ooking again i see in office is for past periods(two dates) but
ooking again i see in office is for past periods(two dates) but
there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of position taken/appointed to once elected. some sub class of 'office' that im looking for http://dbpedia.org/page/Brian_Cowen [[User:Lostexpectation|Lostexpectation]] ([[User talk:Lostexpectation|talk]]) 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of position taken/appointed to once elected. some sub class of 'office' that im looking for http://dbpedia.org/page/Brian_Cowen
I raised it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#elected_vs_positions_when_elected
[[User:Lostexpectation|Lostexpectation]] ([[User talk:Lostexpectation|talk]]) 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Re Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (recent news story in Ireland): The coverage of this that I'm seeing in the general press seems to emphasize that this is a "Catholic Church" issue. Our article hardly mentions the Catholic Church. We want to make sure that our article is NPOV and neither over-emphasizes nor under-emphasizes the facts. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FAR for Samuel Beckett
I have nominated Samuel Beckett for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British Isles dispute
I don't think it's right to have the article British Isles under WikiProject Ireland seeing as it is an insult to our country to have it under the heading "British". I have complained about the name on Talk:British Isles, and I'm proposing we have a vote by WikiProject Ireland members only, as to whether we should remove the article from the scope of this WikiProject, in protest.--FF3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've never heard an Irish person use this politically motivated term. 86.44.53.226 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should get out more. LevenBoy (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Irish Music
WikiProject Irish Music is in a sorry state. I'm trying to knock new life into it, but if other users don't contribute it will probably have to be merged into WikiProject Ireland. Please join if you can, it's already listed as inactive.--FF3000 (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not be better off being a workgroup or task force of WikiProject Music rather than a fully fledged WikiProject? ww2censor (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good suggestion but I think that we should make an effort to try and reboot it first, as it is a very important part of Irish culture. I'm sure that there will be some people on both this WikiProject and WikiProject Music dedicated to it. I might also eventually inform the founder of the WikiProject, NaLaochra about the situation if all else fails.--FF3000 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NaLaochra has not been active for over a year per [1], so that is likely a non-starter. I would suggest posting to a few editors who are currently active in some of the Irish musicians' articles, such as Agadant and Candlewicke to name just two. I am sure you can find more. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll do that.--FF3000 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not with much success, unfortunately. --FF3000 (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone create stub for Justice Sean Ryan?
Re the "Ryan Report"/Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, we don't seem to have an article for Justice Sean Ryan, Judge of the High Court (per http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/preface.php ), although we do have one for High Court judge Mary Laffoy. Sean Ryan is a disamb page; he is apparently not included there. Can someone please create a stub for him? I have not made a redlink for this because I have no idea what would be the best style to use for the article title. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Seán Ryan (Irish judge) has been deleted per request of the article's creator. I continue to think that we should have an article on this individual on Wikipedia. Discussion? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my position clear: if anybody who thinks that we should have an article on this individual they can write an article on this individual. What more is there to discuss? Scolaire (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Scolaire. Was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on this. (Answer would seem to be "no".) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
201.37.230.43, I just read your comments on Scoláire's talk page, where you say "I know absolutely nothing about him.... my opinion on whether Wikipedia should have a given article is independent of my personal ability to do any constructive work on that article.... I'm not competent to do much with it", etc. I think you have misunderstood what it takes to create an article like this. All you need is some basic understanding about the world, access to Google and some spare time. You seem to have all three so I am not clear why you didn't build on the stub that Scoláire created for you. I'm not Irish and I don't know anything about the Irish legal system but I managed it—see Seán Ryan (Irish judge)—so you can too. Next time, just go for it! - Pointillist (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote on renaming article to include "British Isles"
The annon has put this very poorly indeed. The article as it stands now is entitled Military history of the peoples of the British Islands, which was changed a while back from Military history of the peoples of the British Isles.
Option 3 - Military history of Britain and Ireland
Option 4 - Create two articles. Military history of Britain + Military history of Ireland
Option 5 - Military history of the United Kingdom
Generally it would seem opposers to option 1 are users who do not want to see Ireland mixed in with the term "British Isles" due to past polatics while users who oppose the other options generally see the term "British Isles" as a geogrpahical term and void of any political intentions on ownership of Ireland etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's only a list! Why don't people write proper articles instead of fighting over the titles of non-articles? I would have voted delete but that particular vote is closed. Scolaire (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this notice breach policy for (what's the damn word???) - trying to advertise for !votes. If so, please delete ASAP. --HighKing (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote rigging? :p Considering the way the first guy worded it i thought it was best for the time been to give a more fuller picture of the situation but i agree with the two of you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated these 2 articles for delation as recommended by mediator at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-6/Corrib Gas. Please have a look at the deletion debates if possible. The more input on this, the greater chance of consensus being reached. GainLine ♠♥ 12:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't think anyone actually cared... :) :) :) --candle•wicke 18:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Geraldines
I would like to draw together articles and information on this important family in a more systematic way. At present Geraldines redirects to FitzGerald, which is essentially no more than a dab page. It is difficult to find individual FitzGeralds without knowing in advance exactly what you're looking for. I would like to expand the individual articles, and also have a "Geraldines" article that detailed the history of the FitzGeralds in a fairly comprensive way and linked to as many family members - Norman invaders, earls, rebels etc. - as practicable. If anybody is interested in getting invovlved please let me know on my talk page. Scolaire (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Cairns
Would anyone like to rate Philip Cairns, currently on the Main Page at DYK? --candle•wicke 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politician links
Hi guys. In my noobiness last month, I edited the pages of Oireachtas TDs with an external link to the new website www.kildarestreet.com (I am a mod on that website). For so doing, my original username (gavinsblog) was blocked indefinitely for alleged spamming. Partly my boo.
What I would like to suggest to the community is that an external link to KildareStreet profiles should be placed on the wikipedia profiles of all TDs and Senators. The KS profiles are both relevant and useful to anyone seeking information on a TD or Senator. For example Dermot Ahern TD. Notice the data, it allows anyone to sign up for and email alert whenever that TD speaks, and gives information on how often they speak in the Dail. It includes links back to their wiki profiles, as well as their election data history and official party website profiles.
KildareStreet is modelled on an API developed by mySociety and used on the British version, theyworkforyou.com. The wikipedia profiles of British MPs contain links to both theyworkforyou and publicwhip.org.uk (For example Tom_Watson_(politician)#External_links.
I am suggesting that all TD profiles contain links (as they already do to ElectionsIreland.org), to their Kildare Street profiles as well. The data is relevant, well presented, and importantly, Kildare Street is run as a not for profit, pro bono project, without ads. Anyone searching for information on their representatives would find an external link to KildareStreet beneficial.
Incidentally, the user who originally complained of link spamming has since accepted that was not my intention, and that adding links to KildareStreet has merit. -- gavinsblog1 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This website looks useful, though a bit lacking in detail at the moment. I'd have no objections to adding it as an External link for Oireachtas members. Snappy (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KildareStreet is in beta, and the addition of more data (TD expenses, Members' interests etc) is in progress. All data for both houses is included from January 2004 (plans to go back further also). The website is also automatically updated via xml whenever the Oireachtas website itself updates. I will set about adding links, and also perhaps filling in any gaps in TD profiles that I have come across (links to official party websites are broken for the most part). Thanks. gavinsblog1 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.162.98 (talk)
Irish order of precedence?
Does Ireland have an "order of precedence" article like the United States order of precedence and all those contained at Template:Precedence? Would anyone like to create one if this is not the case or perhaps add a link if one is known? Thanks. --candle•wicke 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no equivalent in Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have thrown to together a Military history of Ireland articles as a consequence of developments on Military history of Britain. Please don't come to my page or write snappy edit comments, it was literally thrown together. This is partially deliberate, because I don't want to write too much too quick without out other people being involved. So please can other contribute/fix the article (I've already tagged it with the obvious problems).
Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing at 2p.m. (BST) Thursday. FF3000 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland in Ballyfermot
Just to sort out an edit war at the Iceland (supermarket) page, we know that Iceland Ballyfermot reopened last November, but can someone please verify, is it still open? We need someone who lives in the area. FF3000 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow don't think so... and I don't live in Iceland or Ballyfermot... --candle•wicke 03:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant Iceland as in the supermarket. FF3000 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mayoral elections
Are they notable enough for an article? There seem to be several... [2][3] --candle•wicke 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant info can (or has) been added to the Mayor of X article, e.g. Lord Mayor of Dublin. The minor ones are notable enough in their own right. There is also quite alot of them, every county, city, town and urban council has a Mayor/Chair/Cathaoirleach which changes every year. Snappy (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the histories it seems on 7 February 2008:
16:15, Schcambo m (moved South Dublin to South Dublin County: To align with Gaelic name; to prevent confusion with Southside (Dublin); to acknowledge the fact that it is a county and not simply an administrative area.) (undo)
16:24, Schcambo m (moved Fingal to Fingal County over redirect: Acknowledging that it is a county, not just an administrative area.
16:45, Djegan m (moved Fingal County to County of Fingal: correct name - "County" always comes first in Ireland naming practice for the county) (undo)
16:47, Djegan m (moved South Dublin County to County of South Dublin: Irish convention is that "County" comes first in name of county and "County of South Dublin" is official name!) (undo)
16:51, Djegan m (moved Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown to County of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown: we might as well rename this one as Fingal and South Dublin have been moved by someone!) (undo)
16:52, Schcambo m (moved County of Fingal to Fingal County over redirect: 'Fingal' on its own is the official title, the same as 'Wicklow', 'Kildare', etc. Irish convention is simply County x, which is not usable here, so the next most appropriate form is X County.) (undo)
16:53, Djegan m (moved Fingal County to County of Fingal over redirect) (undo)
Then on 22 May 2008:
18:36 Schcambo m (moved North Tipperary to County of North Tipperary: Move to align with the Dublin admin counties.)
18:43 Schcambo m (moved South Tipperary to County of South Tipperary: Move to align with the Dublin admin counties.)
I find all of these arguments weak, and the "County of" superfluous, annoying, and in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME.
The usual Irish formulation "County N" does not (yet) apply to the new counties, in my experience. Still less "County of N".
Consistency with each other is a lame policy for article names, especially when it applies to just 5 out of 31.
Aligning with Gaelic name is a non-reason.
"acknowledge the fact that it is a county and not simply an administrative area." you can do this in the article. It is absurd to worry that readers will draw an invalid inference based on the absence of a word from the article title.
Prevent confusion of "South Dublin" with "Southside"? South Dublin still redirects to "County of South Dublin" so that doesnt fix the non-existent problem. A hatnote would do.
None of the new counties are take the form "County X", "Country of X" or "X County". The most appropriate place for all of them would be, for example, Fingal.
The traditional "Irish convention" arises because Irish counties were named after (formerly) famous places in those counties e.g. Mayo, Clare, Down, Tipperary. The convention is so as to make a distinction between the famous place and the administrative area named after it. The convention has not been extended to the new counties (maybe because there is no need, maybe because people forgot how Irish counties were named - IMHO only Fingal is properly named). In the phrase "Fingal County Council" what is meant is the "County Council" of "Fingal", not the "Council" of "Fingal County" (A "County Council" is a specific type of local government with specific powers under Irish law.)
I don't understand the statement, "Acknowledging that it is a county, not just an administrative area." A county is just an administrative area. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "County of" seems to be a wikipedia invention, so best to remove it and just have Fingal, South Dublin, North Tipperary etc. as per WP:Commonname. Jnestorius stated that none of the new counties (new being going on fifteen years old!) take the form "County X", says who? Is this the law, some new convention or what? Snappy (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Jnestorius stated that..." Actually, I said it. "Is this the law, some new convention or what?" No. Under law none of the counties take the form "County X", that's just a common name. The new counties, for whatever reason, haven't inherited that tradition it seems. A Google search, for example, will bring back 100 times more hits for "County Mayo" than for "County Fingal" ... and 1000 times more hits than for "County North Tipperary". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pity, because then we'd have thirty-one counties (actually thirty-two when you include The People's Republic of Cork). Therefore, thirty-two counties in a soverign united country recognised the world over as Ireland/Eire - that'd it cut the ground from underneath Sinn Fein! Mischeviously yours, Fergananim (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jnestorius - this is very annoying and certainly in breach of WP:COMMONNAME. While the new counties in Dublin are not so clear (nobody really says "County Fingal") in respect of the traditional Counties of Ireland (all 33 when you include both Tipperary N and S) the near universal common name is "County X". Sarah777 (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In all five cases I think the earlier names were better - is what I'm trying to say. Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear from the establishing legislation that the three new administrative Dublin division names are: South Dublin, Fingal and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. No county, county of, etc. However Tipperary is not so clear as I see the terms "County of North Tipperary", "County Tipperary, North Riding", "County of Tipperary, North Riding", "Tipperary, North Riding", "Tipperary, South Riding", etc., in a "North Tipperary" search of the statutes and acts. Similar results are obtained for a "South Tipperary" search. ww2censor (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, the situation with Tipp isn't so clear (maybe because it isn't *new* like the other "new" counties) - Tipperary North Riding and South Riding have simply been renamed North and South. I'm still unconvinced that the "County" in "County Tipperary North Riding" (or Tipperary North) refers to "Tipperary North Riding". I think it means "County Tipperary" "North Riding". Like their website says, "The County of Tipperary is divided into two administrative areas - North Tipperary and South Tipperary."
Ww3censor, look through the statues you link to and see how they mix "County of Tipperary" with "County of Tipperary (North Riding) e.g. "These Regulations amend the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) (County of Tipperary North Riding) Regulations, 1968 ( S.I. No. 173 of 1968 ) and alter the speed limits applicable to certain roads in the County of Tipperary (North Riding)."
My last 2¢ on this topic is that I think "County X" should be used for the 32 traditional counties. While only the legislative name should be used for the new counties (including Tipp north and south). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a random thought: since everybody here seems to be agreed that the page moves were inappropriate, why doesn't somebody just move them back? Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! I think you've done a cut and paste instead of a page move. We may need to ask an admin to fix that. Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I always say; there is never one when you want one....HELP!Sarah777 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arg! Yes. I did. Sorry. Dumb. Wasn't thinking. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've asked Rockpocket to fix my blunder. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: and he has now fixed it. Thanks, Rock! Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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). -- Evertype·✆ 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At commons:File talk:Coat of arms of Ireland.svg we have some sources listed. Those sources present the Coat of arms of the Republic of Ireland with more detail than depicted in commons:File:Coat of arms of Ireland.svg. If anyone is interested to improve the file at commons to include those details, that would be great. I do not know how to insert those details. -- Imbris (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what details exactly you want to include, Imbris. A description of the COA e.g. "a harp or, stringed argent, on a field azure" can just be added to the "Description" field. If you want to cite sources, <ref></ref> works the same on Commons as it does here. Scolaire (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you did not read the text on Commons. Over there some details were singled out. We do not need to discuss each and every notch, dot or whatever. What I have tryed to do was: (1) Present the reliable source [4]; (2) Notify the community that File:COA IRELAND.PNG by User:Djegan (which was used as a starting point for User:Tonyjeff to create the .sVG) is not official and has flaws in some details; (3) Let the community decide.
I was not prepared to face the sad truth – that nobody cares – much – to be bothered with reading what is written at Commons (and answer the two editors there).
But I am prepared to discuss with editors who would dignify themselves to (a) read the text on Commons, and (b) to play (in fact look) for discrepancies (differences) between the current commons:File:Coat of arms of Ireland.svg and the Reliable Source at WIPO.
When (a) and (b) happen, I would be obliged to comment, but this way, without carying, I will not play the game.
