Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

Irish Wikipedians' notice board
Home Irish Wikipedians' related news	Discussion Ireland related discussion (at WikiProject Ireland).	Active Users Active Irish Users	WikiProjects Irish WikiProjects	Stubs Major Irish stubs	Peer review Articles on Peer review	FA Articles on FA review	FA Drive Articles under consideration for FA drive

Irish articles assessed by quality

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
64	0	242	1,436	5,435	30,449	26,992	8	3,279	25,939	181	91	175	26	20	2,498	3,173	24	22	100,054

Move Categories - NUI Galway → University of Galway

The National University of Ireland. Galway has renamed itself University of Galway and the main article has been updated accordingly. Could an editor with sufficient access please move the associated NUI Galway categories to the new name? Or is there another process an autoconfirmed user can follow to move them? Cashew.wheel (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC about naming "Soldier F" in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article

An RfC about naming "Soldier F" in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article is open here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles Republic of Ireland - Ireland

Should the Republic of Ireland be shown in articles as "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" or "[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]"? Is it mandatory to change any link to "Ireland" (unlinked) or Republic of Ireland to [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]? Or is it only useful when in improves clarity? Conform Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. The Banner talk 16:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• That's not a proper RfC question. Of course it's not mandatory to change links! But neither is it mandatory to revert the changes. Why don't you word the RfC to reflect the difference in opinion between yourself and another editor over whether and how the state should be linked? Scolaire (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC) comment not necessary as the question was changed.

For context, this discussion first arose at WT:IMOS] My understanding is that the consensus is that where the country of Ireland is mentioned in an article the norm is to apply WP:IRE-IRL rather than the exception. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Follow the Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles (aka WP:IRE-IRL) i.e. Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland"...If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • So the form is mandatory, but not the linking itself? I.e. unlinked can stay unlinked? The Banner talk 08:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know where you're getting this "mandatory" from. Nothing is mandatory. IMOS states the recommended form, and the recommendations represent a consensus of editors over the last 17 years. Whether and how the recommendations should be followed is what this RfC is about. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

We've (for years) done it as [Republic of Ireland|Ireland], for the country. How it's done, is irrelevant to me. What is relevant, is that we apply the same solution consistently. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Twelve Bens

I'd be very grateful if other editors could weigh in on this discussion. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 21:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

POV edits

After reverting this by a new editor, I think somebody with more energy & knowlege than me might check his other edits. Thanks if you do. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are his edits to The Troubles in Northern Ireland (1920–1922). Palisades1, Asarlaí, and Mabuska are major contributors to that article, so they might know what to do with them. His edits to Resistance movement don't look especially POV. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals?

An editor has recently added the sub-module Infobox criminal to the 1916 Easter Rising leaders infoboxes. This now lists their "Criminal status", "Conviction(s)" and "Criminal penalty". See James Connolly, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas MacDonagh and many more. Is this appropriate for Irish revolutionaries? Spleodrach (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't see a criminal infobox on Napoleon Bonaparte, Samuel Adams or Nelson Mandela, don't see why it would apply to Easter 1916. Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

All I did was add an appropriate infobox used in conjunction with other persons who were tried, convicted, and sentenced for similar crimes in similar circumstances. I noted the bizarre omission while editing a list article. Whether or not one likes the convict or approves of his motives is immaterial to the factual matter at hand. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela was also convicted of high treason, will you be adding the criminal infobox to his article too? Cashew.wheel (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why it should not be on there. I am not making any moral judgement here. I'm simply listing notable and relevant facts. Many political figures have that infobox on their articles when it is relevant. I'm not trying to push any particular point of view. Wikipedia exists to inform, not as a platform for idolisation or demonisation. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like POV-pushing to me, but a bolder term would also fit. I suggest reverting it. The Banner talk 17:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC) But perhaps User:TheCurrencyGuy has a valid reason to do this.

Ooooh this is actually a tough one. One person's criminal is anothers freedom fighter and all that. However they were actually tried under the laws of the land, and convicted under those laws with punishment enforced so technically and legally yes they were. Should we be classifying them as such, different debate, but we shouldn't be ignoring this and pretending it wasn't against a government no matter what you think of that government. As an encyclopaedia we shouldn't just take one view of these people that would actually against our goals. Taken dispassionately from afar, it's kinda accurate and does in fact add legitimate encyclopaedic information to the infobox that is actually useful for the infobox. So in two minds about it. Is there a better infobox that can convey the information in a different manner? Don't know. I'm a little surprised this editor has moved into this area. Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The act of waging war against the government is considered a serious offence in all legal jurisdictions. By definition this completely justifies the "criminal conviction" section. Whether or not someone approves or disapproves of a historical person and whether or not he considers their actions justified or unjustified is purely a matter of opinion, I added the "criminal conviction" tag to the infoboxes of persons who were convicted according to law by a legally convened court (albeit a military one) by a recognised legal government. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)