genuine preference. Either people expressed their preference genuinely. Or they didn't. Changing your vote may affect the outcome, but only if you did not accurately express your preferences to begin with. It's a non-issue. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The vote is going to be very close because of STV, people should not be allowed to change their vote a month later. Some people have only supported options at the moment that will be eliminated, if the vote after 40 days is still the same some may just change their vote which would tip the balance. Yet others who have had their preferences eliminated who do not engage in vote switching would have no say. It doesnt seem very fair BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to you not wanting users to change their vote, I am all for it and think it is a brilliant idea. The most important thing here is that users know what they voted for, and why they voted that way, and if a "mistake" is made, then it can be rectified before the final count. Tfz 03:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The only "mistake" would be to think that changing your vote would change the outcome. Even if every person who did not give F a first preference changed their vote to give first preference to X, it would make no difference if F was one of the last two options remaining. It would end up X against F either way. Scolaire (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well if F doesnt get enough votes to win, those who vote F should change their vote near the end so their second preference can be counted which would impact on the vote and change its outcome. The last time i looked E was slightly ahead of C going into the last round against F. I would rather C than E, so i intend to switch my vote near the end if that pattern remains the same and i see several people whos first vote is F but voted for C before E so if they changed their votes too.. it would change the result. Aslong as we are all happy with vote switching.. so be it. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(To BW) Since everyone can change their vote there isn't any unfairness. If you prefer option X rather than Y then you should make that clear by giving a second preference that way. Lower preferences can never count against higher preferences. To TFZ I agree. The whole point of this process is to find an option that everyone can at least acquiesce with. Ironically your vote at the moment is one of two that ends up non-transferable i.e. not counted at the end! Valenciano (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Unless im misunderstanding the system if my first choice is F, on the current pattern F would go through to the final round meaning if i had a second preference it would not be counted at all anyway. So say i voted F C, that C doesnt get counted and impact on the vote unless i remove the F shortly before the vote closes. If E has enough votes in the final round to beat F and some people would rather see C win, then switching our first pref votes to C in an attempt to get C to beat E into the final would make a difference wouldnt it??
I accept anyone can change their vote, but most of the people except the ones here probably wont and it should probably of been pointed out one way or another somewhere on the ballot page about vote switching and that its allowed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There is the possibility of that kind of "falling-on-your-sword" type switch. So, if the race is really tight between F and E, with C in third place, it would be possible for F people to ditch F and go for C just to make sure that E didn't win. If they did so, how bad? Would it not constitute a compromise and shift towards a middle ground? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments section

Is it appropriate to have the old slanging match going on in the comments section of the ballot page? If the brawl just spills over from here the page will pass 100K in record time, quite apart from presenting an unedifying spectacle to voters. In particular, is it appropriate to have a sub-section that effectively says to voters, "I know where you live"? In a real election that would be called voter intimidation. Scolaire (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean "slagging match"? In any case you are quite correct and I have moved the non-relevant material to the Talk Page. -- Evertype·✆ 07:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope, slanging match, from slang (verb). I'm showing my age, I guess. And thank you. Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the accusations section to the talk page, it didnt seem like a good idea to have all that on the ballot page. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I suppose it was inevitable. -- Evertype·✆ 09:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Section 89

This page is getting very long. Could some of it be archived? Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Up to an including "Yahoo (not the website)"? That would take it neatly to the point of opening the ballot. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No wai! "Latest timetable" - anything before that is effectively out of date, but lots of sections including that and afterwards were updated only this weekend. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest timetable down is 105K. That would be a huge improvement. But it might be no harm to do another archive soon, maybe at the weekend. Scolaire (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just got it down to 340K, through 7/21 or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_19&oldid=1142156424"