Simmer down, Imbris! If you know what needs to be done then just do it. The "sad truth" is that an awful lot of people do not care at all whether an image of a coat of arms has some flaws or not - certainly not enough to read all that text without being told explicitly what to look for. I was trying to help you to organise your thoughts so that if anybody wanted to help, they would know what help was required. Neither I nor anybody else is going to do all the work for you. Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a peer review of Christian Conventions. Please have a look at this highly improved article, and review its status. It is probably better than Start Class. We intend to nominate for GA once peer review is complete. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review is a formal process and if you would like to do that you need to follow the instructions at WP:REVIEW after which you can list the article in the "Peer review" section of this project as being in formal peer review so others know it is happening. Just listing it there, as you did, will not make anything happen. I am reassessing it for this project but anything over B-class is done by the formal nomination processes. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done this by the book, but I have chosen "Philosophy/Religion" as prime for the review. Ireland Project claims article is in its scope, so this is courtesy notice. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA (Sweeps) Reassessment of Leprechaun
Leprechaun has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.
New navigation box
I am proposing the creation of a new navigation box for the project, based on Template:WPAVIATION Navigation. I know that a navbox already exists, but I think that a better box is needed. FF3000 ·talk 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with vertical navboxes is that they are very intrusive, especially in shorter articles. Horizontal navboxes just work much better with the general article layout. The vertical style forces editors to place images not adjacent to the associated prose or to be ranged left leaving the text squashed between images and the navbox which is rather ugly. Even the use of the town infoboxes causes this problem to some extent when there is little prose and adding another vertical navbox will only compound the situation further. The only way a vertical navbox sort of works is when it is displayed by default in a collapsed state but once opened the page layout goes haywire. Consider that and also what articles might actually benefit from such a navbox. I seem to recall that a previous attempt was made to introduce a new, vertical style, template some time ago but I don't have it on my watchlist anymore so it may have been deleted but it never went into use. ww2censor (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I have completed the new navigation box here. Please take a look and make any edits that you think are needed, and give your opinion on whether or not it should be used, or e.g. if this box should be used along with the other box. --FF3000 ·talk 14:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the navbox to this page for testing, and it seems to work without intruding on the article. Please remove it if you think it looks ugly. FF3000 ·talk 17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: First, I agree with Ww2censor about vertical infoboxes; even if they sit quite happily when they'e added first, it's not long before another template, image or something else interacts with them and the text is thrown all over the place. Second, we have to get rid of these gaudy green and orange colours on everything relating to Ireland! I'm as patriotic as the next person but, apart from anything else, some project members are unionists and they should be able to come to this page without feeling as though they're at a Sinn Féin cumann meeting. Scolaire (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The colours are completely unreadable, never mind any political import. They're the wrong green and gold. I prefer the current Infobox. Mise, le dúthracht mhór, -- Evertype·✆ 08:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the infobox colours are very offputting. Why use colours at all? --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Years in Ireland series
I promised myself never to revisit this series but they recently featured in the July 16 article quality assessment log. Numerous have been re-rated in importance from "low" to "mid" without any obvious reason. Even odder is that the talkpage histories appear to show the last change was actually done 2 years ago! We need to standardise this. Ww2 and SeoR; your attention is required! Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason many articles appeared in the most recent assessment log, including those you are interested in Sarah, is that someone had vandalised the stub-class category page causing the assessment bot to remove all the stub articles but after I fixed the problem, the assessment log restored them which is the result you see. That is why they appeared in the log, but actually nothing was changed in the actual assessments of any of those pages as indicated by the last changes being two years ago for some artcile. Nothing to worry about Sarah. ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historical populations template
A template, Historical populations, has been added to a large number of Irish towns articles, showing population according to census returns from 1821 to 2006. As far as I can see this does not relate to anything in the articles themselves, and it is not IMO inherently interesting. It does, however, badly mess up the articles (see the discussion above on the problems caused by vertical infoboxes). I would like to see these templates gone. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire, please explain why you believe the info is not relevant. On the contrary, it seems obvious that population figures are central to any historical understanding of the human aspect of place, and any decision to exclude such information would need to be fully justified. If such info "does not relate to anything in the articles themselves" that merely points up a lacuna the articles. --Yumegusa (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then fill the lacuna, write up the population changes, and then add the template, when the article is big enough to accomodate it and it complements the text. Don't do it backways, if doing it backways makes a mess of the article. BTW I didn't say I believe the info is not relevant. I said "it is not IMO inherently interesting." If you want to make it interesting to me, tell me in words, don't just paste a template. I didn't say either that we should "exclude such information", I only asked that an ugly template be removed. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scolaire - the information is academically interesting but out of proportion for some articles, and lacks context. This includes explaining that the areas measured for population are not always exact matches for, for example, all of a town. It has also been added carelessly, spoiling format - someone should use Preview next time. SeoR (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there were sufficient text to complement the templates that might be a real justification for having the template. The essential statistics can quite easily be described in prose - that is the real lacana. Until that happens, I too would prefer to not have the population templates on their own. Regarding the intrusive layout, this could be partly fixed from a visual point of view if the template was displayed by default in a collapsed state but once opened can be very intrusive as they are now. This is the reason why horizontal templates work so much better than vertical ones. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, that template could be added to any geographical area. I think it is important too when adding such a long template that attention be given to how it will affect the layout of the article. (The "climate chart" template is a pet hate of mine, mainly because those responsible for slapping on in here there and everywhere seem to do so without care nor prayer for how it will affect the content of the page.) I second Ww2censor's comments, more thought could be put into these sort of templates.
It is an interesting article but I think limits need to be put on it. Counties (current and traditional) and cities (current) only? (I'd propose the same for the "climate chart" too.)
On an point of content, population figures before 1841 are all estimates. The first census was in 1841 (which leads to telling only half a story.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a note to that effect on the infobox, see Kilrush. The number of towns currently affected can be seen here. I've reverted Castledermot because it's on my watchlist, but I'm not going to do any mass revert. I would prefer if the editor concerned did that him/herself. Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no overlap between the two account. It may be that the user just changed a/c. I'll grant you it is out of the normal, but the Happy Geographer a/c was apparently being stalked (see note on talk page). Maybe he/she changed a/c to shake the tail. (Not that it didn't make it any better that he/she didnt' reply to Scolaire or anyone else.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Stalked" is a bit dramatic. A user who objected to the phrase "32 counties" reverted the "comparative population" edit on some of the county articles. Still, I suppose it might have been enough to make Happy Geographer not a happy camper. Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, "stalked" is a bit much. I'm going to contact the editor again. It's a shame he/she is not participating here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the template at Clonmel. Seems WP:OR to me, but would be happy if the ed. concerned engaged, and I might be prepared to think otherwise. I'm pretty sure the borough boundaries changed several times over the years indicated and so an increase or decrease in pop. figures might just as easily be down to this rather arbitrary event rather than an indication of 'development' or 'stagnation', as might be assumed at first glance. Aesthetically I'm not gone on it either, but that's just my POV. RashersTierney (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being a minority of one; I thought there was a lot of interesting information in the template which is now "lost". And I think population stats are more relevant in an article about a settlement than other geography articles. There is an intrinsic link; the settlement is the population first and foremost. I'd not worry about it being used in the Wicklow Mountains article. They are there whether populated or not. I agree there are layout issues, but don't think zapping all the work is the way to solve this. Sarah777 (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this editor is now contributing as User:Census1911 fan and continuing to apply this template irrespective of previous concerns raised, as here. I will ask him/her to discuss the matter here again, but ignoring requests to discuss, as before, is not on. Feedback from other eds. on the project please. RashersTierney (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it's a *very* ugly template when applied to articles. It should at least include a show/hide option with the default set to hide. It also needs, at minimum, a 'disclaimer' as a reference stating that boundaries between the different censuses (censii?) may have changed (because they often have). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As OP, I'm obviously not an "other ed", but I think if somebody is creating multiple accounts to do stuff like this, they need to be reverted with extreme prejudice.
@Sarah, nothing is ever "lost" on WP. They'll always be available in the version history if you or somebody else comes up with a more workable way of using the data. Since all three accounts appear to be SPAs you will probably be able to click on their contributions at any time to find the articles affected. Scolaire (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bastun not the best of templates at the very least show hide should be placed on the template, also as Rashers says it could produce incorrect results if taken at face value without boundarie changes and the like taken into account. I also agree that if editor is abusing multiple accounts they should be reverted and reported. BigDunc 12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a returned user I don't see what the issue is the population templates. In the articles I have seen they look fine. In addition the issue of boundaries is in my view a red herring. All urban centres change their boundaries over time. But that does not stop historians using population numbers to gain a rough overall impression of population trends. In fact in many Irish towns the boundaries did not change over the 19th century because the declining population meant the urban centre did not spill over into the surrounding hinterland. I fully support their inclusion and see them as a useful addition. I have just seen on added to the page on a local town, and found it extremely useful as I am in the middle of some local history research and had yet to do that sort of analysis. The population numbers given will in of direct use to use in my research. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to be impartially critical of the methodology used since it is not clear how the figures were arrived at, other than a general direct to the National Census website. If you think that makes the data reliable for research purposes, then maybe you should be a little more sceptical as to what constitutes useful primary data. The changing boundaries issue is NOT a red herring. In certain cases it will introduce an arbitrary variable without making any allowance, or giving due warning. RashersTierney (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've randomly checked 6 stats. and they are at least consistent with the published CSO figures. Can't vouch for more than that. Still think, at the very least, the template should be 'collapsed' as suggested above. RashersTierney (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not part of Project Ireland, I assume I am able to comment from the depths of rural England. The template is indeed ugly, but nothing that show/hide won't fix. The data is fantastically interesting, I have been surfing towns to compare/understand the famine and other subsequent trends. Please keep, embrace and enhance it. Regards Autodidactyl (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately these are not inserted by template but are individual simple tables that will EACH require a complete rewrite to make collapsible in the vertical format. If the editor{s} would bother to discuss we might be able to reformat into a horizontal table for better page layout as already mentioned and not even need to be collapsible. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bothered a bit by a few things here. While I think the data is of some interest, the use of multiple SPAs and refusal to join discussion makes it difficult to assume good faith. Specifically, each entry that I have looked at mentions four authors, only one of which is wikilinked. In addition, the co-author Joel Mokyr has a Wikipedia article, but is not wikilinked. If this goes on, we'll have potentially hundreds of poorly formatted articles and all with a redlink. I would suggest that we start reverting in order to force the editor to come clean on any potential conflict of interest, discuss the edits here and then re-add in a better formatted state. Thoughts? Nelson50T 16:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Geographer/Delicate Enumeration / Census1911 fan/Navan Anuaimh/Drumlish Danny/Labhras Raghallaigh/Prosperous Pikeman/Straight Iwillrepair/Granuaile Unveiled/Reformed YellowbellyThe way the editor in question is going about this is creating a problem. Examples: The population of Tramore doubles between 1971 and '81. Thomastown has a swathe of data missing, all without explanation. Is it for other eds. to do the donkey work and check out these apparent errors? Exasperated! RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked around a bit at the codes, I was wrong to say this was a simple table. It is actually based on the template {{Historical populations}} but is a vertical only format template. I will investigate if it is possible to convert it into a horizontal format. ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rashers Tierney and I both asked over at that template's talk page if show/hide functionality could be added, and its been done. Apparently its necessary to manually add "|state = collapsed " to the ones already in existence, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it [works]. Just paste in "|state = collapsed " without the quotation marks after the template name. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we still have the attention of the template designer, might we suggest making the table wider to be the same as the standard geography template that usually resides above. Or even asking him/her to modify/design one specifically for this project. Thats assuming the main mover and shaker in all this would be prepared to use it. RashersTierney (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can do |width = 20.5em or whatever looks appropriate. Infoboxes come in all sizes unfortunately. —Werson (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's placed under the infobox, collapsed or not, it still creates a massive hole at the top of the article - on my browser at least. I moved it on the Kilrush article. Does it need to be at the top of the article? Will the sections on population - assuming people are going to start writing them - not be further down the article? Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine on my browser (Firefox), but moving it like you did makes more sense anyway. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine on mine too (also Firefox); the collapse solves many layout issues. I'd agree with Rashers that it should be made so that width can be adjusted to match the infobox. (There seems to be 250px and 268px versions in common usage). Sarah777 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked - it looks exactly the same using Internet Explorer, at least on my machine. Sarah777 (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apple Safari (for Windows); same again. Sarah777 (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have IE8 (formerly 7) and Windows Vista (formerly XP) on a PC, and in this revision I have no text at all, only white space, from the end of the first paragraph ("...the town of Kilrush is mentioned.") for one-and-a-half computer screens - the length of the infobox, the illustration, the collapsed template and the table of contents. On my old setup it would look just the same, I know from experience. I'm sure you can imagine how ugly that looks to me. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that revision it was placed under the lead paragraph. I don't know why that looks so bad in IE (we're approaching the limits of my technical abilities). But if you place it directly under the infobox, rather than the lead paragraph, it works fine in IE. —Werson (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of which still doesn't answer my question: is there any reason whatsoever that this thing should go at the top, given that there is no discussion of population changes at the top of - or anywhere else in - these articles? Scolaire (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to everyone. It looks like I assumed too much WP:AGF in the case of this population junkie. Caught him using six new names last night and he was adding an open template to articles that already had a "closed" one. Definately borderline vandalism. Though his data seems accurate. Very strange. But enough is enough. Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
01:29 Navan (diff; hist) . . (+923) . . Navan Anuaimh (talk | contribs) (demographics 100pc increase in ten years)
Let's still assume good faith and ask for a check user. If he/she is socking then block the IP. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's some great usernames there, though ;-) Scolaire (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I noticed that. We are dealing with a very clever fellow here, obviously. Pity about his visual aesthetic. Sarah777 (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a step back, it would appear that the census guy was making systematic, good faith edits with apparently valid information. That lack of asthetic has caused other folk to go through systematically reverting their edits which in turn has forced them to change ids. It is not sock puppetry as such and neither is it vandalism. I suspect that they've put a lot of effort into their census bot but are singularly lacking in the people skills (or maybe just the time) to support their position. --Alastair Rae (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ask them? BTW the only edit I've deleted was at Clonmel which I have since retrieved, added the 'collapse' code, and reinstated. I still have doubts about its validity though. RashersTierney (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I thought that too but what about the 10 usernames? Adding open templates to articles that already have his templates (closed version)? Ignoring all messages? Reposting redlinks over and over? I'm still only collapsing his templates where I find them, but if he continues to refuse any communication and continues to post the same templates twice and completley mess up articles, which can't be fixed 'cos he messes them even more in response) then what can we do? (I tried asking - nothing in response). Sarah777 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a re-reading from the top here indicates that the individual has been given multiple chances to engage. User:Happy Geographer started changing IDs before any of the reverting started. I do agree that the info is valid and properly inserted would be welcome. That is why I was hopeful that rigourous reverting would bring him/her to the table. Sarah's point above is right - not tolerating collapsed tables indicates the editor does not want to be part of the Wikipedia community. Nelson50T 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. I've just stumbled across this controversy and thought I'd weight in. First, I think that the information this editor is adding is valid, seems to be accurate, and it is cited. Second, someone said above that they personally didn't find it interesting, but that's POV. (My own POV is that it is interesting, as it happens.) Third, it is a bit odd that the editor is not communicating and seems to be using sock puppets, but that's an etiquette issue which I don't think invalidates the edits themselves. Maybe they're unaware that people are trying to communicate with them, it's not like wiki gives an email every time someone edits your talk page, is it? I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that they are 'refusing' to communicate, we really should assume good faith here. Let's not get into a witch hunt or jump to conclusions about this person's intentions, it's not like they're setting out to vandalise anything, and this is a good contribution to wiki which probably only needs a bit of an aesthetic cleanup. $0.02 --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some might be interested in the section "Article move to RTÉ" on the talk page. --candle•wicke 19:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland
I am investigating the possibility of setting up a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland. Such a task would be non-trivial and would involve legal and financial obligations.
A "critical mass" of editors (10—20 min.) willing to be active members of the chapter is required before the formation of a chapter. I would be grateful if those interested in establishing an Irish chapter would participate in discussion of such at Talk:Wikimedia Ireland on Meta.
Editors with legal qualifications would be of particular help, even if they are unwilling to be active members of such a chapter in future. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pre-independence people
Just wondering - looking at this edit - [6]
Irish tennis players such as Joshua Pim (his family had a department store on George's Street) had the tricolour beside their names, this was changed to St Patrick's Cross - and now its the Union Jack - just wondering - have we a position? are there precedents? ClemMcGann (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem I ran into a long time ago on 1906 Intercalated Games. Note that in Athletics at the 1906 Intercalated Games two of the three "GB&I" gold medallists were Irish, wore Irish blazers and carried an Irish flag. But any attempt at discussion quickly runs into the ground. Eventually I gave it up as a lost cause. Scolaire (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; One of the problems with wikipedia, I suppose. ClemMcGann (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar conflict of what nationality to call people. It sometimes seems to me that unless a person born before 1922 was a dynamite-carrying member of the Fenians they are are labelled "British" or "Anglo-Irish". Robert Boyle, for example, despite dying 110 years before the act of union and bearing a Gaelic surname is described as being "British" by citizenship and "Anglo-Irish" by ethnicity. I find it incredibly obnoxious. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have seen such cases myself, see: [7]. As a minority on wikipedia there is little that we can do about it. ClemMcGann (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered opening an RFC on the matter. In terms of the people that edit those articles, we are a minority. In terms of the Wikipedia community, the people that insist on adding "British" and "Anglo-Irish" to articles on Irish people are in the minority. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the result of Poll on Ireland article names, crazy though it may be ClemMcGann (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god yes. One thing at a time. And no apple cart upsetting! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verification needed
Would appreciate if anyone with first-hand experience or photos could attest to the accuracy (or otherwise) of this image. Responses directed here please. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked User:Sarah777 for input - she's done loads of work on the Irish road network. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my 2 cent worth. Limbo is certainly correct regarding the practice in Ireland (Republic of) :) Sarah777 (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Importance Level of Cork, Derry, Galway and Limerick
By what virtue are Dublin and Belfast of "Top Importance" to WikiProject Ireland while Cork, Derry, Limerick and Galway are merely of "High Importance"?
The ranking level clearly lacks objectivity, consistency, rationale and most of all credibility.
Moved this to the talk page if this IP really wants an answer, I would think its obvious though. Dublin and Belfast are the capitals of Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland. All those other cities are not, hence why the capitals are more important. Happy now? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belfast is not the capital of Northern Ireland, London is! And anyway, on what basis is a capital more important?
Cork's foundation predates Dublin's. Waterford's city charter dates from 1171, the same year as Dublin's.
Belfast, for example, has only been a city since 1888, whereas Derry, founded in 542, has been a city since 1662. Furthermore Derry is of much greater historical significance than Belfast ( the siege etc.).
It is the height of nonsense to dismiss the other cities as less important in an Irish context. Global context, arguably, but in an Irish context, utter nonsense. I mean, is this just about a population count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.68.136 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
London is the capital of the United Kingdom, but the countries of the United Kingdom each have capitals aswell, Edinburgh for Scotland, Cardiff for Wales and Belfast for Northern Ireland. Im not defending those other city articles not being marked as high importance, i would say all major cities should be but without doubt the fact Dublin / Belfast are capitals is why they are of higher importance than other cities right now.
Lets wait and see what others think if those other city articles should be classed as high importance. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Chirstian Conventions from Wikiproject Ireland
Christian conventions currently contains a notice that it is part of Wikiproject Ireland. This article concerns a little-known church originally formed in Ireland in the 1890s. Most of its membership is now found outside Ireland, however.
On multiple occasions I have requested reviews of this article by members of this project. It is now a rather robust article that is about to seek GA status. No member has answered my requests for peer review, nor my requests that the project change its status from "start class".
Based on this lack of interest, I am removing the article's Wikiproject Ireland notice. If some member wants to provide some focus and guidance, and relist the article as part of the project, your participation would be very welcome by the active editors. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the article, and sorry for the lack of response. WP:IE isn't a big project, and there may just have been no-one around who felt competent to provide some help. However, the article does fall within the scope of this project, so I have restored the banner. There's no guarantee that anyone from the project will contribute, but having the banner there places the article in the relevant project categories and may help to bring it to the attention of editors. Its presence does no harm :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FAR for article Augusta, Lady Gregory
I have nominated Augusta, Lady Gregory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone pop over to the Belfast talk page and give an opinion on the deletion of a few sections. I don't want to delete someone's work without a second opinion. Thanks. Stu’Bout ye! 12:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed bot edit to all Irish geography articles
I'd like to request a bot to make an edit to all Irish towns and villages (i.e. everything in Category:Towns and villages in Ireland by county). The purpose of the edit will be to roll out the {{Irish place name}} (see for example Ratoath).
Part 1: Roll out the {{Irish place name}} template
{{derive|Irish|XXX|YYY}} -> {{Irish place name|XXX|YYY}}
First instance in first paragraph of content of {{lang-ga|XXX}} in first para to -> {{Irish place name|XXX}}
First instance in first paragraph of content of (''XXX'' in {{Irish language|Irish}}) in first para to -> ({{Irish place name|XXX}})
First instance in first paragraph of content of ({{Irish language|Irish}}: ''XXX'') in first para to -> ({{Irish place name|XXX}})
Otherwise, if the articles does not contain {{lga}} (an alias of {{Irish place name}}), add to [[:Category:Irish towns and villages without Irish place names}}.
Par 2: Roll out the {{gaeilge}} template
I will then manually go through that category and remove the category link from pages that are not Irish language names e.g. Acton, County Armagh. I will then request that a bot to go through that category, removing the category link and adding {{gaeilge}} immediately after the first bolded word in the article body.
What think? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can you explain the rationale of limiting to town and village? Thinking of mountain, river, townland, etc. --Yumegusa (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None, only I had been working on towns/villages and no mountains/rivers. You'd be up for geographic features too? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No objection to adding other geographical entities either. Sarah777 (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Up for. All features, both human and physical geography, and anything else that doesn't cover. And why is {{Irish place name}} limited to places? It seems on the face of it (and I haven't looked beyond) that this logic should apply to anything with an Irish name. --Yumegusa (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the template differs from {{lang-ga}} (which just says something like Irish: somthing) and {{derive|Irish}} (which says that something is derived from something else, like from Irish something 'something else') in that it is tailored specifically for Irish places names and their meanings (like "Shinrone (Irish: Suí an Róin, meaning 'seat of the seal')"). The meaning is optional but if it isn't supplied the article gets added to Category:Untranslated Irish place names.
It's not really suitable for the names of modern places, like bridges, buildings and roads, because the Irish name is more than likely a translation of the English e.g. "Tolka Park (Irish: Páirc Tolca, meaning 'Tolka park')". Similiarly, personal names would be better served by {{lang-ga}}.
I'm creating an article on the Irish mercantile marine during the emergency User:ClemMcGann/timeline - a rather neglected area imho - it's far from finished - but wonder what name to give it - and perhaps it should be two articles? - advice welcome - and I'm not holding a vote ;) - User:ClemMcGann/timeline -input welcome - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't think there's anything better than what you have: "Irish Mercantile Marine during World War II". It's long, but there's no part of it that's dispensable. Scolaire (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask for some input on this emerging problem, concerning the use of the term "killed on active service" in a few IRA articles. There are two viewpoints. One, that this is a term "used by PIRA and supporters/apologists to legitimise their actions as being on a par with military actions" to quote Mooretwin. The other, that this is a NPOV term used by other non-IRA sources.
Personally, I think that stating "MacManus was killed on active service during a shoot-out after an ambush in Mulleek" is presenting the facts from a Republican perspective. I feel that Wikipedia:Words to avoid applies here, as well as the "Volunteer" usage mediation. I'm posting this to the terrorism project as well, asking for their input here. Stu’Bout ye! 18:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once you get out of a senstationalist tabloid reporting of "The Troubles" and into scolarly publications the use of ASU, active service and active service unit is common place.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, unless the author is writing from a PIRA POV. No-one has objected to ASU or "active service unit", so reference to these above are red herrings. Mooretwin (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I dont even know where to begin with some of the nonsense you come out with. I am not sure respect authors such as Tim Pat Coogan and Peter Hart could be accused of "writing from a PIRA POV". And of course ASU, active service and active service unit are linked. A volunteer would be on active service in an active service unit.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why would Coogan or Hart not be writing from a PIRA POV if they are writing about PIRA? It is possible for the author to write from the POV of his subject. Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would you propose we replace "active service" with? I can't think of anything more neutral off the top of my head. "Died for their country"? Obviously not. "Died while engaged in criminal activities" *click here to open massive can o'worms*. If I heard that an Al Qaeda member, for example, was killed on "active service" I wouldn't blink. He was serving the organisation he was a member of, whatever their ideals. Fribbler (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to say "killed on active service" at all. It is adequate simply to say "killed". If you really need to say something else, it would be quite easy to use NPOV terms like "killed during an ambush", "killed during a PIRA operation", etc., etc. Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fribbler. "Killed on active service" suggests a member of any militant organisation killed while acting for that organisation. The mere fact that it's used by the IRA does not mean it is not a suitable descriptive term. Scolaire (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It suggests that the operation is legitimate, which is Irish-republican POV. The term is used deliberately to dignify the actions of the organisation by implying that they are legitimately military. There is no need to use the term. Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. In your warped and disruptive mind "It suggests that the operation is legitimate".--Vintagekits (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a useful catch-all term to say they were killed while performing an operation on behalf of group x. Rather than killed in an unrelated incident, which often happened. The idea of it being "republican propaganda" wouldn't cross my mind. Fribbler (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire is right when he says it's used by the IRA. So if we acknowledge that it is part of the republican lexicon, then why not use another term which is just as descriptive but not presenting the facts from a republican perspective? ie, "MacManus was killed during a shoot-out after an ambush in Mulleek", or "MacManus was killed in a shoot-out after an IRA operation in Mulleek" Neither of these two alternatives leaves the reader in any doubt of how or why he was killed, and uses neutral language. Stu’Bout ye! 12:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, those work. I really don't think this is as important an issue as people are making out. But hey! This is WP:IE/WP:NI; we could pick a fight with be offended by our reflections ;-) Fribbler (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. That is what I was suggesting - there is no need to use the quasi-military terminology. It is quite a straightforward matter to describe the death of the individuals in quesstion without referring to "active service". Mooretwin (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is in the "republican lexicon" does not preclude it from being in the use of other lexicons also. I dont see why we should have to dance around Mooretwin wants sentances worded when they are sourced. Active Service, active service and ASU all comply with WP:RS and WP:NPOV and I will continue to use them and maintain them in articles.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a problem with Active Service Unit or ASU. (Provided the former is used first in an article) But the use of "on active service" does not comply with RS or NPOV. Some neutral souces may use the term, but they are using in context to the IRA and often in quotation marks. No one would have used the term in relation to the IRA, until the IRA started using it themselves. And there is absolutely no way it complies with NPOV. Stu’Bout ye! 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by saying that is doesn't comply with RS or NPOV, and then in the next sentence saying that "some neutral sources may use the term". Is that not a contradiction? Regarding quotation marks - have you any examples? Searching on Google Books shows the opposite I'm afraid. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those books all appear to be books about the PIRA, and therefore it is not surprising that they use PIRA terminology. WP, on the other hand, is an encyclopaedia, and NPOV should mean not using PIRA terminology if other terminilogy can readily be used. Mooretwin (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how long the second sentence of September 11 attacks would last if altered to read "On that morning, 19 Al-Qaeda volunteers on active service hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners" before being reverted for NPOV violation. I similarly wonder how long "... was involved in a terrorist bombing/shooting/ambush" being added to any of the relevant WP:IR articles would last before being reverted on the same NPOV grounds, despite there being plenty of neutral WP:RS. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad example that article is censored with an iron fist by flag waving yanks any attempt at discussion leads to blocks. BigDunc 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious to know what Bastun thinks of the use of the term "terrorists" on 9/11 articles and the way you will get blocked in the blink of an eye for even mentioning it on the talkpage. (I'm making no assumptions Bastun, I'm genuinely curious). Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What BigDunc said. Either the "Words to avoid" policy (can't remember the link code offhand) should apply everywhere (in which case, the word should not be on the Sept 11 article - but good luck trying to remove it) or it should apply nowhere (in which case it should be added to WP:IR articles - but good luck trying to add it). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already did try to change it at 9/11 (per suggestion on the talkpage). They aren't much into policy on that article. As it isn't something I care too much about one way or another I got out of town. If sufficient numbers (backed by numbers of Admins) support the proposition that "the moon is made of cheese" it becomes vandalism to even suggest there might be an alternative view. Sarah777 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I too tried to change it and came up against the same disregard for policy I even attempted to get it delisted as a good article as it fails a couple of the criteria but I was warned off and policy was thrown out the window. BigDunc 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently expanding the article on List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom and am pondering what should be used as the lead image(s). It's not the most important issue in developing the article, but I thought that as the list includes Northern Ireland that editors here may be interested (Northern Ireland's sole WHS is Giant's Causeway although Mount Stewart has been proposed). I've left a note at the England and Scotland wikiprojects and the Welsh wikipedians' noticeboard to see if the discussion goes anywhere. Please leave any comments on the article talk page. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any input to this discussion would be helpful. There appears to be an inconsistency in that the names of victims of some atrocities are being removed form articles under the guise of WP:MEMORIAL, but not others. Consistency and clarity about the scope of WP:Memorial would be desirable. Mooretwin (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current situation strikes about the right balance. Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cambrai Homily rating
I created the article Cambrai Homily. It's been rated with a C, and since I thought I'd been rather thorough in gathering the scattered info on this obscure text, I was hoping the deficiencies could be explained on the talk page. I would be grateful if additional sources could be pointed out, as I think this little text is rather interesting. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article ratings are subjective, and tend to be the personal opinion of the reviewer. I would suggest contact the user who reviewed the article for their opinion. In this case User:ww2censor. Fribbler (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Place for a picture?
I posted this on the NI Wikiproject, and including it here too for more ideas. Could anyone suggest an article which would benefit from this photograph? It is from my family photo album and is from the summer of 1970, featuring a street off the Shankill Road. A nice historical piece. Fribbler (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks earlier than '75 to me. Just going by the clothes and the vehicles in the distance. There was a unionist candidate called McRoberts in the '70 Westminster election, and the stencilled election poster looks fairly fresh. Stu’Bout ye! 10:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that myself. 1970-71 to be precise. Sometimes erroneous dates are retrospectively added on the backs of old family photos. Another thing, wouldn't there have been a mural instead of graffiti by 1975?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to say that I wish more people would upload old photos of Ireland to Wikipedia. Photos taken in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s are hard to come by. This photo is excellent. Another clue as to its pre-dating 1975 is the fact that it's in black-and-white. By 1975, most people used colour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually re-reading Fribber's post above he does say it's from the summer of '70, it's just the summary info on the photo's page that says '75. +1 on the photo, there aren't enough images like this on Wikipedia, depressing as they are. Stu’Bout ye! 12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever seen the video on YouTube taken in the Shankill Road in 1973? It's like a time warp. The clothes, hairstyles, vehicles, atmosphere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use of ROI national flag to represent Provisional IRA
Not exactly a hot new topic, is it? Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance/significance of your comment escapes me. Mooretwin (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland articles missing geographical coordinates
228 articles about geographically locatable subjects in Ireland are missing geographical coordinates. Finding the latitude and longitude of locations, and entering coordinates into articles is straightforwards, and explained at Wikipedia:How to add geocodes to articles. Having coordinates on articles mean that they turn up in GoogleMaps, MultiMap and other such places which link to wikipedia based on geo-coordinates, and have a link on them enabling the article's subject to be located on a wide range of maps. The articles are listed at Category:Ireland articles missing geocoordinate data. All help in geo-coording them is welcome/urged/implored. thanks --Tagishsimon(talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have created a navbox for the winners of the Tidy Town Competition on my Sandbox. I would like if we could put it on each winners article, I just wanted to know if there would be any objections to this or if anyone had any ideas on how to improve on the navbox.--Pyrite101 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks perfect. There shouldn't be any objections :-) --FF3000 ·talk 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will likely have a problem using the non-free logo in the template. Non-free logos are used in infoboxes, with a fair use rationale for that use, to identify the company or organisation. All other uses are usually disputed and deleted or removed. Using it in a template does not satisfy that use, so I suggest you remove it now even though it looks nice. You might want to group the decades or larger number of years together to make it more readable, possibly like {{Isle of Man TT}} or even like this {{AMA Superbike champions}}. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template looks great now, though in future years you may have to combine 2 decades in one column so the box does not become too wide or add a line break. Good job. ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I think i will go ahead with this navbox.If any one has any comments please don't hesitate to contact me.--Pyrite101 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - the Culinary_uses cold do with a stack of references, and some embellishment, from reliable sources, so I'd appreciated it if folks raided their cookbooks for references, or any other books for anything related to both potatoes and Ireland really - I am seeing whether we can get potato to GA...all help much appreciated :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.
Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.
This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello folks,
there are alot of redlinks in the Distribution section of the Kerry Slug article. Given I know very little about Irish geography, if some locals could either create some stubs, or alternately some might warrant subsections of other geographical articles or exist under another name, this'd be very helpful. Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical co-ordinates in constituency articles
Following on from an ANI discussion, I'd like some input on this with a mind to adding to at WP:IMOS. As the ARC survey and others confirm, the issue of identity in Northern Ireland is complicated to say the least. Currently some NI bio articles state that "Stu is an Irish Wikipedian" or "Stu is a Northern Irish Wikipedian". The former is generally used in articles on Catholics, the latter generally on Protestants. Given that identity isn't as simple as this, I propose that all articles should be "Stu is a Wikipedian from Northern Ireland" by default. The only exception would be a citation directly quoting the subject regarding their identity. And to be clear on this, it should only be a direct quote from the subject. Holding a certain passport would not do - I only hold an Irish passport, but identity as Northern Irish most of the time. Being described as Irish/Northern Irish by someone else would not do, even if it's from a reliable source. I think this should apply to living people born prior to partition as well. They may have been born in Ireland, but they are currently "from Northern Ireland", as above. Pre-partition and dead = Irish.
Categorisation is another issue, I believe the categories changed recently shouldn't have been, for uniformity at least. But this is a seperate debate and one I could not be arsed getting into. But I think we could possible agree on the opening sentence bit.
Hopefully this will solve some problems. I'd ask people to respond only on the subject of discussion, and not let this turn into the usual embarrassing, mudslinging mess :-)
It's not only a problem of Northern Ireland related articles. It sometimes seems to me that anyone that can be "grabbed" as being "British" or "Anglo-Irish" gets "wiki owned" by the opposing team. God help you if you call the The Duke of Wellington an Irishman - his wiki bio is stridently "Anglo-Irish". Did you know that Rober Boyle was a "British" citizens? Or that Francis Bacon was an "Irish-born British painter"? I've posted above about this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see your section, but totally agree. Is an RFC the best way to proceed? What do you think of my proposal above, for post independence bios? Stu’Bout ye! 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless "Northern Ireland" is crucial to the subject of "Stu", I don't want to hear about it in the first line. What is Stu? A Wikipedian, you say? Great. Now tell me why I should care. Compare:
"Edmund 'Eddie' Jordan (born 30 March 1948) is the founder and former owner of Jordan Grand Prix, a Formula One constructor which operated from 1991 to 2005. He is currently a pundit for the F1 coverage on the BBC alongside David Coulthard."
"Edmund 'Eddie' Irvine, Jr. (born 10 November 1965, Newtownards, County Down) is a former racing driver from Northern Ireland. He grew up in Conlig, County Down, and was influenced by his parents, who were also involved in motor racing. His father, Edmund Sr., and his sister, Sonia (now a physiotherapist), worked with him during his career."
Do I care what arsehole town Eddie Irvine comes from? Do I care about his dad and his sister (lovely as I'm sure they are)? Do I care what his dad's name is or what his sister works at? Why am I being told where he was born ... not just (which is nice) but twice!? How is any of this the kind of stuff to lead with in an international encyclopedia? It's colloquial stuff.
Meanwhile the Eddie Jordan article doesn't mention any of that colloquial business at all. Nothing about his dad or his sister. Nothing about where is was from. We don't need to hear where he's from or what nationality he is because none of that is the most important thing. It's all said in the article body.
So, "Stu is an Irish Wikipedian"? Or "Stu is a Northern Irish Wikipedian"? Neither. "Stu is a Wikipedian." And then state why he is notable. Later, in the body, you can mention where he's from. Rarely, will it be pertinent in an encyclopedia article to tell me what nationality he considers himself to be or what passport(s) he holds. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you're right, you're talking about improving/rewriting or even creating an entirely new lead in hundreds of articles. This is obviously the best solution, but also the most difficult. In a lot of stubs the lead states "Stu is a Northern Irish Wikipedian" and nothing else, failing to give any more detail on his notability. I'm just looking a quick fix solution to avoid some current edit wars, and prevent future ones. Stu’Bout ye! 10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not of fan of "Northern Irish". "...from Northern Ireland" is fine. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, describing someone as "Northern Irish" can imply that a political stance e.g. in favour of a independent "Ulster nation". "from Northern Ireland" strips away that implication.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It works both ways. As I said above, unless we can find a citation directly quoting the subject regarding their identity then they shouldn't be "Irish" or "Northern Irish". Being called Irish by someone else doesn't count. People's reasons for identifying as Northern Irish are probably widely varied, but I don't see why that's relevant. Stu’Bout ye! 12:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because "Northern Irish" is not a nationality - whereas British and Irish are.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The neutral from Northern Ireland is the only way to go on this as it just states the facts and makes no claims to a disputed nationality. BigDunc 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this is about a UK nationality, i think the debate will need a wider audience before anything is decided and whilst i have no strong feelings on which method is best i think this should be handled along with a larger reform of the Wikipedia:UKNATIONALS so there is consistent use. This matter clearly does not just impact on Ireland and WP:IMOSBritishWatcher (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a wider problem taking in both the living and the dead. Personally, I'd be in favour of removing the letters i, s and h from all our keyboards. Although I would learn from the WO:IECOLL lesson. English editors have a very bad habit in my experience of "claiming" famous people. If this was put to a popular vote then before we'd know it everyone would "English" and there would be no such thing as "Irish", "Northern Irish" to worry about. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i would be voting for people to be labelled as British not English ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Manx, and ... British. I can live with that ;) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
British, is the correct descriptive, IMHO. Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom (as are its people). GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, people within the UK are British - however, Northern Ireland is (for now) treated different to the remainder of UK. In accordance with the GFA people from are can be either British or Irish or both. Thats the law - recognised not only by the Irish government, but the British government and also internationally.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather big misunderstanding. The law does not legislate for how someone identifies him or herself: that is entirely a matter for the individual. All the law can do is confer citizenship. Under UK law, people from NI are UK citizens on the same basis as any other part of the UK. ROI law also confers an entitlement to ROI citizenship on people from NI, but there is no "legal" choice" between "British" and "Irish". People from NI are British citizens and may also be citizens of ROI if they so choose. As well as being UK citizens, however, people from NI are also Northern Irish, in the same way as people from England are English and people from Scotland are Scottishm etc. Mooretwin (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the GFA, British & Irish governments choice. But, there's not much I can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the governments choice but the people of Ireland. BigDunc 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing (sorta), I still have no choice. 'Northern Irish' simply will not do. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per normal BLP guidelines, I believe that "from Northern Ireland" should be used when there is a reliable source for the birthplace location, and "Irish" and/or "British" should only be used when there is a reliable source for the person's nationality or how they self-identify themselves. I think the problem in far too many articles is that editors extrapolate from the birthplace location to assume a nationality, but that doesn't work very well for people born in Northern Ireland. Since it is probably much easier to find and cite a reliable source for birthplace location, I think "from Northern Ireland" would be the phrase used for most biographic articles. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 17:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"from Northern Ireland" is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worse than that Andrew, people assume an identity based solely on their religion - Catholic = Irish, Protestant = Northern Irish, or even in some cases British. There seems to be consensus on this, so I'm suggesting that we add the following to the WP:IMOS.
Biographical articles on people born in the six counties of Northern Ireland post-partition should not have a nationality/identity attached to them, unless a source stating their identity can be found. This source must directly quote the subject themselves. For example, the default wording on an article should be "Stu is a Wikipedian from Northern Ireland", and not "Stu is a Northern Irish Wikipedian" or "Stu is an Irish Wikipedian", unless a source can be found in which Stu states his nationality/identity. This applies to all people born after the creation of Northern Ireland in 1922 whether they are living or dead. People born anywhere on the island of Ireland pre-partition are Irish.
Feel free to improve my wording. As Rannpháirtí anaithnid says and explains with his Eddie Irvine/Eddie Jordan analogy, place of birth/nationality shouldn't even be in the lead paragraph unless it is relevant to theit notability, but that's another matter which requires the rewriting of hundreds of articles and can be dealt with in time. The problem of Irish born people being claimed as Anglo-Irish or British will remain, but again this can be dealt with in time as a separate issue. So how does my wording look? Stu’Bout ye! 09:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'"people assume an identity based solely on their religion" - which people? when? where? what article?--Vintagekits (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is all well and good allowing its removal if there is evidence the subject disputes it, that is how you correctly apply BLP, but to move into a default position of 'you are not Northern Irish unless you state it', is frankly not acceptable. There is no basis to the claim that readers see the words Northern Irish and assume it denotes a nationality, or worse, that the person is of a particular political or religious persuasion. Nobody would be so assuming as to claim that about use of the term Scottish or any other widely recognisable demonym, so nobody should be doing the same for Northern Irish. A default position of 'don't use Northern Irish' is actually Wikipedia taking a stance that 'Northern Ireland' is not considered a recognised place of origin - quite an outrageous violation of NPOV, given the fact there is a geo-political entity with recognised borders called Northern Ireland, to which Northern Irish cannot be divorced from (you would not for example ever get away with using Eastern Irish in other bio's instead of Irish, because the meaning is actually very well understood in the English speaking world). It is frankly not being neutral to erase a term from the entire 'pedia (and this has amazingly been attempted even on non-bio articles) just because some editors find it objectionable to their particular world view (and worse, want to see it as objectionable on behalf of article subjects they might know nothing at all about). And in addition to all of this weighty argument, from a less important sentence structure point of view, 'from Northern Ireland' is not a no-loss alternative, because it changes the use of the -ish demonym as an informative but otherwise unobstructive factoid which is quickly scanned over in normal reading, into an in your face integral fact that immediately implies it is of upmost importance to the article (assuming you can fit it in the sentence cleanly at all). That is when the 'Eddie Jordan' argument becomes relevant, not for 'Northern Irish'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with describing somebody as Northern Irish. Northern Ireland, even if it isn't a nation, does exist as an official and historically-important province (as evidenced by the extensive media coverage it received during the Troubles), derived from the ancient province of Ulster, therefore if someone was born in Northern Ireland they are by default Northern Irish. In some cases, such as Gerry Adams, the term Irish suffices, but he's also specifically from Northern Ireland, and as Ulster has often been described as a place apart, it's important that Wikipedia acknowledges Northern Irish people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, I agree with just about everything you're saying. When I see Northern Irish I take it as a demonym. I would think most people do. But some people, and admittedly not only those with a nationalist/republican viewpoint, see it as a nationality and therefore object. And they object very strongly, which has caused edit wars on this subject for as long as I've been on Wikipedia. I'm trying to find some middle ground. Maybe this isn't the solution. Stu’Bout ye! 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not middle ground if it is only being proposed to calm a tendentious minority pushing a fringe interpretation of simple words, who you just said yourself are well outisde the mainstream view. The fact that Northern Irish people can have British or Irish nationalities or both is explained perfectly well in that article, for anybody who might get confused. Transferring that confusion to every single biography by default is simply not helping readers in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think readers expect (or need) demonyms. Jack Lynch, for example, was a Corkman (a demonym), that is indisuputable, but his article doesn't even state his nationality ("Irish"). It doesn't need to. The value of encyclopedia articles are reduced when they are turned into local pissing grounds. Furthermore, if they see anything, I believe, our readers will expect it to be a nationality not a demonym. Otherwise, we all become Tryonemen, New Yorkers, Londoners, Westerners, South Americans, Asians. If you must do, state our subjects' nationalities ... but please don't even do that unless it is actually pertinent to understanding the subject. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When have you ever seen such manufactured demonyms in any article? Nobody would ever think to use such unprofessional terms, but their uselessness is in no way comparable to describing someone as Northern Irish. And you hardly need 'Irish' in Jack Lynch when the first line is 'Taoiseach of Ireland'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manufactured? Sources, my boy. "And you hardly need 'Irish' in Jack Lynch when the first line is 'Taoiseach of Ireland'." Eh ... Tony Blair ... just for example. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you now seem to be arguing the case for the use of "Northern Irish". Just to remind you - I'm advotacting stripping all of these "-ish's" out unless they are actually relevant. "from Northern Ireland" (just as "from Cork") is by far superior. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with the addition drafted by Stu, ...from Northern Ireland is as I said neutral. BigDunc 16:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, it is Wikipedia taking a non-neutral view on what 'Northern Irish' means. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not if it uses Northern Irish it is using a term not used by all the population and in fact despised by some. BigDunc 18:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'British' is despised by some in Scotland, that fact doesn't make a similar request to stop using British/Scottish in Scottish biographies by default any less of a POV push than what is occuring is here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely different case Scotish people are not entitled to Irish citizenship by birth as people from NI are. BigDunc 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's that got to do with it? The fact that someone from Northern Ireland is entitled to ROI citizenship doesn't mean that they're not Northern Irish. Mooretwin (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Since my personal choice British won't be adopted & Irish is out of the question. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my own personal experience, I have heard many Nationalists say they are are from the North of Ireland, whereas the Unionists say Northern Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing this for now, needs more thought than I put into it. Specifically on RA's and Mick's points. Stu’Bout ye! 08:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What points??? BigDunc 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the choice comes down between using 'British' or 'Irish'. Then we use British. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Queen of the Land Festival
An article has been created on Queen of the Land Festival, a beauty pageant in Ireland. Any improvements would be welcome. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested article
I've recently added an article on the the murder of Shane Geoghegan. While researching it, I noticed there's not much in the way of background on the crime problems in Limerick here. I was thinking that an article such as Gangland crime in Limerick would help with this but its not an area I'm very familiar with and it seems quite complex with all the inter feuding. I'd gladly help if anyone else with a bit more experience was to take it on. Any takers? GainLine ♠♥ 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Breakdown by counties of Ireland articles missing geographical coordinates
Just wondering - what co-ords do you expect for a bus tour, which wanders? ClemMcGann (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"
An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
assumed office lack of clarity
in most irish poltician pages, they have "assumed office" for both the date they win an election and they date they are appointed to a particular position in government or party, which is quite unclear...,
and often either one of the other dates are not filled in.
but the term needs to cleared up first, and does wikipedia have bulk editing?
i was hoping to scrape the info for a timeline, but even dbpedia uses termstart for both coming from wikipedia
they also use "in office" for past periods, but again there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of position taken/appointed to once elected.
so i guess im looking for the categories to split and defined more clearly across all irish politicians, whats the best way to get that done?
elected vs position when elected
ooking again i see in office is for past periods(two dates) but
there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of position taken/appointed to once elected. some sub class of 'office' that im looking for http://dbpedia.org/page/Brian_Cowen
![[4]](http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-IMAGES/SIXTERXML-IMAGES/images/ie1.jpg){kind=link}
